The fact that they called this captioned as "The bottom photo is an AI-generated image created in six prompts using OpenAI’s ChatGPT", without actually releasing the 6 prompts is quite telling. Because that will show they were prompting things to match the original image.
Iconic images (mona lisa, tank man, widely reported news stories, styles like ghibli) would of course be incorporated in as styles. It doesn't refute fair use.
So, you can't say "draw this person in the mona lisa pose, in simpsons style" and then act surprised and shocked when the model does exactly that. That's not theft.
Well, for one, no “theft” occurred at all. There is a reason it is called “infringement”. This is like saying that our brains are “stealing” the art we look at.
Second, absolutely. Even if someone wanted to call it theft, the only theft occurred by the user, not the LLM. This is like saying photoshop is stealing because you can use it to recreate copyrighted images. Or, again, like saying when a user looks at a painting then paints something similar, they are “infringing”. What a silly, silly thing.
Beyond that, this cites Reuters v Ross Inteligence as a precious “win” against AI, but that case had literally nothing to do with AI. It was a straight direct infringement case. It’s the difference between “we had an LLM read the law and create notes”, and “we had the LLM rephrase the copyrighted notes directly so we could try to avoid licensing them”. That activity would be infringing with or without the LLM participation.
Even funnier is that none of the circled items are actually infringing. Right off the top, none of the positions line up with the original image, and none of the items match the original image. In fact, if anyone looks closer, the entire image is different and just shares similarities (likely prompted) with the original. The fire is different, the shadows are different, the persons pants, shirt, hair, mask are different. Literally nothing is the same other than the overall composition…which isn’t protectable.
Are they seriously trying to argue that any image that contains a street sign, tail light, and green blob, and looks similar to another image is, is therefore “infringement”? How many people have taken exactly the same photo of the Eiffel Tower from the same location? Did they all infringe on each other because they have similar features and compositions?
FYI, humans using their brains and corporate for profit products are two different things. How humans human doesn't matter and is in no way relevant. How a corporate product is made useful (in this case, by using other people's work) is what is up for discussion. If AI doesn't have a product without using other peoples work I don't see how you can claim that AIs output is not derivative. AI wouldn't be a useful product without without other peoples works, therefor AI is derivative. Doesn't matter how the human brain works, it matters if a product's value is derived from protected works.
If my product wouldn't exist without yours, it is derivative of it.
Iconic images (mona lisa, tank man, widely reported news stories, styles like ghibli) would of course be incorporated in as styles. It doesn't refute fair use.
So, you can't say "draw this person in the mona lisa pose, in simpsons style" and then act surprised and shocked when the model does exactly that. That's not theft.