News Mickey Mouse and Darth Vader Smoking Pot: AI Image Generators Play Fast and Loose with Copyrighted Characters

[Admin]

I tested six leading AI image generators to see how they handle requests to draw copyrighted characters, including asking for those characters to do inappropriate things.

Mickey Mouse and Darth Vader Smoking Pot: AI Image Generators Play Fast and Loose with Copyrighted Characters : Read more

 

[bit_user]

This case of copyright characters is an interesting question. If an artist draws Mickey Mouse & Darth Vader, in the privacy of their own home, I don't see anything inherently wrong with that. Using a tool to generate depictions of them feels similar. Where it would seem to cross a line is if they publish those depictions, without permission from the rights owner.

I'm obviously not a lawyer, so it'll be interesting to see what the courts say about this. Even if the courts side with the rights owners, I don't think it necessarily spells doom for AI image generators. I can imagine both technical & business-level solutions to this problem.

Part of me thinks it'd be funny if LLMs end up having to be trained only on public domain material, much of which is at least 95+ years old (the current limit on copyright). It'd be kinda funny if it tended to speak in an old-timey way.
: D

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

Know what else plays fast and loose with copyrighted characters? The hundreds of artists who every day take money from people to draw pictures of them without a license or consent, which is illegal. Why is that "okay" when using AI to do the same thing is not?

 

[bit_user]

Know what else plays fast and loose with copyrighted characters? The hundreds of artists who every day take money from people to draw pictures of them without a license or consent, which is illegal. Why is that "okay" when using AI to do the same thing is not?

It's not okay, but I think a big AI company is a much more interesting target for corporate lawyers than countless internet randos who collectively might not even have the assets to justify a single court case.

 

[Giroro]

Original art can't and doesn't exist in this era. Derivative works are not allowed to exist, they belong to the creator of the source material.
There's only so many shapes that can be drawn and notes that can be played, and every major iteration and combination has already been stake-claimed in a copyrighted format.

Think about it, if a normal person managed to create something wholly original, and a corporate giant stepped in and said they own it now, then they own it. You can't do anything about it; you can't fight it; You would lose everything else you own before even making it to court.
If they can't take it outright, they'll still rip you off and algorithmically bury you. They own the platforms. Non corporate art is not allowed to be seen, therefore it doesn't exist.

Everything you create is equally not-yours. So I say stop trying so hard to make something that will just be taken from you regardless. The risk is always the same, the punishment is always the same. So do what you want, with whatever you want.
AI is fantastic for artists. We can take back some small part of our culture by simply overwhelming the systems designed to own us with low effort garbage.
If the lawyers are busy dealing with this AI fad, then maybe some small sliver of artistic integrity or originality will finally have a chance to slip through the cracks and into popular culture.

 

[bit_user]

There's only so many shapes that can be drawn and notes that can be played, and every major iteration and combination has already been stake-claimed in a copyrighted format.

Reminds me of this notorious quote from over a century ago:

"Everything that can be invented has been invented"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Holland_Duell
​

Think about it, if a normal person managed to create something wholly original, and a corporate giant stepped in and said they own it now, then they own it. You can't do anything about it; you can't fight it; You would lose everything else you own before even making it to court.
If they can't take it outright, they'll still rip you off and algorithmically bury you. They own the platforms. Non corporate art is not allowed to be seen, therefore it doesn't exist.

If this were true, you ought to be able to list millions of examples where it's happened.

I think you're too enthralled by your own dark fantasy. Or maybe just trying to make excuses to yourself for your own lack of success. Sadly, the market for popular art is extremely fickle and heavily trend-driven. Sometimes, there's no easy explanation of why one person breaks into pop culture and countless others don't.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

It's not okay, but I think a big AI company is a much more interesting target for corporate lawyers than countless internet randos who collectively might not even have the assets to justify a single court case.

Patreon has enabled artists to make potentially hundreds to thousands of dollars a month on top of the price they charge for the art, so it would be very worth it for them to go after them.

 

[bit_user]

Patreon has enabled artists to make potentially hundreds to thousands of dollars a month on top of the price they charge for the art, so it would be very worth it for them to go after them.

Perhaps, but I think it's like the top 0.01% who make anything like that kind of money, and are any of them blatant plagiarists (i.e. without the protection of satire*)?

* In case you're not aware, the US Supreme Court has long ruled that satire is a constitutionally protected form of speech, and therefore isn't subject to claims of copyright-infringement.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

Perhaps, but I think it's like the top 0.01% who make anything like that kind of money, and are any of them blatant plagiarists (i.e. without the protection of satire*)?

* In case you're not aware, the US Supreme Court has long ruled that satire is a constitutionally protected form of speech, and therefore isn't subject to claims of copyright-infringement.

They wouldn't need to go after any but the biggest earners to stop services from taking their money.

 

[waltc3]

My opinion from the start was that "AI" is going to be a new bonanza for copyright lawyers...😉 If you thought that the RIAA was bad medicine, you haven't seen anything yet. It's very simple--when you draw on databases including copyrighted artwork, you are infringing on copyrighted material. It's like all the Mario imagery is a clear copyright violation of Mario--it doesn't matter that it doesn't look identical to the official copyrighted imagery, all it has to do is to be similar enough that any normal person would easily conclude that he was looking at the original copyrighted material. And that will finish it, and it will die on the vine. Satire is a valid protected speech, but that's fairly limited because the satire must be evident and obvious to qualify. IE, you can't have the AI program use copyrighted imagery on its own and call it satire. That won't work--the satire has to be real, etc. You'd have to work the recognizable imagery of Mickey Mouse or Vader or Mario into an obviously satirical presentation. Not as easy as it sounds. And when all the recognizable copyrighted imagery is gone--there's no Vader, Mickey, or Mario in the images--what do you end up with except images unrecognizable by the viewer? (Like the "plumber" artwork that looks nothing like the original Mario character. He's a stranger.)

So what about the images that don't look anything like Mario or Mickey Mouse, Darth Vader, etc? The value of those dies quickly because no one would confuse those with the original copyrighted materials. Basically, AI in these iterations is an advanced form of cut & paste. I think it's a fad that will be short-lived as these things go once the litigation lawyers begin to get heavily involved as they will not be lenient in defining what is free of copyrighted material, I feel certain.

 

[BLAH1982]

Can really feel the wheels falling off the GenAI hype train. Starting to look more like a train wreck. Hubris of the highest order.

 

[bigdragon]

I expected every media company -- particularly Disney and Nintendo -- to go after the paid-for AI generators to defend their IP. I'm shocked they haven't done so given that they'll happily go after smaller content creators who make pins to sell or include short glimpses of certain characters in video content. This article has highlighted things artists have been complaining about for years while making it applicable to corporate mascots and protected IP. There are millions, if not billions, of dollars circling around the AI organizations that should make them appealing targets for big corporate rights holders. So many boards and CEOs are asleep at the wheel.

I don't think guardrails are the answer here. There's much deeper problems with how the AI models are developed, maintained, and expanded. Guardrails come into play way too late in the process.

Personally, I use a variant of Stable Diffusion that does not have guardrails. It's specifically to help me set up poses and environments when I can't come up with an idea on my own fast enough. Then I draw based on the AI inspiration. Sometimes the AI generates copyrighted designs, but they never appear in the finished art since it was purely inspiration. The AI platforms have no such ethical, moral, or legal consideration in what they output.

 

[bit_user]

Satire is a valid protected speech, but that's fairly limited because the satire must be evident and obvious to qualify. IE, you can't have the AI program use copyrighted imagery on its own and call it satire. That won't work--the satire has to be real, etc.

That's an artificial distinction. The work merely has to fit the definition of satire, from the perspective of a reasonable observer.

Anyway, this is a corner case. Most of what it generates isn't satire. And most likely, you'd have to guide it via prompts, in order to make something satirical.

And when all the recognizable copyrighted imagery is gone--there's no Vader, Mickey, or Mario in the images--what do you end up with except images unrecognizable by the viewer? (Like the "plumber" artwork that looks nothing like the original Mario character. He's a stranger.)

So what about the images that don't look anything like Mario or Mickey Mouse, Darth Vader, etc? The value of those dies quickly because no one would confuse those with the original copyrighted materials.

Imagery of a generic plumber still has value, or have you not heard of stock photo archives?

Basically, AI in these iterations is an advanced form of cut & paste.

So far as we've seen, image generators haven't been designed to make completely novel works. However, crossing that bridge probably isn't as not as hard as it sounds.

 

[usertests]

I will violate copyright every moment of every day.

 

[CmdrShepard]

Know what else plays fast and loose with copyrighted characters? The hundreds of artists who every day take money from people to draw pictures of them without a license or consent, which is illegal. Why is that "okay" when using AI to do the same thing is not?

I keep seeing this stupid question from so many people it's really becoming annoying.

I won't even respond to the obvious whataboutism because we can definitely tackle two things at once and we should prioritize more important of the two which in this case is definitely "AI".

You know what's the difference between a human doing drawing and "AI" doing drawing?

The SCALE at which "AI" can do this -- no human artist can:

1. Memorize exactly the likeness of every character known to man
2. Learn hundreds of different drawing styles
3. Be able to mix and match those styles with consistent results
4. Modify specific character features on a whim
5. Output one image per second (or more on hardware faster than RTX 4090)
6. Never get tired at all, much less of producing endless variations of the same thing
7. Have theoretically unlimited capacity for learning new stuff
8. Learn new stuff at the rate "AI" can, even if it had the same capacity

So, you are comparing hundreds of human artists where each takes anywhere from couple of hours to couple of days per commission to produce ONE image for someone's personal use to make a living, and an "AI" produced by a megacorp by scraping everything and the kitchen sink without permission which is enabling literally hundreds of millions of random people who aren't even artists to produce a venerable flood of drawings either for free (by mining your personal data) or for a small fee, both of which enrich said megacorp.

And you still don't see the difference? Or you just don't want to see it?

It's a rhetorical question -- no need to answer since it's obvious that you haven't given the subject much thought when you are comparing apples and oranges like that.

 

[thisisaname]

Copyright on art who breaks it? the pencil or the artist with the pencil?

 

[Mew2jones]

It seems to me this entire article and experiment is a little pointless. The fact that Mickey is smoking and drinking heavily implies the purpose of the image's creation is parody, and parody is an acceptable use of a copyrighted image.

Has the writer ever watched an episode of South Park? They have heavily featured these same characters for the purposes of parody, and (as far as I know) they didn't pay disney for any of those episodes. The copyrights protect companies from people passing off unlicensed products as genuine ones for profit but shouldn't protect against artistic references for the sake of comedy or criticism regardless of any profits.

Personally I believe there's a point where certain properties become a part of our collective, cultural memory. You can't blame an AI for identifying that. It doesn't have independent consciousness. They draw on previous works, materials, and other accessible information. They have no original thought or agenda. If I ask you to imagine a Great Dane with brown fur and black spots, you know damn well who popped into your head, and any AI will only generate images based on the same source material we have. And if I want a picture of that dog drinking a soda with a red and white label, then I shouldn't need to be worried about a corporation coming after me for it.

 

[bit_user]

The fact that Mickey is smoking and drinking heavily implies the purpose of the image's creation is parody, and parody is an acceptable use of a copyrighted image.

I think what's missing is a message. If the images were used to highlight some sort of hypocrisy of the Disney corporation, then it could work. However, Just having Mickey drink or use drugs isn't quite enough to count as satire, IMO. At least, I wouldn't want to try and defend those images in court. Would you?

Personally I believe there's a point where certain properties become a part of our collective, cultural memory.

That's a moral argument, not a legal one. I agree that certain things become cultural currency. By locking them up behind a regime of copyrights and trademarks, it's like corporations are trying to harness the power of the pop culture phenomenon, without ceding control of their IP. It doesn't seem fair, but that's how it is.

You can't blame an AI for identifying that. It doesn't have independent consciousness.

Right. They're not blaming the AI, but rather those who train it and control how it's used.

 

[Mew2jones]

These are valid and arguable points. I guess my larger point is the difference between a creator's purpose and a user's (or fan's) vision. I can get mickey mouse tattooed on my body, and no one threatens a lawsuit. I wouldn't be sued for violating copyright and neither would the tattoo artist I paid to produce the artwork. People do it all the time. So if I ask an ai to take the same character, give him wings, a beer, and a ray gun, is he still the same animated character? Mickey Mouse doesn't have wings, but this mouse would. Is he the form or the name? Can I produce all the artwork of Miguel Mouse I want and have him be nearly identical in form? I ultimately think the article attempts to make this seem much more grave than reality. If you are blatantly trying to recreate preexisting images and make a profit, then I think the issue is clear. If you're utilizing an iconic image or character and re-imagining their existence in a larger artistic piece, then I don't see the issue especially if you're only using them for your own amusement.

 

[bit_user]

These are valid and arguable points. I guess my larger point is the difference between a creator's purpose and a user's (or fan's) vision. I can get mickey mouse tattooed on my body, and no one threatens a lawsuit. I wouldn't be sued for violating copyright and neither would the tattoo artist I paid to produce the artwork. People do it all the time.

The most likely target of litigation is the tattoo shop. I'm sure there have been examples of similar businesses being sued for copyright infringement, if not specifically tattoo shops.

So if I ask an ai to take the same character, give him wings, a beer, and a ray gun, is he still the same animated character? Mickey Mouse doesn't have wings, but this mouse would. Is he the form or the name? Can I produce all the artwork of Miguel Mouse I want and have him be nearly identical in form?

In copyright law, there's the notion of a derivative work. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't spell out for you exactly when that might come into play, but it's probably the aspect you'd need to worry about when making variations on a design that's still very recognizably someone else's.

I ultimately think the article attempts to make this seem much more grave than reality.

Maybe. We'll see what the courts say.

 

[Mew2jones]

I've not once heard of a tattoo shop being a target of litigation for one of its artists agreeing to tattoo a character or symbol protected by copyright. Google any prominent character, symbol, or brand followed by the word "tattoo" and you're sure to find it. With those results you can be sure there'd be tons of lawsuits if it were a realistic concern of any corporation.

With respect to derivative work in copyright law, it's one of the factors in determining fair use alongside purpose of use and potential effect on market value of original work. In the case of both the tattoo example and AI generated art, neither of these are realistically substantial threats to the profitability of the original. The majority of users have no intention or expectation of profit, so there is no likely market effect. If the work is derivative but transformative, this also tends to be protected under fair use especially in combination of the other factors. Disney doesn't make all their Mickey money on pictures, so if I used his likeness, made alterations (like the previous example of wings) and made him fight Mighty Mouse in an otherwise original piece there would be little threat to Disney's profits, even if I attempted to sell the art.

 

[George³]

About mickey mouse creator. 1928. I didn't know how years Copyright is valid and why patent trolls has rights when they isn't creators of patented art or inventions?

 

[vehekos]

AI will be great the day it starts being able to create new characters like Mickey. Not just by being able to draw it.
Creating new characters require being able to extrapolate knowledge. Today AI is merely capable of interpolating.

 

[YouFilthyHippo]

This highlights a problem with copyright. The purpose of copyright is to prevent people some profiting off of other peoples creations. But there's a difference between that, and the creation of a unique work of art that doesn't do this.

Disney owns the IP of mickey mouse. They own the character. I create a photo of mickey mouse smoking marijuana. That photo is now a unique work of art. My work of art I created isn't mickey mouse. It's mickey mouse smoking marijuana. It's content outside the intended use of the original creation of mickey mouse and what stands to reason that disney would use its creation as intended. Therefore, it is a unique work of art, and I shouldn't be held liable for copyright infringement for that.

There is also a thing called fair use. Example: A 6 year old wants a photo of Mario printed on their cake for their birthday. Take it to a bakery to get it done. Some will say no due to copyright. A 6 year old celebrating their birthday in the privacy of their own venue with their other 6 year old friends and their parents with a Mario cake should not be copyright infringement. This should fall under fair use. The family of the birthday boy isn't intending to make a profit of someone else's idea. Its getting ridiculous

If I assemble a development team, and make my own Mario game from the ground up, and release it for free. This should be allowed, so long as I am not making a profit from it. I don't sell it. I release it, open source, for free. This should be allowed. Because all the ideas in the game were MY IDEA, and I'm not making money on it

I really think all copyright should cease to exist unless someone somewhere is making money, or using the IP for the purposes of slander/damage to the original creator. Example: Making a video of Mario raping women. Something like this would be damaging to the IP itself, so wouldn't be allowed. But if I want to use AI to make Mario sit on my couch and play Nintendo, and Mario is playing the game, that isn't damaging to the IP itself and doesn't slander the company. I don't make money off the video. I think this should constitute fair use.

Any time a new idea is brought to life in art form, there shouldn't be any copyright issues, unless it contains IP and the creator is making money off of it.

In the case of the darth vader/mickey mouse thing. The unique work of art is the idea that the creator concieved. It's not just mickey mouse/darth vader

 

[George³]

I create a photo of mickey mouse smoking marijuana.

This also is illegal in many countries if you make this picture public. In my country:

The entire article 354b regulates which actions related to narcotic substances are punishable according to the Criminal Code. These actions include: inducing and assisting another to use; giving another person a narcotic substance or its analogue

If you make this picture public this is indusing to all that see this picture.