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.

  • trackcharlie@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Generate this copyrighted character”

    “Look, it showed us a copyrighted character!”

    Does everyone that writes for the NYTimes have a learning disability?

    • Ross_audio@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The point is to prove that copyrighted material has been used as training data. As a reference.

      If a human being gets asked to draw the joker, gets a still from the film, then copies it to the best of their ability. They can’t sell that image. Technically speaking they’ve broken the law already by making a copy. Lots of fan art is illegal, it’s just not worth going after (unless you’re Disney or Nintendo).

      As a subscription service that’s what AI is doing. Selling the output.

      Held to the same standards as a human artist, this is illegal.

      If AI is allowed to copy art under copyright, there’s no reason a human shouldn’t be allowed to do the same thing.

      Proving the reference is all important.

      If an AI or human only ever saw public domain artwork and was asked to draw the joker, they might come up with a similar character. But it would be their own creation. There are copyright cases that hinge on proving the reference material. (See Blurred Lines by Robin Thick)

      The New York Times is proving that AI is referencing an image under copyright because it comes out precisely the same. There are no significant changes at all.

      In fact even if you come up with a character with no references. If it’s identical to a pre-existing character the first creator gets to hold copyright on it.

      This is undefendable.

      Even if that AI is a black box we can’t see inside. That black box is definitely breaking the law. There’s just a different way of proving it when the black box is a brain and when the black box is an AI.

      • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not selling that image (or any image), any more than a VCR is selling you a taped version of Die Hard you got off cable TV.

        It is a tool that can help you infringe copyright, but as it has non-infringing uses, it doesn’t matter.

            • Ross_audio@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Machines aren’t culpable in law.

              There is more than one human involved in creating and operating the machine.

              The debate is, which humans are culpable?

              The programmers, trainers, or prompters?

              • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                The prompters. That is easy enough. If I cut butter with a knife it’s okay, if I cut a person with a knife - much less so. Knife makers can’t be held responsible for that, it’s just nonsense.

                • Ross_audio@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If you try to bread with an autonomous knife and the knife kills you by stabbing you in the head. Is it solely your fault?

                  • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    That depends on whether the autonomous knife is designed dangerously and it’s a common occurrence, or whether I was being a moron and essentially rigged it to stab me, akin to asking for copyright material from an AI and getting it (scene from a movie, characters part of intellectual property etc)

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It is original art, even the images in question have differences, but it’s ultimately on the user to ensure they do not use copyrighted material commercially, same as with fanart.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

      • Random_Character_A@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Tough question is, can a tool be infringing anything?

        Although I’d see a legal case if AI companies were to bill picture by picture, but now they are just billing for a tool subscription.

        Still, would Microsoft be liable for my copy-pastes if they charged a penny every time I use it, or am I, if I sell a art piece that uses that infringing image?

        AI could be scraping that picture from anywhere.

          • Random_Character_A@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Can a tool create? It generated.

            Anyway, in case like this, is creation even a factor in liability?

            In my opinion one who gets monetary value first from the piece should be liable.

            NYTimes?

            • Ross_audio@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              So by that logic. I prompted you with a question. Did I create your comment?

              I used you as a tool to generate language. If it was a Pulitzer winning response could I gain the plaudits and profit, or should you?

              If it then turned out it was plagiarism by yourself, should I get the credit for that?

              Am I liable for what you say when I have had no input into the generation of your personality and thoughts?

              The creation of that image required building a machine learning model.

              It required training a machine learning model.

              It required prompting that machine learning model.

              All 3 are required steps to produce that image and all part of its creation.

              The part copyright holders will focus on is the training.

              Human beings are held liable if they see and then copy an image for monetary gain.

              An AI has done exactly this.

              It could be argued that the most responsible and controlled element of the process. The most liable. Is the input of training data.

              Either the AI model is allowed to absorb the world and create work and be held liable under the same rules as a human artist. The AI is liable.

              Or the AI model is assigned no responsibility itself but should never have been given copyrighted work without a license to reproduce it.

              Either way the owners have a large chunk of liability.

              If I ask a human artist to produce a picture of Donald Duck, they legally can’t, even though they might just break the law Disney could take them to court and win.

              The same would be true of any business.

              The same is true of an AI as either its own entity, or the property of a business.

              • Random_Character_A@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m not non-sentient construct that creates stuff.

                …and when the copyright law was written there was no non-sentient things gererating stuff.

                • Ross_audio@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  There is literally no way to prove whether you’re sentient.

                  Decart found that limitation.

                  The only definition in law is whether you have competency to be responsible. The law assumes you do as an adult unless it’s proven you don’t.

                  Given the limits of AI the court is going to assume it to be a machine. And a machine has operators, designers, and owners. Those are humans responsible for that machine.

                  It’s perfectly legitimate to sue a company for using a copyright breaking machine.

                  • Random_Character_A@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You almost seem like you get the problem, but then you flounder away.

                    Law hasn’t caught up with the world with generative programs. A.I will not be considered sentient and they will have this same discussion in court.

    • skarlow181@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      The crux is that they went “draw me a cartoon mouse” and Midjourney went “here is Disney’s Mickey Mouse™”. A simple prompt should not be able to generate that specific of an image. If you want something specific, you should need to specific it, otherwise the AI failed to generalize or is somehow heavily biased towards existing images.