There's a difference between reproducing a signature in an encyclopedia or in some way that makes it clear that you are recording the thing as it is.

Putting a signature on a work is forgery and in most jurisdictions charged as fraud.

If you produce an artwork in the style of someone and then clone the signature of someone who produces art in that style, there is a reasonable case for fraud.

▲

saghm 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah, the references to copyright/trademark in this thread are confusing to me. I feel like there are much more straightforward legal arguments against falsely claiming artwork is by a famous artist.

▲

quaverquaver 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

you have to sell it (or deceive for material gain) for it to be fraud.

	▲	bergen 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You could argue that you did that to entertain your social media followers and gain more of them, which is somehow a material gain.
	▲	colechristensen 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		For starters people pay for ChatGPT accounts used to generate these things. Secondly people use ChatGPT to generate stuff they put up on social media slop accounts to earn money. You'd probably build a case by finding a collection of these to justify discovery for more and build your fraud case based on that kind of thing where people are generating and publishing work with your signature on it for money. That's both a criminal and civil case.

▲

noncoml 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

When you are no-one, it’s fraud. “When you're famous they let you do it”