- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
We Asked A.I. to Create the Joker. It Generated a Copyrighted Image.::Artists and researchers are exposing copyrighted material hidden within A.I. tools, raising fresh legal questions.
Removed by mod
Because they aren’t doing anything to violate copyright themselves. You might, but that’s different. AI art is created by the software. Supposedly it’s original art. This article shows it is not.
Removed by mod
If I draw a very close picture to a screenshot of a Mickey Mouse cartoon and try to pass it off as original art because there are a handful of differences, I don’t think most people would buy it.
Removed by mod
It has relevance to what counts as an original artwork.
This is what you said:
No it is not. They do not have enough differences to be considered original in any court of law.
Removed by mod
Again, VCRs and hard drives can’t create content. They can only capture content. AI can create content, but it is not always original. Which is the problem. No one is trying to sue them over things that are credibly original.
It is no more legal for you to tell an AI to make you a picture of the Joker as it is to ask a human artist to do it. And if the human artist did it, WB/DC would be within their rights to take them to court because it would violate both trademark and copyright. They usually don’t, but they are within their rights.
You can ask a VCR or a hard drive to draw you a picture of The Joker all day. They won’t because they can’t.
If AI was only capable of creating original artworks, this would not be an issue.
Removed by mod