Did you know ChatGPT and Gemni AI could do this?

Homepage Forums Science Did you know ChatGPT and Gemni AI could do this?

This topic contains 26 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by  _Robert_ 1 month ago.

Viewing 12 posts - 16 through 27 (of 27 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #55699

    Unseen
    Participant

    Here is ChatGPT (the plain vanilla version) showing us what Cellini’s Perseus would look like if created by H.R. Giger. BTW, I simply asked it to convert the image to jpg format for saving and it did it for me. While it’s a cool image, it doesn’t display any knowlege of Greek mythology. The head should be the head of Medusa full of writhing snakes.

    #55704

    Maybe he wanted her see the snakes on his head! Cool picture though.

    #55705

    Unseen
    Participant

    Maybe it’s a trans Medusa holding Perseus’s head(?)

    #55707

    _Robert_
    Participant

    I guess somehow you don’t owe H.R. Giger any money to use his IP. Not until the law catches up to all this piracy, LOL.

    The free ChatGPT version doesn’t seem to generate midi files anymore. Perhaps the music lawyers are on it already.

    #55711

    Unseen
    Participant

    I guess somehow you don’t owe H.R. Giger any money to use his IP. Not until the law catches up to all this piracy, LOL. The free ChatGPT version doesn’t seem to generate midi files anymore. Perhaps the music lawyers are on it already.

    I’m not sure an artist or business can protect their style legally. Go on Amazon and shop for guitars and you’ll see guitars that look at first glance like Fenders or Gibsons, and indeed may be identical in almost every respect. Fender, as far as I can tell, has only been able to protect the shape of the headstock, so most of the “clones” vary that part a wee bit. Gibson has tried to protect the general shape of its single cutout body, with little success as far as I can tell. There’s no particular aspect of a Gibson guitar distinctive enough to protect other than their name on the headstock, and this is something the clone-makers avoid, putting their own brand logo there in its place.

    I think one is free to borrow a general style. To write poetry in the style of e.e. cummings or paint in the style of Jackson Pollock or design a car in the style of Pininfarina, for example.

    #55713

    _Robert_
    Participant

    I guess somehow you don’t owe H.R. Giger any money to use his IP. Not until the law catches up to all this piracy, LOL. The free ChatGPT version doesn’t seem to generate midi files anymore. Perhaps the music lawyers are on it already.

    I’m not sure an artist or business can protect their style legally. Go on Amazon and shop for guitars and you’ll see guitars that look at first glance like Fenders or Gibsons, and indeed may be identical in almost every respect. Fender, as far as I can tell, has only been able to protect the shape of the headstock, so most of the “clones” vary that part a wee bit. Gibson has tried to protect the general shape of its single cutout body, with little success as far as I can tell. There’s no particular aspect of a Gibson guitar distinctive enough to protect other than their name on the headstock, and this is something the clone-makers avoid, putting their own brand logo there in its place. I think one is free to borrow a general style. To write poetry in the style of e.e. cummings or paint in the style of Jackson Pollock or design a car in the style of Pininfarina, for example.

    If it is apparent that the image of a copyrighted painting was an input to an algorithm, you have probably violated the creator. However, the laws are behind the times and AI databases that “rip-off” IP will be dealt with in the future.

    Incidentally, AI generated art cannot be copywrited as no human created it, LOL.

    #55721

    Unseen
    Participant

    If it is apparent that the image of a copyrighted painting was an input to an algorithm, you have probably violated the creator. However, the laws are behind the times and AI databases that “rip-off” IP will be dealt with in the future.

    Incidentally, AI generated art cannot be copywrited as no human created it, LOL.

    That’s a paradoxical statement. If I take what you said literally I’m both liable for referring the copyrighted work to the AI but not liable because the AI (“no human”) created.

    #55792

    unapologetic
    Participant

    If I take what you said literally I’m both liable for referring the copyrighted work to the AI but not liable because the AI (“no human”) created.

    I take that to mean that I (a third party) can use the generated art any way I want with no liability. As if in Public Domain. It is different from the original, so I’m not infringing on the original creator. And you have no IP claim, so I am not infringing on yours.

     

    #55796

    Unseen
    Participant

    The word “different” is key to IP claims, and yet it doesn’t mean much at all without some definitional narrowing of the meaning for a particular purpose.

    For example, even two guitars made by Fender, identical part numbers from their catalog, are different if only because they don’t occupy the same space. This one’s here, that one’s over there.

    #55797

    _Robert_
    Participant

    I’m sure legal departments all over the place are working hard to protect creators and IP owners from AI rehash. Trouble is that tech departments are always a step ahead of them. And of course, patents, copyright and trademark protection are all very different. For instance, the complexity in licensing music for reproduction, publishing, distribution and play tracking, and sampling by other artists is crazy. And then there are all sorts of legal loopholes such as “fair use”. Eventually I would not be surprised if Spotify ends up having to remove thousands of releases if “IP sniffing AI” finds that “generative AI” used samples in an illegal manner. Probably be some high level precedents set in the next few years.

    #55798

    Unseen
    Participant

    In blues music, there’s a long tradition of borrowing melodic and lyrical phrases, and in music generally, there are only so many ways to create a musical phrase. I think it’s becoming harder and harder to “own” one’s own music anymore. A performance/recording, yes, but to into a court and  claim that a melody is original and never been strung together before and is thus original and worthy of protectionist be getting harder and harder, especially with the computer tools now available to search through music for resemblances or duplications.

    #55799

    _Robert_
    Participant

    Led Zeppelin is one of the greatest bands no doubt, but if you take a signature riff or vocal melody, you should acknowledge it, even if you modify it a bit. Now the “Stairway” question, I agree with the courts, however I still have no doubt they lifted the progression from Spirit, who they toured with. They didn’t really use any signature bits.

    There are infinite songs waiting to be written and it’s fine to use any chord progression you like, just don’t copy hooks. We will see in the future if you can reuse someone’s AI created “voice”, such as Elvis’s, legally.

Viewing 12 posts - 16 through 27 (of 27 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.