That's the problem here, there's no creative input apart from the prompt, so obviously the source is blatant (and often in the prompt).
Technically, you can't, but there's no way to enforce copyright infringement on private work.
You can paint a Studio Ghibli-style painting -- the style isn't protected.
These rules assume that copying the style is labor intensive, and righteously rewards the worker.
When an LLM can reproduce thousands and thousands of Ghibli-style paintings effortlessly, not protecting the style seems less fair, because the work of establishing the Ghibli-style was harder than copying it large-scale.
I'm in the "don't fight a roaring ocean, go with the flow" boat:
If your entire livelihood depends on having the right to distribute something anyone can copy, get a stronger business.
or even better: if you make art, get a stronger business
or maybe simply: stop making art
That’s not really what I’m saying.
Large brand copyright holders gonna sue. It is part of their core business.
If you’re a musician, you gotta tour to make money. If you’re a painter, you need patrons.
There already were a ton of ways organised IP theft would make money on your creative force.
AI training seems different because it can gobble up anything out of order and somehow digest it into something valuable without human intervention.
The training is absurdly expensive, but considering how they capture the profit on the value created, and the training input owners won’t, will just mark the end of the open internet for non-FOSS normies.
No dollars burned, just huge huge amounts of cultural capital. Just a reduction to a more primitive, less cultured/developed version of what it means to be human. Less thinking out loud, sharing of thoughts, exposure to new thoughts. More retreating into (a now lesser developed, now culturally atrophied) self.
In the poster shop you can choose between a bunch of classics, or you can upload your own AI-generated picture and have that printed as a poster.
Art was always expensive, and posters as an alternative to paintings existed way before AI. Same with copying all kinds of art.
The main difference seems to be that we can’t clearly pay royalties to anyone for AI artwork, because it’s not obvious exactly where it came from.
There was a YouTube channel dedicated to Warhammer lore narrated by an AI David Attenborough. It got taken down for infringing on his voice, but its replacement came up, starting out with a generic old man’s voice and over time gradually more Attenborough-like. When should the Attenborough estate start to get royalties? At 60% Attenborough? Or at 80% Attenborough?
I'll answer your question, but my question for you is: why were you buying wall decorations in the first place? To me, it sounds like you were searching for a product category, and not specifically for art.
Regarding your example, if the AI is capable of imitating David Attenborough by including his name in the prompt, then it was probably trained on his data. If he didn't consent, then I might argue that is ethically wrong and, in my view, theft. If the channel was not monetized and done without his consent, I might argue that is just an ethical failing. In using his voice, the channel betrays the fact that it has value, otherwise they would continue to use the random old man voice.
Two of the four core tests for fair use hinge on this.
1. Purpose and character of the use. With emphasis on whether the copy was made for commercial use.
4. Effect on the work's value, and the creator's ability to exploit their work.
---
Both can be dramatically impacted by the intent of the copy, usually with enforcement and punishment also being considerably stronger if the copy is being made for commercial gain and not private use.
But even for actual works, the above is incorrect. How you use the copy absolutely matters.
If I was the first person to invent a car, for example, and I named its method of locomotion "walking", would you treat it the same as a human and let it "walk" in all the same places humans walk? After all, it's simply using kinetic energy and friction to propel itself along the ground, as we do.
Because a car is so obviously different to a human, we intuitively understand it requires an alteration to our rules in order for us to coexist peacefully. Since LLMs are so abstract, we don't intuitively understand this distinction, and so continue to treat them as if they should be bound by the same rules and laws as us.
I rarely use these tools (I'm not in marketing, game design, or any related field), but I can see the problem these tools are causing to artists, etc.
Any LLM company offering these services needs to pay the piper.
We can argue if that should be the case or not, which is a different issue.
However, it should not be legal to automate something at scale that is illegal when done by an individual human. Allowing it just tips the scale against labor even more.
If I make a for profit AI, that AI is a product. And if that product required others' copyrighted works to derive it's deliverable, it is by definition creating derivative works. Again, creating a small human, not creating a product. Creating a for profit AI, creating a product.
If my product couldn't produce the same output without having at some point consumed the other works, I've triggered copyright concerns.
If I make and train a small human, I am not creating a for profit product so it doesn't come in to play at all. The two are not similar in any way. The human is not the product. If THEY create a product later (a drawing in this case) then THAT is where copyright comes in.
If you paint a Studio Ghibli totoro on your cup, pillow, PC, T-shirt, nobody is going to care. If you do this a thousand times it obviously is an issue. And if you charge people to access you to do this, it is also obviously an issue.
None of the training data was originally drawn by OpenAI. OpenAI also actively monetizes that work.
that's why piracy Robin Hood Style is fine, but corporate piracy is not. I downloaded a Ghibli movie because I could't afford the DVD. I didn't copy it on VHS then to sell it via e-commerce to 1000 people.
AI companies grabbed IP and pull hundreds of thousands of customers with it, then collect their interactions either way and profit exponentially while Ghibli, Square Enix et al. don't profit from users using more and more AI ...
and most people are not "training" ML models ... people are using copy machines that already learned to compensate for their lack of will to put effort into stuff.
a lot of us been there and enough decided to move beyond and get/become better at being human aka evolve vs get cozy in some sub-singularity. some didn't and won't, and they are easiest to profit from.
Fair use is a defense to infringement, like self defense is a defense to homicide. If you infringe but are noncommercial, it is more likely to be ruled fair use. If Disney did a Ghibli style ripoff for their next movie, that is clearly not fair use.
OpenAI is clearly gaining significant material benefits from their models being able to infringe Ghibli style.
Of course not because by this twisted logic every piece of art is inspired by what comes before and you could claim Ghibli is just a derivative of what came before and nobody has any copyright then...
Only if you copy their characters. If you make your own character and story, and are replicating ghibli style, it is OK. Style is not copyrightable.