| ▲ | dumbfounder 5 hours ago |
| Why would ChatGPT be sued exactly? They didn’t publish the picture, they did what the user asked. The user is responsible because they directed the creation and publishing. The user is the entity who should be sued. Or dmca’d. Or whatever. Think if the user commissioned the art from an outsourced creative shop nobody has heard of. Then they published it. They wouldn’t go after the creative shop, they would go after the publisher. (I am just addressing publishing here, training on the artist’s works is a different, well discussed issue) |
|
| ▲ | jackvalentine 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Seems to me like producing an artist's stylised signature would be a trademark infringement. OpenAI give lip service to the idea of not producing others' intellectual property - go ask it to explicitly make a picture of the genie from Aladdin. |
| |
| ▲ | StilesCrisis 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | https://openai.com/index/disney-sora-agreement/ | | | |
| ▲ | bbor 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It is certainly not trademark infringement, I can say that for sure -- no reasonable person would prompt ChatGPT to create a "new yorker style cartoon" and then think the result is produced by the actual cartoonist in mere seconds for their viewing pleasure. So there's no confusion in the marketplace. The user could cause confusion in the marketplace of course, but that would be her doing, not the app's. Surely we can all agree that suing adobe illustrator for facilitating trademark infringement of logomarks and such would be silly? It could be copyright infringement, which should drive home how absurd copyright is as a concept. Everyone's all up in arms about Anthropic reporting a user to the police today -- imagine if the thing they were reporting was that she had written a sacred symbol in her personal notebook... | | |
| ▲ | Terr_ 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > no reasonable person would prompt ChatGPT to create [...] and then think the result is produced by the actual cartoonist There's also a narrower situation to consider, where the user describes something they "want"--implicitly to find--but the system generates a fraudulent one instead. In that case ChatGPT would be committing a trademark violation, at least within a nation of laws rather than lobbying. |
| |
| ▲ | 30 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | tonyhart7 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | well because Aladdin is public domain | | |
| ▲ | EA-3167 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | The original story is, the Disney movie’s version isn’t. Edit: This sort of thing is common in Hollywood. For example James Bond (first book) hits public domain in ten years, but not all of the elements we associate with the movies are from there. Q and his gadgets are inventions of the movies and don’t enter public domain. There’s a reason patent/tm/copyright firms make money. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | datsci_est_2015 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It’s their hardware and their web response. Especially more heinous if it’s being served as part of a subscription. I don’t think it’s functionally the same as me opening Microsoft Paint and recreating pixel-for-pixel a New Yorker artist’s signature. |
|
| ▲ | saghm 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I don't see that as a reasonable argument unless you're claiming the user was lying: > In the comments section of her post, she wrote she had simply asked ChatGPT to make “a New Yorker-style cartoon.” If you commissioned me to record music onto a CD for you, and then I put in the credits that Jimi Hendrix recorded the guitar parts without you asking, it seems pretty reasonable that I should get in trouble for that rather than you. |
