Ask HN: Genuine confusion over AI generated fake Disney Pixar movie posters

[yeetard]

1.) How does this work from a technological standpoint? There have only been 27 Pixar feature films.

2.) Why Disney-Pixar in particular? Why not Dreamworks, Illuminatiom entertainmemt...

3.) Is this just an attempt to ruin the reputation of the Pixar brand? Genuine question because I don't get how they could have allowed something like this https://i0.wp.com/www.piratesandprincesses.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/caust.png?fit=800%2C519&ssl=1 or that one https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2F9j5vugqof6tb1.jpg%3Fwidth%3D1280%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3Da5ff469ccc942d9ad6e846d0cb6484508cd5e9bc slide.

4.) Is there even any interpretation that would allow this to be seen as anything different than industrial style IP infringement?

[smoldesu]

Note: I am not an expert :)

> How does this work from a technological standpoint? There have only been 27 Pixar feature films.

From the start, imaging AI's capability has been largely around style transfer. You can take an artist or define a lump group of inspiration, dump it in as a prompt and get a fairly high chance of a good-looking image.

> Why Disney-Pixar in particular? Why not Dreamworks, Illuminatiom entertainmemt...

You tell me. Visually I don't mind Illumination or Dreamworks, but technically they keep their light under a bushel. I do have a bit of background in rendering and 3D CG, and while I loathe Disney/Pixar they generally do a good job presenting technically-impressive frames with well-choreographed shots.

> Is this just an attempt to ruin the reputation of the Pixar brand?

No? Pixar exists, as a company. Same goes for Disney. They've had their content mocked, copied and even used as hate speech for decades now. A lot of people just reach for it because it's recognizable branding.

> Is there even any interpretation that would allow this to be seen as anything different than industrial style IP infringement?

Given that it's noncommercial, yes. There's a good arguement that all of these images are derivative parody works protected by Fair Use, AI-generated or not. The AI-generation legality part is yet-to-be-decided-on, but it will probably err on the side of model freedom. I wager it's too late to draft a bill that changes things this far in the game.

[yeetard]

>They've had their content mocked, copied and even used as hate speech for decades now.

Yeah, by actual PEOPLE not corporations. Even then you aren't allowed to use copyrighted trade marks what the hell??

>There's a good arguement that all of these images are derivative parody works protected by Fair Use, AI-generated or not.

That doesn't even make sense.

>The AI-generation legality part is yet-to-be-decided-on, but it will probably err on the side of model freedom. I wager it's too late to draft a bill that changes things this far in the game.

Hmm، so let's see, it's the entirety of the worlds entertainment and media industry, estimated annual revenue (globally) 2.32 trillion U.S. dollars vs. some startup run by jewish guy that employs less than 400 people.

I agree tho that by now the cat is probably out of the bag and that people will most likely just create their own shitty little models at home and that this will only ever get easier as compute gets cheaper and cheaper.

But do people even realize, do they have the brainpower to understand that AI doesn't mean "independent consciouss mind living in a machine somewhere discovering ideas on its own", that it's in fact much more mundane than that and that in reality what all these models essentially are is just a distributed compression algorithms for digital media?

[smoldesu]

> in reality what all these models essentially are is just a distributed compression algorithms for digital media?

Nope. Here's an easy test for your claims; prove it.

None of your examples are copyrighted works. They resemble copyrighted works, but my so does my framed painting of Super Mario smoking weed. As long as I'm not using it to identically reproduce copyrighted material in full (which is impossible), what is the potential harm here? It is legally protected, unique expression created in parody of a pop culture figure. This isn't even remotely a new concept.

Also, brush up on copyright precedent and Fair Use. It's not the 60s, Pinkertons won't burn down your house for animating Mickey Mouse sucking a dick anymore. Brave new world, huh?

[yeetard]

You can not compare a single instance of whacky artwork created in parody of a pop culture figure to the machine that plagiarizes the work of thousands of people and an artstyle developed over decades.

>what is the potential harm here?

Like, harm to whom? Short term, for the viewer: none. The brand reputation aspect I have already mentioned. Mid-term it's media getting boring and predictable. Long term it's culture dying and all attempts at authentic human expression through art drowning in AI generated slop. That's more of a spiritual thing.

[smoldesu]

> You can not compare a single instance of whacky artwork created in parody of a pop culture figure to the machine that plagiarizes the work of thousands of people

Sure I can; Author's Guild vs. Google inc.

[barneygale]

> Is there even any interpretation that would allow this to be seen as anything different than industrial style IP infringement?

Parody is protected by copyright law

[yeetard]

There isn't a human in the loop.

[smoldesu]

Does it matter? When Google automated the scanning and digitization of millions of books for searching purposes, they were awarded Fair Use[0] protection despite using an automated system to derive unauthorized digital copies of copyright-encumbered material.

AI is clearly more derivative than that. It's too early to call for sure, but it's hard to imagine what a "victory" for copyright holders even looks like at this point.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,....

[yeetard]

I don't know, what I do know is that every book on Google Books worth reading is behind a paywall

[smoldesu]

Yes. This is because they cannot provide you the full text of the book; that would be illegal.

They can provide you a snippet, within the legal limits of what they are able to reproduce. They can also direct you to buy a copy of it through them, if the publisher has a deal with Google. Seeing as all roads lead to Rome... most books in Google Books are also available for purchase through Google. Funny system.

[yeetard]

If OpenAI did the same with Dall-e (provide you a snippet, within the legal limits of what they are able to reproduce. They can also direct you to buy a copy of it through them, if the publisher has a deal with [them]) things would be different.

[GaggiX]

>How does this work from a technological standpoint? There have only been 27 Pixar feature films.

That's plenty of frames to learn the style from, also there are many animated film that are not from Disney, when you sample from the model it will use the knowledge that it has acquired from all the images, not just the Disney ones.

[yeetard]

Still not legal right? I can kinda get posters but unless they aquired the right to every single frame in every single movie they used... Google can't show you links to streaming websites. Get caught making a camrip you go to fucking jail.

Don't get how any of this is allowed to happen. I mean, is Disney just retarded? They do realize that once Dall-e video edition gets released they're going to not have a business anymore, right?

[GaggiX]

I don't know why you're taking this to such a personal level, but the images are clearly parody, so in no way illegal.

[yeetard]

The trademarks

[bpiche]

Reminds me of the Lana del Rey Pixar album covers