3 ms·

Superhero costume using logo. Logo inspired by the strongest gem's typical cut with first a monogram the first letter of the name for maximum size and visual c

Superhero costume using logo. Logo inspired by the strongest gem's typical cut with first a monogram the first letter of the name for maximum size and visual clarity. Literally if you asked someone for a recognizable outline of the strongest gemstone's iconic cut you'd get the outline and the rest is an obvious path. Humans might unconsciously, or even by choice, avoid something too similar to something they already know. Superman's costume also uses vibrant colors. The red / blue pairing is used extensively across many logos and visual representations for the high contrast of two vibrant colors. As I try to imagine an older child or young adult somehow raised in an environment like pop culture but through some twist absolutely unexposed to Superman or any related concepts, it isn't that far of a stretch to imagine independent invention of a strikingly similar idea. Maybe not as a first draft but in exploring a range of possible powers and automatic logos. E.G. as in the range of an LLM backed character creator for a superhero game, and then aneling the results though simulated effectiveness / fitness of hero powers, logo design, etc. Everyone wants to think they're a special snowflake and that what they create is somehow unique as well. However we're all drawing on a huge pool of common culture to synthesize expressions which fulfill a set of constraints prescribed by the culture and the culture's influence on the individual and the moment being experienced. In the case of Superman that's even arguably a description of the archetype. They are literally a super man. Clark Kent however, that's a little more unique and probably a Trade Mark (consumer commercial use protection) as long as such a registration is maintained.

karaterobot 3y ago
Unfortunately, I don't believe any of that matters with trademarks. If someone came up with the Superman logo on their own, and released a product that used it, they could not say "but it's a really simple logo" and get a free pass. I'm not sure what that means for ChatGPT, but it would certainly factor into your use of images produced by ChatGPT.
- mywittyname 3y ago
  I feel like this is a very strong point that just gets hand-waved away. There are numerous cases where AI-generated content is an exact copy of a derived work. This happens with text, music, and art. If a we have ai-powered content generation in a video game, and you put into a prompt, "generate 300 mickey mouses, then play some music that sounds like Taylor Swift's new album", and the results look exactly like mickey mouse and the music is Taylor Swift's, it's really difficult to argue that's not copyright infringement. Yet, people get away with thinking that's not copyright infringement because "the algorithm learned it, like a real human". If the prompt just created a human-designed model, then that is copyright infringement. The solution might be big corporations create an adversarial network that you can train against to purge copyrighted works from your network.
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    It is copyright infringement - but it was you who promoted the production of the copyright violations who is at fault. The model isn’t specifically any more a copyright violation than a browser cache or a photocopier. The person who uses the machine to produce violations is at fault, not the thing that in addition to legitimate transformed works can be used to produce copyright violations. As a company hosting such a service my goal would be similar to YouTube where I do a best effort to monitor for violation and guard rail the best I can. But I shouldn’t be held liable for your intentional use of a product for ill so long as I did do that best effort.

karaterobot 3y ago

Unfortunately, I don't believe any of that matters with trademarks. If someone came up with the Superman logo on their own, and released a product that used it, they could not say "but it's a really simple logo" and get a free pass. I'm not sure what that means for ChatGPT, but it would certainly factor into your use of images produced by ChatGPT.

mywittyname 3y ago
I feel like this is a very strong point that just gets hand-waved away. There are numerous cases where AI-generated content is an exact copy of a derived work. This happens with text, music, and art. If a we have ai-powered content generation in a video game, and you put into a prompt, "generate 300 mickey mouses, then play some music that sounds like Taylor Swift's new album", and the results look exactly like mickey mouse and the music is Taylor Swift's, it's really difficult to argue that's not copyright infringement. Yet, people get away with thinking that's not copyright infringement because "the algorithm learned it, like a real human". If the prompt just created a human-designed model, then that is copyright infringement. The solution might be big corporations create an adversarial network that you can train against to purge copyrighted works from your network.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  It is copyright infringement - but it was you who promoted the production of the copyright violations who is at fault. The model isn’t specifically any more a copyright violation than a browser cache or a photocopier. The person who uses the machine to produce violations is at fault, not the thing that in addition to legitimate transformed works can be used to produce copyright violations. As a company hosting such a service my goal would be similar to YouTube where I do a best effort to monitor for violation and guard rail the best I can. But I shouldn’t be held liable for your intentional use of a product for ill so long as I did do that best effort.