3 ms·

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,

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.

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.