4 ms·
You're allowed to draw IP and share your drawings. You're allowed to screenshot and photoshop IP. You're allowed to sell tools that help others draw and photosh
by armchairhacker 2y ago
You're allowed to draw IP and share your drawings. You're allowed to screenshot and photoshop IP. You're allowed to sell tools that help others draw and photoshop IP*. You're not allowed to sell these drawings and photoshops.
I don't see why an AI can't generate IP, even if the AI is being sold. What's not allowed is selling the generated IP.
Style is even more permissive: you're allowed to sell something in any style. AFAIK the only things that can be restricted are methods to achieve the style (via patents), similar brands in similar service categories (via trademarks), and depictions of objects (via copyrights).
Note that something being "the original" gives it an intrinsic popularity advantage, and someone being "the original creator" gives their new works an intrinsic advantage. I believe in attribution, which means that if someone recreates or closely derives another's art or style, they should point to the original**. With attribution, IP is much less important, because a recreation or spin-off must be significantly better to out-compete the original in popularity, and even then, it's extra success usually spills onto the original, making it more popular than it would be without the recreation or spin-off anyways. Old books, movies, and video games like Harry Potter, Star Wars, and Sonic have many "recreations" which copy all but their IP, and fan recreations which copy even that; yet they're far more popular than all the recreations, and when Warner Bros, Disney, or SEGA release a new installment, the new installment is far more popular too, simply because it's an original.
* IANAL, maybe there are some technicalities, but in practice this is true.
** Or others can do it. As long as it shows up alongside their work, so people don't see the recreation or close derivation without knowing about the original.
- lmm 2y ago> You're allowed to draw IP and share your drawings. No you're not, not in general. The copyright holder has the exclusive right to prepare and distribute derivative works. > You're allowed to screenshot and photoshop IP. Again, no, not in general. > You're allowed to sell tools that help others draw and photoshop IP*. Sort of. You're allowed to sell tools that might be used for those purposes. You're not allowed to sell tools as "for that purpose" or advertise those use cases.
- rescripting 2y agoIf I pay for ChatGPT and ask for copyrighted images, is that selling the generated IP?
- alphan0n 2y agoYou are responsible for the output, just like any other tool. If I use a copy machine to reproduce your copyrighted work, I am responsible for that infringement not Xerox. If I coax your novel out of my phones keyboard suggestion engine letter by letter, and publish it, it’s still me infringing on your copyright. If I make a copy of your clip art in Illustratator, is Adobe responsible? Etc.
- skydhash 2y agoThe analogies fail because the copyrighted material were not used for creating the copy machine, Illustration, or (maybe?) the keyboard suggestion engine. If LLMs were produced ethically, then the whole discussion is moot. But if the only way to produce copyrighted material requires being trained on copyrighted material, then...
- alphan0n 2y agoCopyright law applies to distribution of output, not input. An artist, writer, whoever, could read all the copyrighted material in the world, even pirated material, unless their output is a copy or copyrighted artifact, then there is no infringement.
- philistine 2y ago> even pirated material If you knowingly use pirated content for any purpose, that's not legal.
- alphan0n 2y agoDistribution of copyrighted material is prohibited. Reading, watching, listening, etc, it is not. A copyright holders tort is with the infringing distributor, not the end user.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- tjpnz 2y ago>I don't see why an AI can't generate IP, even if the AI is being sold. What's not allowed is selling the generated IP. Where I live Studio Ghibli are known to be active on C2C marketplaces looking for counterfeit goods. If you were to list a home pressed Totoro pillowcase it would be taken down, sometimes proactively by the marketplace. From that perspective I struggle to see much discernable difference given OpenAI are offering a paid service which allows me to create similar items, and one could argue is promoting it too.