Asking ChatGPT-4: If Midjourney is not a licensee, what could the ramifications be and will the Fair Use doctrine be of help to them?
Legal action could lead to significant financial consequences such as damages awarded to copyright holders, legal fees & potential settlements. Fair Use is not a blanket defense & can be unpredictable
Question 1 of 4 for ChatGPT-4: Please read the article “Generative AI Has a Visual Plagiarism Problem - Experiments with Midjourney and DALL-E 3 show a copyright minefield” and tell me what it says.
ChatGPT-4’s answer:
The article "Generative AI Has a Visual Plagiarism Problem" from IEEE Spectrum, authored by Gary Marcus and Reid Southen, discusses the concerns of visual plagiarism in generative AI, particularly focusing on systems like Midjourney and DALL-E 3. The authors highlight the ability of these AI systems to generate images that closely resemble copyrighted material, even without explicit prompts to do so.
The key points covered in the article include:
Plagiaristic Outputs: It's shown that generative AI systems can produce outputs that are nearly identical to existing copyrighted materials. The article cites various examples where AI systems, without being directly asked, have created images closely resembling scenes from movies, characters from video games, and cartoons like The Simpsons.
Legal and Ethical Concerns: The potential for copyright infringement is a significant issue. The article references the lawsuit filed by The New York Times against OpenAI as an example of the legal challenges these technologies might face. It argues that the existence of such outputs could lead to significant financial and legal implications for the field of generative AI.
Training Data and Transparency: The article raises concerns about the transparency of AI companies regarding their training data. It questions whether copyrighted materials are being used without proper licensing and consent in the training of these AI systems.
User Risks: End-users of these AI services might inadvertently produce infringing materials without their knowledge. This raises concerns about the responsibility and potential legal risks for users.
Possible Solutions: The authors suggest that the cleanest solution would be to retrain image-generating models without using copyrighted materials or to ensure the use of properly licensed datasets. However, they acknowledge the challenges in implementing such solutions.
Future of Generative AI: The article concludes with a broader perspective on the ethical use of copyrighted material in training AI and the need for AI alignment to human values. It calls for generative AI developers to document their data sources more carefully, restrict their training to properly licensed data, and compensate artists for their work.
Overall, the article emphasizes the need for careful consideration of copyright and ethical issues in the development and use of generative AI technologies.
Question 2 of 4 for ChatGPT-4: Is it likely that Midjourney is a licensee in relation to this content?
ChatGPT-4’s answer:
The article "Generative AI Has a Visual Plagiarism Problem" from IEEE Spectrum does not specifically mention whether Midjourney is a licensee of the copyrighted content used in its training data. It focuses more broadly on the issues of potential copyright infringement and visual plagiarism in generative AI systems, including Midjourney and DALL-E 3, without delving into the specifics of licensing agreements for each company.
In general, whether a generative AI company like Midjourney has licensing agreements for the content used in its training data is a matter that would typically be known only to the company and its partners. Licensing agreements, especially in the field of AI, can be complex and are often not publicly disclosed in detail. The article raises concerns about the transparency of AI companies regarding their training data, but it does not provide concrete information on the licensing status of specific companies like Midjourney.
For the most accurate and updated information regarding Midjourney's licensing status, it would be necessary to refer to official statements or disclosures made by Midjourney or to conduct legal inquiries into their licensing agreements.
Question 3 of 4 for ChatGPT-4: If Midjourney is not a licensee, what could the ramifications be and will the Fair Use doctrine be of help to them?
ChatGPT-4’s answer:
If Midjourney is not a licensee for the copyrighted content used in its training data, there could be several ramifications, and the applicability of the Fair Use doctrine would depend on various factors:
Legal Challenges: Without proper licensing, Midjourney could face legal challenges for copyright infringement. This could include lawsuits from copyright holders claiming that their intellectual property rights have been violated.
Financial Implications: Legal action could lead to significant financial consequences, such as damages awarded to copyright holders, legal fees, and potential settlements.
Reputation and Trust: Facing copyright infringement accusations can harm a company's reputation and trust among users and partners. It may lead to a loss of confidence in the company's ethical practices and adherence to legal standards.
Operational Changes: The company might need to modify its AI models, potentially retraining them without using unlicensed copyrighted materials. This could affect the performance and capabilities of the AI system.
Fair Use Considerations: Whether Fair Use could be a defense for Midjourney would depend on several factors:
Purpose and Character: The transformative nature of the AI's use of the copyrighted material, whether it's for commercial or non-commercial purposes.
Nature of the Copyrighted Work: How the original works are used and the implications for the market value of those works.
Amount and Substantiality: The quantity and value of the copyrighted material used relative to the original work.
Effect on the Potential Market: Whether the AI's use of the content adversely affects the market for or value of the copyrighted material.
The Fair Use doctrine is complex and highly context-specific. Courts evaluate Fair Use claims on a case-by-case basis, considering these factors among others. It's not a blanket defense and can be unpredictable in litigation.
Given these complexities, companies like Midjourney would need to carefully consider their approach to using copyrighted material in their AI models, possibly seeking legal advice and potentially exploring licensing opportunities to mitigate these risks.
Question 4 of 4 for ChatGPT-4: How could Midjourney have prevented this situation from happening in the first place?
ChatGPT-4’s answer:
To prevent situations related to potential visual plagiarism or copyright infringement, companies like Midjourney could take several proactive steps:
Clear Licensing Agreements: Establish clear licensing agreements for all content used in training their AI models. This involves obtaining permissions from copyright holders, which may include artists, photographers, publishers, or other content creators.
Ethical Sourcing of Training Data: Ensure that the training data is ethically sourced. This means using datasets that are either in the public domain, have Creative Commons licenses, or are created specifically for training purposes with proper permissions.
Transparency and Documentation: Maintain transparency about the sources of their training data. Documenting and disclosing the origins of the data can help in establishing trust and compliance with legal standards.
Content Filtering and Moderation: Implement robust content filtering systems to detect and exclude copyrighted materials from the training process. This might include using technology to identify and remove such content automatically.
Community and Artist Engagement: Engage with the artistic and creative communities to understand their concerns and perspectives. Collaborations or partnerships with these communities can lead to more responsible AI development.
Legal and Ethical Advisory: Consult with legal experts and ethicists during the development process. They can provide guidance on complex issues related to copyright, intellectual property, and ethical AI development.
Research on Fair Use and AI: Invest in legal research to understand the boundaries of Fair Use in the context of AI, especially since this is a rapidly evolving area of law.
Regular Audits and Updates: Conduct regular audits of their AI models and training datasets to ensure ongoing compliance with copyright laws and ethical standards.
Public Awareness and Education: Educate users about the potential for generating content that may infringe on copyrights and provide guidelines for ethical use.
Contingency Planning: Develop contingency plans to address potential legal challenges, including strategies for litigation, settlement, or retraining of AI models.
By taking these proactive measures, companies can significantly reduce the risk of legal issues and contribute to the responsible development and use of AI technologies.
