4 ms·

yeah except this artist wont go around painting watermarks

• jxcole 4y ago
  Really? https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/andy-warhol-campbells-soup-cans-1962/ https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/andy-warhol-campbel... (Yes I get it's not technically a watermark, but it certainly qualifies as a trade mark in a similar fashion)
  • donkarma 4y ago
    my point being if he tries to draw a dog his idea of a dog will not contain the Getty Images watermark and even if he did he would just not draw it
  • masswerk 4y ago
    Ceci n'est pas une pipe … er … soupe
• kgwgk 4y ago
  Copying signatures one entera into forgery territory…
• ale42 4y ago
  There's a big difference here. DALL-E (or any other similar tool) is not an artist, it is a commercial product that can produce something that might be considered art. The usage might be ok, but the product itself might not... if I paint using stolen pigments (not saying that DALL-E is alike to this), my painting would be legal, but the fact of having stolen the pigment is very illegal...
  • drran 4y ago
    Product of machine cannot be copyrighted. Only humans have the right to copyright something. Dall-e like kaleidoscope then. Anybody, even monkey, can generate similarly looking images using Dall-e with the same prompt. So there is two options: a) Dall-e images are without copyright. b) Original authors of work used by Dall-e can claim copyright over images generated.