Hacker News Reader

Really?

https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/andy-warhol-campbel...

(Yes I get it's not technically a watermark, but it certainly qualifies as a trade mark in a similar fashion)

my point being if he tries to draw a dog his idea of a dog will not contain the Getty Images watermark and even if he did he would just not draw it

Ceci n'est pas une pipe … er … soupe

There's a big difference here. DALL-E (or any other similar tool) is not an artist, it is a commercial product that can produce something that might be considered art. The usage might be ok, but the product itself might not... if I paint using stolen pigments (not saying that DALL-E is alike to this), my painting would be legal, but the fact of having stolen the pigment is very illegal...

Product of machine cannot be copyrighted. Only humans have the right to copyright something. Dall-e like kaleidoscope then. Anybody, even monkey, can generate similarly looking images using Dall-e with the same prompt. So there is two options:

a) Dall-e images are without copyright.

b) Original authors of work used by Dall-e can claim copyright over images generated.

Copying signatures one entera into forgery territory…