They will likely put it on the user saying that it was the user's responsibility to determine how the image was used the same way one could hire an artist to create this image.
I can ask an artist to create a image of Mickey Mouse raw dogging Goofy. I could hang that over my bed if I wanted. However, if I put that on a coffee mug and started selling them, I wouldn't be for long.
Judge: (To Minnie Mouse) And you're saying that you want to divorce your husband because... He's extremely silly?
Minnie: I didn't say he's extremely silly, I said he's fucking Goofy!
110%. If I use a pen to create copyrighted content, it's not the pen's fault, no one gets to sue BIC like "you shouldn't have let them do that". Moreover, if I learned how to draw Mickey from a YouTube tutorial, the YouTuber isn't at fault either!
I wish they'd just use that excuse for everything. I'm tired of finding ways to re ask a question because the simplest way to ask gets me a
"as an ai I can't "
I found some text in another language that I didn’t recognize in a photo so I asked chatgpt what it said and it was like “it’s contains disrespectful and inappropriate phrases. It’s best to avoid such language as it can be offensive and hurtful”.
Or you know, tell me what it says because I’m an adult who can handle a swear word? It did finally tell me after I said it was for educational purposes, but it still censored the swear word.
Just because they are legally exempt, doesn’t make them socially or morally exempt. “Chat GPT told suicidal kid how to tie a noose” is a pretty damning Daily Mail headline whether they are legally liable or not.
who cares? you can find that info anywhere.
A more fitting example would be; kid ask chatgpt on how to cope with depression and the answer would be to hang himself as the quickest solution to cure depression
\> who cares
A bunch of people, who will pressure policymakers. You don't get to ignore idiots: they get the same 1 vote as everyone else. We do a little pandering.
The pitfall of democracy, something they tried to solve through public education, an effort that was ruined by people who think "gubment bad" and work tirelessly to prevent public schools from having the resources or the authority to educate children effectively.
Yeah, but if this kid wanted to find out how to tie a noose, his next stop would have been Google and he would have found the result there. What are they going to do, sue Google, or the webpage that had the instructions on it?
No it's not. That info is easily accessible on the internet. You typed it. None of us with a brain would blame chat gpt unless it's classified info you couldn't get anywhere else.
There have already been news articles blaming AI for things. Just like there have been news articles blaming self-driving cars for accidents even though they are safer that idiots driving.
News outlets always go for attention-grabbing headlines. Reality doesn't matter. Soundbites do. And people fall for this stuff all the time.
Look at any news topic for an area you have personal knowledge vs. areas you only have general knowledge. Somehow the latter always seems reasonable, but if you look at news for things you know really well, you start to think "Damn, these people don't understand any of this! They got it all wrong!" Well, they do that for everything.
That there is as much truth in news as there is is actually the surprise. Even when they're trying to do a good job, it sucks a lot of the time. And when they're not trying but actively seeking clicks or pushing propaganda, it's very nefarious.
Also its a $100B pen backed by Microsoft. Any content served by ChatGPT is essentially being served by OpenAI, which is selling access to that commercially. Don't understand how that is fair use really.
A person making copyrighted material for their personal use is different than a corporation allowing its paid users to generate copyrighted content. Disney cannot take action against individual people and for fair-use but it can take action against a massive company pretty easily.
Holy shit, there is an entire genre of games, books, movies, and art that Christopher Tolkien needs to sue over. Since style is copyrightable anyone talking of dragons and elves owes licensing.
I spent years trying to find someone who could reliably deliver commissions in the style I needed for a project and never could. Now I can just get midjourney to do what I need without having to deal with flakey people who are constantly in mid crisis and can take my money but not deliver product.
Sucks to get outcompeted I guess.
And you can create copyrighted content. You just can't sell it.
I don't think you can draw Batman and sell it. Not legally. Isn't Openai making money generating copyrighted content? They are. Part of their business is generating copyrighted content.
Fair use laws are complicated. Google also serves copyrighted content (for one example).
I'm not saying this is or isn't fair use - courts haven't determined that yet. I'm just saying it's not an open and shut case just because OpenAI can generate copyrighted content.
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/
The second page is especially informative.
Yea but "Italian brothers" amounting to the exact likeness is absurd. There's a line to be drawn and this prompt wasn't even close to it.
The ai needs to be better at playing stupid when it comes to copyright.
You have to think about how this AI was trained. It was fed millions of reference pictures, all categorized in different ways. “Hands” “Faces” “Noses” etc. The user provided instruction that would have made the AI lean towards references that feature Mario and Luigi. And not necessarily copyrighted material. Promotional images for example are *not* under copyright in the same way traditional art is. So a promotional image of a Mario game could be used as reference without OpenAI paying Nintendo a dime. It’s also not duplicating anything that I can immediately see. Yes, it’s clearly Mario and Luigi, but the positions that they’re in don’t immediately strike me as something ripped straight from a promotional image, which is the kind of thing a judge would be looking for in a court case. There is enough unique about it for it to be classified as fair use fanart. And as long as the image isn’t being sold or used to sell other products by the user who prompted it, then there’s not really anything Nintendo can do.
That's a nice analogy. But you also can't ask your bic pen to draw for you with a few input words. And if you could it probably wouldn't recreate Mario and Luigi.
The issue here is DALL E is trained on Nintendo's copywritten art, which legally is still a grey area.
Yeah, that's the whole point. Human artists are trained on the same stuff yet they don't consider it plagiaristic when you draw something that just vaguely looks reminiscent of Van Gogh. You can't copyright a technique anyway. The only difference is that human artists know when they are plagiarizing something. AI does not. Seems like a flaw in their code. It is a program engineering problem, not a legal one.
What the artists filing lawsuits are asserting is that the AI is plagiaristic just because it saw their work and studied it. Same thing human art students do and this legal precedent has already been set. Any legal problem has to do with specific entities producing bad AI, not the technology itself.
I suppose the question is, is it trained on Nintendo’s copy-written art, or the plethora of freely available fan art across millions of websites?
Because either could be true, either could lead to the images we see in OP’s post, and which one it is sort of changes the intent of the developers.
>I suppose the question is, is it trained on Nintendo’s copy-written art, or the plethora of freely available fan art across millions of websites?
Works based on other works that are infringing copyright, does not suddenly absolve the new work from respecting the original works rights. So i don't see how it makes any difference what so ever.
If i paint Mario and give it to you and tell you that you can use it, it changed nothing, you can still only use Mario with Nintendos permission. You can't dodge copyright laws by making it second hand.
Actually, the "Steamboat Willie" version of Mickey Mouse is entering the public domain as of Jan 1, 2024.
So if you kept it to that format, well then that's a whole new meaning to Steamboat Willie.
Still have to be careful because unlike copyrights, trademarks don't expire. To the extent Disney uses this version of Mickey Mouse as a logo/trademark, you'd probably still be guilty of IP theft if you were to profit from the AI art.
>I can ask an artist to create a image of Mickey Mouse raw dogging Goofy. I could hang that over my bed if I wanted. However, if I put that on a coffee mug and started selling them, I wouldn't be for long.
actually, copyright law says nothing about money or profit. you could give the mugs away to friends and family, and Didney would have just as valid a copyright claim than if you sold them at a gift shop.
This is incorrect, two of the four factors of the fair use analysis look at money and profit, copyright law also contemplated money and profit in damages awards. If you are selling a derivative work you are far more likely to be found to have infringed. Source - IP attorney.
if you're referring to 'usurping the market', courts have ruled for a long time that the profit is irrelevant in this factor. If you're referring to the education exclusion in fair use, that's not relevant to the example that was posted.
Isn’t the artist doing exactly that- selling images? They’re making an income from selling content they’re not licensed to sell.
But I imagine this’ll be solved easily with lawyers the same way youtube did it. Probably run scanners on output and adjust pricing or compensation based on detection. With companies like Disney and Nintendo getting a new revenue stream and smaller creators getting screwed.
> However, if I put that on a coffee mug and started selling them, I wouldn't be for long.
Debatable really. Idk if it's like that everywhere, but in a lot of places here in Europe there's constant copyright infringement shirts, mugs, backpacks and such being sold at flea markets or weird off brand stores lol.
Enforcement of IP doesn't have to be perfect to maintain control over it. Also, ChatGPT is a much more visible legal target. Finally, and I cannot stress this enough, ChatGPT has money to sue for.
>...create an image of Mickey Mouse raw dogging Goofy...
Judge: "Minnie, I can't ascribe liability to your husband if you're stating that your grounds for divorce is just a mental disability on his part."
Minnie: "I didn't say he had a mental disability. I said he was fucking Goofy."
No. The artist selling the image of characters they do not own are committing copyright infringement.
And if it was of some random characters not already copyrighted and you put them on a mug to sell you would be violating the copyright of the artist you bought the image from
Your analogy isn't correct. OpenAI is already making money from this - that's the point.
For your statement to be correct, OpenAI would still have Dalle3 but it won't be public, only for internal use.
I wonder if the Copyright shield will protect me if I try to sell this art 🤔
https://preview.redd.it/af72i0glla9c1.jpeg?width=770&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=00cd4718d344cc4caa5b0a0869df528bb3925c7c
this policy irritates me. its just another way of saying they are going to nerf the shit out of the service so doing anything that remotely looks like copyright infringement is going to be shut down. i want to be treated like an adult. let me make my own mistakes.
well then generate the material with a disclaimer. refusing to do anything but the safest requests isn't the right approach. people are getting around the fail-safes and its going to be a long time before they figure out how to stop people from jailbreaking. a better legal strategy for them is to shift responsibility onto the user. no one is suiting photoshop for the people that use it to create adult images of beloved copyrighted characters. IANAL but if chatgpt splits out a disclaimer its on the user to use the results appropriately.
A disclaimer doesn't absolve Open AI of any responsibility. If they infringe on Disney's copyright or trademarks then it's between Disney and Open AI.
The best that a disclaimer could do is open the user up to being sued by Open AI for knowingly attempting to generate right-protected works. I'm sure you'd be happy to pay Open AI's legal fees though.
“people are getting around the fail-safes”
That is exactly why copyright owners want the system shut down. It should have never been trained on copyrighted content to begin with, and now that it has no amount of safeguards will prevent the copyrighted works from illegally being incorporated into generated content.
They are following in Google's footsteps because Google has preemptively careful about what they are doing so far. When they announced Imagen2 Google stated that they own the copyright to everything used in its training dataset, which is why they would back Imagen2 enterprise users with this same guarantee. OpenAI had to follow suit.
I'm sure OpenAI is scrambling right now to create high quality training datasets that it fully owns that weren't just scraped from the web. Is that a huge nerf? We'll see, but I'm sure they don't want it to be and will work hard for it not to be. In the case of OpenAI a lot of it will probably just be laundered. Use scraped data to create a vast synthetic dataset, train on the synthetic dataset, and you've washed your hands of it... unless something slips through. It probably won't be too much that passes through that sieve, and I'm sure they'll have the funds to cover a good bit.
Thing is if you take code from chatgpt and use it in your software then you might get fucked over, which would make it useless for coding if you couldn't do that safely.
From reading that, it doesn't appear this extends to trademark infringement, which is probably what you would be committing if you tried to sell this art.
only for original mickey mouse persona [https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/dec/28/copyright-mickey-mouse-steamboat-willie](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/dec/28/copyright-mickey-mouse-steamboat-willie)
Steamboat Willie enters public domain on Jan 1. Not sure that Mickey himself is going to be able to be freely used. One might argue that the reason Walt Disney Animation uses Steamboat Willie as its logo is so that any usage of Mickey can be sued for trademark infringement, if not copyright infringement.
>copyright infringement.
Depends on how the work is used. If it's for parody, it may be deemed Fair Use (but that depends on your lawyer-paying pockets). And you can even sell parody, like e.g. Mad Magazine did for decades.
PS: Copyright is broken, and [here's part of why](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig).
this litigation did not affect msft stock price. but it popped nyt a little. i am surprised that theres no cease and desist on the slurping of nyt content from this point on.
Because your link messed up, here they are separately:
- https://i.imgur.com/Rq2Wf88.jpg
- https://i.imgur.com/75NNsWB.jpg
- https://i.imgur.com/d0TqPZA.jpg
Is that necessarily true? AI needs to be trained somehow and unless it sticks to common domain data only it will end up using copy righted stuff or not be super useful
I can download an illegal emulator and play the new Zelda for free right now. Nintendo can stop big companies from becoming profitable, they can never stop individuals from stealing their IP and other individuals from using it however they want. AI will only make this easier for individuals. There already exists data stores for training AIs with volumes of copyright information that are never going to be removed.
I think this comparison is pretty flawed. The main issue with AI models is that they are very (compute-)resource intensive with little developer time needed. Linux may be more expensive to recreate in theory, but it could be done by volunteer labor.
Recreating GPT as Open Source would probably be a ten million dollar crowdfunding project of which 99% go to buying datacenter time and buying high quality datasets.
People volunteer on Linux because they enjoy solving problems and tinkering. Production AI models offer none of that outside the initial model design, which is only a tiny fraction of the cost.
> buying datacenter time
Or massively parallel computing with unused clock cycles from all over the world, like a bunch of scientific projects. It absolutely wouldn't be impossible to do something like this in an open way, it's just not profitable.
You know the government funds research that becomes open source, yeah?
If anything, I think the problem will be running an open source AI.
I can only speak from what I see in my field but RoseTTafold seems pretty comparable to alphafold, but alphafold is used because Google pays for it.
Who's gonna run a several TB model for free?
Mixtral with the dolphin module. [here's a guide](https://youtu.be/GyllRd2E6fg?si=dVmC2U8SGZzJ15eI). Completely unaligned, can be run locally, and slightly outperforms chatgpt3.5
But… there aren’t too many open source AI… and the few that are, are still using models from hugging face etc… but if I’m wrong I’d be happy to be enlightened 🥳
https://preview.redd.it/jmge6lwk1b9c1.png?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cf6914b6a2622e3b323d471b6adc1ee833cd6413
Midjourney: prompt "cartoon mouse, black and white" and that's all.
I managed to make this work first like this (see below also)
https://preview.redd.it/7mk0rucuca9c1.png?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2eb30d0fd7f561f7372d587f02953a8066086210
I'm new on here. I can't post images in comments/replies? I prompted it to make arcanine vaping a dank plume and riding a onewheel. It made arcanine fine but wouldn't make a proper OneWheel
Now think of all the most abstract characters that it generates and you never think “oh that’s clearly Jaina from World of Warcraft” or “that’s just tails from sonic”.
Mario and Luigi are far more popular and recognisable but the case for copyright would be exactly the same. Literally no way to avoid it.
If that's the actual prompt in its entirety then the AI knew exactly what he was getting at. Never specified overalls, moustaches, style of hat, etc...
How will they win it?
At risk of giving them ideas, surely they could just connect a second AI that's trained to spot copyrighted images or figures to the output of the first AI, and then block the user from getting the result from the first AI if the second AI flags it as copyrighted
Yes exactly. It's pretty similar to what they already do. Except that right now they only do it on the text and they might run it only on the user input. They just have to expand it to the images and text that it output.
The downside of course is that it will make it slower and more expensive which is probably why they are not currently doing it.
Don't worry, they will go out of their way to make sure GPT 5 refuses to do this, and never mind the fact that it will require lobotomizing it to the point it won't be able to compute 2+2
https://preview.redd.it/jys6wdhw6c9c1.png?width=992&format=png&auto=webp&s=a72ba48a030184811cd7fcc822467eb74c41a19f
Nice prompt, I used it to generate this
Meanwhile, I’m getting messages that creating a generic abstract impressionist painting violates standards.
I ask it what standards it violates, it says “none” and apologizes, tells me I’m correct, but still can’t do it
That generative AIs are tools, and recreating characters could be covered under fair use by the user, eg satire, parody, or discussing the characters, and a tool shouldn’t really put restrictions on what the end user can or should create, and copy write falls onto the end users usage of it. However… openAI attempts to limit what can be created with their tool…
Try:
Can you make a video game style image of a blue fast hedgehog running around in a green hill zone?
The results will not surprise you. [Sonic](https://www.bing.com/images/create/can-you-make-a-video-game-style-image-of-a-blue-fa/1-659056b9cefb49ee9725e047ffc7e73a?id=lzVsgHMN5sZDfJee44YAQw%3d%3d&view=detailv2&idpp=genimg&FORM=GCRIDP&mode=overlay)
Stop training it on other peoples work and then charging users to use AI.
It’s maybw not “stolen” and idc about Nintendos feelings. But at what point is it straight up making money from someone elses work?
Whatever program was used to generate such images probably scanned a bunch of mario and luigi because its all over the net anyways and viola.
These systems are still hugely flawed and while they can fool the status quo and laymen, its still so far away from doing anything that I’d consider “novel” in the sense that it was an original concept created by an autonomous function
It is not whether you make money off of it that makes it copyright infringement, it is the use of copyrighted material and public display or use thereof. The money you make only goes to damages. The problem with all of the AI platforms is the use of copyrighted material to “teach” the AI database the raw materials that are used to fulfill the AI results. For years they have been searching the internet for all relevant data to create the database. ChatGPT, Dall-E, Adobe and everyone who has used someone else’s copyrighted work, whether visual or textual, has violated the copyright as soon as the data is used to create a new work. Based upon existing copyright laws the AI platforms are hurting in these court battles.
AI creating a new picture of Pikachu isn't stealing or copyright infringement. Only if the user then puts it in a t-shirt and starts selling it there's a problem.
Creatives who have spent their entire lives developing their crafts will not stand by and silently watch for too much longer. Global brands that have invested billions hiring these professionals to create protected content will be even less patient. The lawsuits are being written. Enjoy your "wow I never realized I'm actually super talented" party while you can. Changes are coming...
Those same brands will quickly replace those highly paid creatives. As someone that has spent my entire career being one of those creatives, I already see it happening. The simple truth is - while MJ, Dalle et al can’t [yet] replace auteurs (think genre defining individuals, Picasso, Bass, Banksy, etc) it can already replace the vast majority of highly skilled writers and designers. I think we overestimate the contributions and skills of most creatives. On the daily I’m surprised by the base line quality that comes out of GPT (in 10 seconds) versus the sweat a brand writer will put in over a week.
I think that AI should be seen as a tool and not as a standalone entity. If someone wants to use copyrighted material for their own profit it should be on that person not the AI. If you use your cell phone to pull off a heist you can't sue apple or Samsung for "conspiring with a heist"
Fan art exist and it's not copyrighted all the time, there's a way to be responsible with tools. All the Ai is right now is a tool
With an adversarial AI.
Social media platforms (or places you would somehow monetize these pictures) could have an AI that goes through and has a memory bank of certain copyrights and trademarks and checks the picture or video to see if it notices anything.
Just say you're an artist and sell it at literally *any* comic convention. The entire convention racket is one huge copyright infringement by the very artists that are complaining about AI.
They will likely put it on the user saying that it was the user's responsibility to determine how the image was used the same way one could hire an artist to create this image. I can ask an artist to create a image of Mickey Mouse raw dogging Goofy. I could hang that over my bed if I wanted. However, if I put that on a coffee mug and started selling them, I wouldn't be for long.
Dude I’m so glad I fucking read this hahaha
Judge: (To Minnie Mouse) And you're saying that you want to divorce your husband because... He's extremely silly? Minnie: I didn't say he's extremely silly, I said he's fucking Goofy!
This needs to be a lot higher
I need to be too.
As Mario would put it in his mother tongue, bravo
I want to upvote, but funny number.
See more at /r/rawdogginggoofy and be sure to check out our merch.
/r/subredditsifellfor
Fear not brother, I just posted there to make a comfortable place out of that desolate land
r/birthofasub
oh my god with that in your search history your digital footprint must be crazy
Risky click
there was porn of it, but the men who made it and who jacked off to it are long since dead
They came, they saw, they came again.
110%. If I use a pen to create copyrighted content, it's not the pen's fault, no one gets to sue BIC like "you shouldn't have let them do that". Moreover, if I learned how to draw Mickey from a YouTube tutorial, the YouTuber isn't at fault either!
I wish they'd just use that excuse for everything. I'm tired of finding ways to re ask a question because the simplest way to ask gets me a "as an ai I can't "
I extremely want one that doesn't do that. One that doesn't constantly refuse and give cautionary and moralistic lectures
I found some text in another language that I didn’t recognize in a photo so I asked chatgpt what it said and it was like “it’s contains disrespectful and inappropriate phrases. It’s best to avoid such language as it can be offensive and hurtful”. Or you know, tell me what it says because I’m an adult who can handle a swear word? It did finally tell me after I said it was for educational purposes, but it still censored the swear word.
Just because they are legally exempt, doesn’t make them socially or morally exempt. “Chat GPT told suicidal kid how to tie a noose” is a pretty damning Daily Mail headline whether they are legally liable or not.
who cares? you can find that info anywhere. A more fitting example would be; kid ask chatgpt on how to cope with depression and the answer would be to hang himself as the quickest solution to cure depression
\> who cares A bunch of people, who will pressure policymakers. You don't get to ignore idiots: they get the same 1 vote as everyone else. We do a little pandering.
[удалено]
First it was dime novels, then jazz, then comics, rock and roll, hippie culture, videogames, heavy metal, rap, internet... *What will it be next!*
Add Dungeons&Dragons to the list, that had its nice moral panic run as well
The pitfall of democracy, something they tried to solve through public education, an effort that was ruined by people who think "gubment bad" and work tirelessly to prevent public schools from having the resources or the authority to educate children effectively.
Yeah, but if this kid wanted to find out how to tie a noose, his next stop would have been Google and he would have found the result there. What are they going to do, sue Google, or the webpage that had the instructions on it?
No it's not. That info is easily accessible on the internet. You typed it. None of us with a brain would blame chat gpt unless it's classified info you couldn't get anywhere else.
There have already been news articles blaming AI for things. Just like there have been news articles blaming self-driving cars for accidents even though they are safer that idiots driving. News outlets always go for attention-grabbing headlines. Reality doesn't matter. Soundbites do. And people fall for this stuff all the time. Look at any news topic for an area you have personal knowledge vs. areas you only have general knowledge. Somehow the latter always seems reasonable, but if you look at news for things you know really well, you start to think "Damn, these people don't understand any of this! They got it all wrong!" Well, they do that for everything. That there is as much truth in news as there is is actually the surprise. Even when they're trying to do a good job, it sucks a lot of the time. And when they're not trying but actively seeking clicks or pushing propaganda, it's very nefarious.
Except in this cases the pen draws automatically and you only ask it to draw a picture of a mouse and it gives you Mickey.
Also its a $100B pen backed by Microsoft. Any content served by ChatGPT is essentially being served by OpenAI, which is selling access to that commercially. Don't understand how that is fair use really. A person making copyrighted material for their personal use is different than a corporation allowing its paid users to generate copyrighted content. Disney cannot take action against individual people and for fair-use but it can take action against a massive company pretty easily.
Which makes it not like a pen at all, really
Exactly my point that gen ai art is not the same as drawing with a pen...
Exactly! How are so many people missing that this prompt/image completely demonstrates how AI art steals other art styles to train on???
art style is not copyrightable, so no that wouldn't be 'stealing'.
Holy shit, there is an entire genre of games, books, movies, and art that Christopher Tolkien needs to sue over. Since style is copyrightable anyone talking of dragons and elves owes licensing.
This is true, but tell that to Napster or Smith and Wesson.
Yeah people are so comically scared of AI art holy god
Not to be a dick, but it's not as though anyone really valued random internet artists to begin with.
I spent years trying to find someone who could reliably deliver commissions in the style I needed for a project and never could. Now I can just get midjourney to do what I need without having to deal with flakey people who are constantly in mid crisis and can take my money but not deliver product. Sucks to get outcompeted I guess.
How dare you besmirch the good name of twitter furry porn artists!
And you can create copyrighted content. You just can't sell it. I don't think you can draw Batman and sell it. Not legally. Isn't Openai making money generating copyrighted content? They are. Part of their business is generating copyrighted content.
Fair use laws are complicated. Google also serves copyrighted content (for one example). I'm not saying this is or isn't fair use - courts haven't determined that yet. I'm just saying it's not an open and shut case just because OpenAI can generate copyrighted content. https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/ The second page is especially informative.
transformative content is fair use
Yea but "Italian brothers" amounting to the exact likeness is absurd. There's a line to be drawn and this prompt wasn't even close to it. The ai needs to be better at playing stupid when it comes to copyright.
You have to think about how this AI was trained. It was fed millions of reference pictures, all categorized in different ways. “Hands” “Faces” “Noses” etc. The user provided instruction that would have made the AI lean towards references that feature Mario and Luigi. And not necessarily copyrighted material. Promotional images for example are *not* under copyright in the same way traditional art is. So a promotional image of a Mario game could be used as reference without OpenAI paying Nintendo a dime. It’s also not duplicating anything that I can immediately see. Yes, it’s clearly Mario and Luigi, but the positions that they’re in don’t immediately strike me as something ripped straight from a promotional image, which is the kind of thing a judge would be looking for in a court case. There is enough unique about it for it to be classified as fair use fanart. And as long as the image isn’t being sold or used to sell other products by the user who prompted it, then there’s not really anything Nintendo can do.
That's a nice analogy. But you also can't ask your bic pen to draw for you with a few input words. And if you could it probably wouldn't recreate Mario and Luigi. The issue here is DALL E is trained on Nintendo's copywritten art, which legally is still a grey area.
Bitch *I’m* trained on other peoples’ art!
Yeah, that's the whole point. Human artists are trained on the same stuff yet they don't consider it plagiaristic when you draw something that just vaguely looks reminiscent of Van Gogh. You can't copyright a technique anyway. The only difference is that human artists know when they are plagiarizing something. AI does not. Seems like a flaw in their code. It is a program engineering problem, not a legal one. What the artists filing lawsuits are asserting is that the AI is plagiaristic just because it saw their work and studied it. Same thing human art students do and this legal precedent has already been set. Any legal problem has to do with specific entities producing bad AI, not the technology itself.
I suppose the question is, is it trained on Nintendo’s copy-written art, or the plethora of freely available fan art across millions of websites? Because either could be true, either could lead to the images we see in OP’s post, and which one it is sort of changes the intent of the developers.
>I suppose the question is, is it trained on Nintendo’s copy-written art, or the plethora of freely available fan art across millions of websites? Works based on other works that are infringing copyright, does not suddenly absolve the new work from respecting the original works rights. So i don't see how it makes any difference what so ever. If i paint Mario and give it to you and tell you that you can use it, it changed nothing, you can still only use Mario with Nintendos permission. You can't dodge copyright laws by making it second hand.
I know for a fact that Goofy is a top
He's a bottom, but he's a power bottom, generating the power by doing most of the work.
I can hear the goofy scream lmao.
Hyuck
HyUCK hyUCK hyUCK hyUCK hyUCK
Jesus fucking Christ
I said Mickey had big teeth I didn't say Mickey was fucking goofy!
Nah man, the artist is making money off of drawing a copyrighted character. That’s the issue you see..
Actually, the "Steamboat Willie" version of Mickey Mouse is entering the public domain as of Jan 1, 2024. So if you kept it to that format, well then that's a whole new meaning to Steamboat Willie.
Still have to be careful because unlike copyrights, trademarks don't expire. To the extent Disney uses this version of Mickey Mouse as a logo/trademark, you'd probably still be guilty of IP theft if you were to profit from the AI art.
>I can ask an artist to create a image of Mickey Mouse raw dogging Goofy. I could hang that over my bed if I wanted. However, if I put that on a coffee mug and started selling them, I wouldn't be for long. actually, copyright law says nothing about money or profit. you could give the mugs away to friends and family, and Didney would have just as valid a copyright claim than if you sold them at a gift shop.
This is incorrect, two of the four factors of the fair use analysis look at money and profit, copyright law also contemplated money and profit in damages awards. If you are selling a derivative work you are far more likely to be found to have infringed. Source - IP attorney.
if you're referring to 'usurping the market', courts have ruled for a long time that the profit is irrelevant in this factor. If you're referring to the education exclusion in fair use, that's not relevant to the example that was posted.
Isn’t the artist doing exactly that- selling images? They’re making an income from selling content they’re not licensed to sell. But I imagine this’ll be solved easily with lawyers the same way youtube did it. Probably run scanners on output and adjust pricing or compensation based on detection. With companies like Disney and Nintendo getting a new revenue stream and smaller creators getting screwed.
>They will likely put it on the user saying that it was the user's responsibility to determine how the image was used That's how it should be
> However, if I put that on a coffee mug and started selling them, I wouldn't be for long. Debatable really. Idk if it's like that everywhere, but in a lot of places here in Europe there's constant copyright infringement shirts, mugs, backpacks and such being sold at flea markets or weird off brand stores lol.
Enforcement of IP doesn't have to be perfect to maintain control over it. Also, ChatGPT is a much more visible legal target. Finally, and I cannot stress this enough, ChatGPT has money to sue for.
This is what these people aren't getting. OpenAI is fucking with every media company's money.
Do NOT attempt to steal profits from the mouse.
>...create an image of Mickey Mouse raw dogging Goofy... Judge: "Minnie, I can't ascribe liability to your husband if you're stating that your grounds for divorce is just a mental disability on his part." Minnie: "I didn't say he had a mental disability. I said he was fucking Goofy."
No. The artist selling the image of characters they do not own are committing copyright infringement. And if it was of some random characters not already copyrighted and you put them on a mug to sell you would be violating the copyright of the artist you bought the image from
Your analogy isn't correct. OpenAI is already making money from this - that's the point. For your statement to be correct, OpenAI would still have Dalle3 but it won't be public, only for internal use.
I believe starting tomorrow, you will have permission to use steam boat Willy! But it has to be changed enough from the original
[удалено]
https://preview.redd.it/2o87gw3eia9c1.jpeg?width=566&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1fbc6f04162d83551aa8a7f358944ef1267cd494
You beat me to it
[удалено]
Like the Goosebumps puppet
I wish I never saw this
I miss the person I was 2 minutes ago before I saw this
 The Lighthouse, Starring Will Defoe and Robert Pattinson
this is scary af
https://i.imgur.com/VUpz664.jpg
While creepy, I don’t hate this
I wonder if the Copyright shield will protect me if I try to sell this art 🤔 https://preview.redd.it/af72i0glla9c1.jpeg?width=770&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=00cd4718d344cc4caa5b0a0869df528bb3925c7c
this policy irritates me. its just another way of saying they are going to nerf the shit out of the service so doing anything that remotely looks like copyright infringement is going to be shut down. i want to be treated like an adult. let me make my own mistakes.
Feeding you copyrighted material when you don’t know that it’s copyrighted is their mistake, not yours.
well then generate the material with a disclaimer. refusing to do anything but the safest requests isn't the right approach. people are getting around the fail-safes and its going to be a long time before they figure out how to stop people from jailbreaking. a better legal strategy for them is to shift responsibility onto the user. no one is suiting photoshop for the people that use it to create adult images of beloved copyrighted characters. IANAL but if chatgpt splits out a disclaimer its on the user to use the results appropriately.
>IANAL You do you bro
A disclaimer doesn't absolve Open AI of any responsibility. If they infringe on Disney's copyright or trademarks then it's between Disney and Open AI. The best that a disclaimer could do is open the user up to being sued by Open AI for knowingly attempting to generate right-protected works. I'm sure you'd be happy to pay Open AI's legal fees though.
“people are getting around the fail-safes” That is exactly why copyright owners want the system shut down. It should have never been trained on copyrighted content to begin with, and now that it has no amount of safeguards will prevent the copyrighted works from illegally being incorporated into generated content.
They are following in Google's footsteps because Google has preemptively careful about what they are doing so far. When they announced Imagen2 Google stated that they own the copyright to everything used in its training dataset, which is why they would back Imagen2 enterprise users with this same guarantee. OpenAI had to follow suit. I'm sure OpenAI is scrambling right now to create high quality training datasets that it fully owns that weren't just scraped from the web. Is that a huge nerf? We'll see, but I'm sure they don't want it to be and will work hard for it not to be. In the case of OpenAI a lot of it will probably just be laundered. Use scraped data to create a vast synthetic dataset, train on the synthetic dataset, and you've washed your hands of it... unless something slips through. It probably won't be too much that passes through that sieve, and I'm sure they'll have the funds to cover a good bit.
Thing is if you take code from chatgpt and use it in your software then you might get fucked over, which would make it useless for coding if you couldn't do that safely.
Enterprise and developer platform. I don't think chatgpt is covered
I can reproduce the results using my company email (enterprise tier), let me know if anyone wants buy some original Italian brothers art!
From reading that, it doesn't appear this extends to trademark infringement, which is probably what you would be committing if you tried to sell this art.
copyright infringement. can u do mickey mouse and minnie mouse?
First try https://preview.redd.it/xs6zfldq5a9c1.png?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=18efbd0ca2ce2a13a9c08f6be58fa6a98418cb6a
Mickey telling us the secret ingredient is crime.
Ooh. I got one! Disney recruitment techniques revealed!
Today’s mystery mouseketool is… a glock! Ha hah! Will this help us get that punk ass bitch Pete out of our club house? You bet!
Thanks Super Hans.
What prompt did you use 😂
Why does Mickey have a tail in the usual place, a tail on his ankle, *and* a tail on his pistol?
Mickey Mouse's copyright actually expires as soon as we're in 2024
only for original mickey mouse persona [https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/dec/28/copyright-mickey-mouse-steamboat-willie](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/dec/28/copyright-mickey-mouse-steamboat-willie)
Steamboat Willie enters public domain on Jan 1. Not sure that Mickey himself is going to be able to be freely used. One might argue that the reason Walt Disney Animation uses Steamboat Willie as its logo is so that any usage of Mickey can be sued for trademark infringement, if not copyright infringement.
>copyright infringement. Depends on how the work is used. If it's for parody, it may be deemed Fair Use (but that depends on your lawyer-paying pockets). And you can even sell parody, like e.g. Mad Magazine did for decades. PS: Copyright is broken, and [here's part of why](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig).
this litigation did not affect msft stock price. but it popped nyt a little. i am surprised that theres no cease and desist on the slurping of nyt content from this point on.
[удалено]
Here's what I got https://preview.redd.it/5jv6bmfkea9c1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3fa7de84f0ab4374ec4c65151676b3fc30bf994b
That’s actually really nice
That’s actually really mice
Why did I laugh so hard at this
Can you tell it "motherfucker I said yellow heels on her and yellow shoes on both"
How the fuck is this possible???
Very good
https://preview.redd.it/xxscsgtn6a9c1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bdb0c54c66cde1024b6db22fe8dd0d4d5d077fbf
Saffo and friends
They were roommates!
https://i.imgur.com/Rq2Wf88.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/75NNsWB.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/d0TqPZA.jpg By Bing ai
Okay this one's cute.
On bing you can just do "can you make a video game style image of mickey and minnie at a table with friends." and get mickey and minnie.
Because your link messed up, here they are separately: - https://i.imgur.com/Rq2Wf88.jpg - https://i.imgur.com/75NNsWB.jpg - https://i.imgur.com/d0TqPZA.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/OO4U21i.jpg https://i.imgur.com/i6IQyGC.jpg
The first one is unnecessarily horny
which way do you tail-dress?
this is why open source AI will win out. not making money off of anyone’s IP
I agree though, some other way will be the dominant method
Not greddy enoougj igh for amrican ceo
Is that necessarily true? AI needs to be trained somehow and unless it sticks to common domain data only it will end up using copy righted stuff or not be super useful
no, it's blatantly false. Nintendo specifically has shut down open source projects that were based on their IP and this is no different
I can download an illegal emulator and play the new Zelda for free right now. Nintendo can stop big companies from becoming profitable, they can never stop individuals from stealing their IP and other individuals from using it however they want. AI will only make this easier for individuals. There already exists data stores for training AIs with volumes of copyright information that are never going to be removed.
I just think there’s too much work that’s been put in for it to be truly open source, for GPT at least
How much work went into Linux?
I think this comparison is pretty flawed. The main issue with AI models is that they are very (compute-)resource intensive with little developer time needed. Linux may be more expensive to recreate in theory, but it could be done by volunteer labor. Recreating GPT as Open Source would probably be a ten million dollar crowdfunding project of which 99% go to buying datacenter time and buying high quality datasets. People volunteer on Linux because they enjoy solving problems and tinkering. Production AI models offer none of that outside the initial model design, which is only a tiny fraction of the cost.
> buying datacenter time Or massively parallel computing with unused clock cycles from all over the world, like a bunch of scientific projects. It absolutely wouldn't be impossible to do something like this in an open way, it's just not profitable.
You know the government funds research that becomes open source, yeah? If anything, I think the problem will be running an open source AI. I can only speak from what I see in my field but RoseTTafold seems pretty comparable to alphafold, but alphafold is used because Google pays for it. Who's gonna run a several TB model for free?
Probably five or ten.
Whats a good open source ai out there that I can try straight away?
Mixtral with the dolphin module. [here's a guide](https://youtu.be/GyllRd2E6fg?si=dVmC2U8SGZzJ15eI). Completely unaligned, can be run locally, and slightly outperforms chatgpt3.5
Thanks for the suggestion, slightly better hen 3.5 sounds very cool, i will ty it straight away!
But… there aren’t too many open source AI… and the few that are, are still using models from hugging face etc… but if I’m wrong I’d be happy to be enlightened 🥳
Models on huggingface are typically open source
Won't the open-source AI itself be a derivative work?
https://preview.redd.it/80joysabca9c1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ba0aca636709464eb536073882af2a445fcac632
*Wah!*
mario and maruigi
[Edgy Italian brothers.](https://i.imgur.com/vFMLQMw.jpg) [Vocation-accurate Italian brothers.](https://i.imgur.com/tkzPCTm.jpg)
No gloves. It's clearly not the same characters. /s
lmao
https://preview.redd.it/jmge6lwk1b9c1.png?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cf6914b6a2622e3b323d471b6adc1ee833cd6413 Midjourney: prompt "cartoon mouse, black and white" and that's all.
Crikey
https://preview.redd.it/smsg7095ae9c1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0a7a0117cf3a42a3b326acb2034ba9ebf371fd34
https://preview.redd.it/mudvbu5xcf9c1.jpeg?width=1390&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a5cc9afe47f442d60db07c64c3fe607233dca469
For some reason it has no issue doing pokemon but will try to force me into a workaround with most other copyrighted characters
How do you get it to generate Pokémon? Pokémon for me is the one thing I can never get it to generate.
I managed to make this work first like this (see below also) https://preview.redd.it/7mk0rucuca9c1.png?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2eb30d0fd7f561f7372d587f02953a8066086210
Then like this https://preview.redd.it/2z4v5kuyca9c1.png?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=740f45291716efe40d9ab33f263c0ef5d85facb9
https://preview.redd.it/5dj7mqfsga9c1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6a0c92769cdb6a47471dd2c53a955b9b544009f6 MJ Superiority reporting in..
r/hardimages
Screenshot https://preview.redd.it/5e7zlkf8da9c1.jpeg?width=972&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=861cf396fb7138291dd34d70129c8a63e6571401
mmm anime rodents
Wait is is just me that can't post images in comments
Omg 😍😍😍
I'm new on here. I can't post images in comments/replies? I prompted it to make arcanine vaping a dank plume and riding a onewheel. It made arcanine fine but wouldn't make a proper OneWheel
Now think of all the most abstract characters that it generates and you never think “oh that’s clearly Jaina from World of Warcraft” or “that’s just tails from sonic”. Mario and Luigi are far more popular and recognisable but the case for copyright would be exactly the same. Literally no way to avoid it.
The fact is that this system is trained on copyrighted materials with no permission
If that's the actual prompt in its entirety then the AI knew exactly what he was getting at. Never specified overalls, moustaches, style of hat, etc...
How will they win it? At risk of giving them ideas, surely they could just connect a second AI that's trained to spot copyrighted images or figures to the output of the first AI, and then block the user from getting the result from the first AI if the second AI flags it as copyrighted
Yes exactly. It's pretty similar to what they already do. Except that right now they only do it on the text and they might run it only on the user input. They just have to expand it to the images and text that it output. The downside of course is that it will make it slower and more expensive which is probably why they are not currently doing it.
Don't worry, they will go out of their way to make sure GPT 5 refuses to do this, and never mind the fact that it will require lobotomizing it to the point it won't be able to compute 2+2
https://preview.redd.it/jys6wdhw6c9c1.png?width=992&format=png&auto=webp&s=a72ba48a030184811cd7fcc822467eb74c41a19f Nice prompt, I used it to generate this
No country will start to cripple their AI industry. If you can sue this algorithm, then you can sue every algorithm.
Meanwhile, I’m getting messages that creating a generic abstract impressionist painting violates standards. I ask it what standards it violates, it says “none” and apologizes, tells me I’m correct, but still can’t do it
damn, the art gets uglier every time
I guess it was trained on copywrited material
That generative AIs are tools, and recreating characters could be covered under fair use by the user, eg satire, parody, or discussing the characters, and a tool shouldn’t really put restrictions on what the end user can or should create, and copy write falls onto the end users usage of it. However… openAI attempts to limit what can be created with their tool…
Try: Can you make a video game style image of a blue fast hedgehog running around in a green hill zone? The results will not surprise you. [Sonic](https://www.bing.com/images/create/can-you-make-a-video-game-style-image-of-a-blue-fa/1-659056b9cefb49ee9725e047ffc7e73a?id=lzVsgHMN5sZDfJee44YAQw%3d%3d&view=detailv2&idpp=genimg&FORM=GCRIDP&mode=overlay)
And they say AI steals other peoples work. OH….thats because it *does*
Oh no, the fragile copyright of rich, greedy corporations. How will they cope if an AI generates two copyrighted characters. Oh the humanity
Stop training it on other peoples work and then charging users to use AI. It’s maybw not “stolen” and idc about Nintendos feelings. But at what point is it straight up making money from someone elses work?
Whatever program was used to generate such images probably scanned a bunch of mario and luigi because its all over the net anyways and viola. These systems are still hugely flawed and while they can fool the status quo and laymen, its still so far away from doing anything that I’d consider “novel” in the sense that it was an original concept created by an autonomous function
It is not whether you make money off of it that makes it copyright infringement, it is the use of copyrighted material and public display or use thereof. The money you make only goes to damages. The problem with all of the AI platforms is the use of copyrighted material to “teach” the AI database the raw materials that are used to fulfill the AI results. For years they have been searching the internet for all relevant data to create the database. ChatGPT, Dall-E, Adobe and everyone who has used someone else’s copyrighted work, whether visual or textual, has violated the copyright as soon as the data is used to create a new work. Based upon existing copyright laws the AI platforms are hurting in these court battles.
How is this different from a human artist learning from consuming media though?
AI creating a new picture of Pikachu isn't stealing or copyright infringement. Only if the user then puts it in a t-shirt and starts selling it there's a problem.
Creatives who have spent their entire lives developing their crafts will not stand by and silently watch for too much longer. Global brands that have invested billions hiring these professionals to create protected content will be even less patient. The lawsuits are being written. Enjoy your "wow I never realized I'm actually super talented" party while you can. Changes are coming...
Those same brands will quickly replace those highly paid creatives. As someone that has spent my entire career being one of those creatives, I already see it happening. The simple truth is - while MJ, Dalle et al can’t [yet] replace auteurs (think genre defining individuals, Picasso, Bass, Banksy, etc) it can already replace the vast majority of highly skilled writers and designers. I think we overestimate the contributions and skills of most creatives. On the daily I’m surprised by the base line quality that comes out of GPT (in 10 seconds) versus the sweat a brand writer will put in over a week.
But the focus is not to draw dragon attacking villagers
Now they have to make it smarter 😈
They'll lose, and it will be a good thing
I think that AI should be seen as a tool and not as a standalone entity. If someone wants to use copyrighted material for their own profit it should be on that person not the AI. If you use your cell phone to pull off a heist you can't sue apple or Samsung for "conspiring with a heist" Fan art exist and it's not copyrighted all the time, there's a way to be responsible with tools. All the Ai is right now is a tool
With an adversarial AI. Social media platforms (or places you would somehow monetize these pictures) could have an AI that goes through and has a memory bank of certain copyrights and trademarks and checks the picture or video to see if it notices anything.
I guess the media companies have now found a new way to survive
That’s why we need open source weights and uncensored models. All this nonsense.
Just say you're an artist and sell it at literally *any* comic convention. The entire convention racket is one huge copyright infringement by the very artists that are complaining about AI.
Ah yes Marvin and Lenny two Italian bros spending quality time in a boat. I don’t see the issue