3 ms·

Sure— the method of making the image, such as being AI generated, is entirely irrelevant in terms of IP enforcement. You could cut a cross-section from a log th

Sure— the method of making the image, such as being AI generated, is entirely irrelevant in terms of IP enforcement. You could cut a cross-section from a log that had coincidentally formed the Nike symbol with it's rings, and if you slapped a picture of it on your line of sportsware, you better believe you're going to get owned. But if they see an increased risk of IP violations from AI generated assets— and given the Getty red carpet debacle that's entirely reasonable— banning it will probably save them a whole lot of money on manual game reviews.

tgsovlerkhgsel 3y ago
The Nike example is trademark rights, not copyright. If you give a worker 5 examples of cars, and tell him "draw me a new car in this style", and he does so (from memory without clearly copying any individual example), it's unlikely to be a copyright or other IP violation.
- __loam 3y ago
  > If you give a worker 5 examples of cars, and tell him "draw me a new car in this style", and he does so Yeah that's great, but it actually has nothing to do with how the AI works. A worker learning through observation about 5 cars is hugely different situation than an AI company scraping 400 million often copyrighted images onto their servers to run through a training algorithm to create a for-profit system that displaces the people who produced the original images.
- chefandy 3y ago
  Ok, fine... an image of Goofy. Both are judged on how similar they are, not the tools with which they were made. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity > Judge John M. Walker, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit noted in Arica v. Palmer that a court may find copyright infringement under the doctrine of "comprehensive non-literal similarity" if "the pattern or sequence of the two works is similar". You're going to have a much harder time proving that you absolutely did not copy something if you had an image of what you're being accused of copying in the dataset you used to make it. If the images are deemed substantially similar, it will be deemed an infringement.

tgsovlerkhgsel 3y ago

The Nike example is trademark rights, not copyright. If you give a worker 5 examples of cars, and tell him "draw me a new car in this style", and he does so (from memory without clearly copying any individual example), it's unlikely to be a copyright or other IP violation.

__loam 3y ago
> If you give a worker 5 examples of cars, and tell him "draw me a new car in this style", and he does so Yeah that's great, but it actually has nothing to do with how the AI works. A worker learning through observation about 5 cars is hugely different situation than an AI company scraping 400 million often copyrighted images onto their servers to run through a training algorithm to create a for-profit system that displaces the people who produced the original images.
chefandy 3y ago
Ok, fine... an image of Goofy. Both are judged on how similar they are, not the tools with which they were made. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity > Judge John M. Walker, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit noted in Arica v. Palmer that a court may find copyright infringement under the doctrine of "comprehensive non-literal similarity" if "the pattern or sequence of the two works is similar". You're going to have a much harder time proving that you absolutely did not copy something if you had an image of what you're being accused of copying in the dataset you used to make it. If the images are deemed substantially similar, it will be deemed an infringement.