|
|
|
|
|
|
by schkolne
898 days ago
|
|
|
Yeah the infringement (in this old school model) would be if you then used that image as -- say -- the cover of a book or something. Then, it would be analyzed to see if it's "fair use" (satire, etc) or infringement. I guess the question with MJ is -- if I make such a Garfield with MJ, show it to my parents etc., put it on the fridge, is that a problem? prob not. i'm not a lawyer but -- that doesn't seem like I'm infringing. but... did MJ infringe by selling me a subscription that gave me that image for pay? (pay that otherwise Garfield's IP owners might've received) |
|
|
No one is going to sue a child over a drawing on a fridge, though. The PR would be a nightmare, there's no earnings to seize, and it's not cannibalizing the market for the real thing in any way.
Midjourney has issues on a couple of fronts
One is the direct infringement, ie who is the creator? Is it the AI for creating it or the human who entered the prompt? Whoever created it is infringing, but again, probably not worth it to sue Joe Schmoe over it.
The second is that Midjourney hosts all of the images they generate, some of which are infringing. I'm guessing they're trying to use Safe Harbor protections, but I'm a little dubious that they can actually call the output of their own AI "user content". Users are promoting the AI, but Midjourney is still the one generating the content.