Lawyer's 6-year-old son uses AI to build copyright infringement generator

You don't have to be smarter than a fifth grader (or even a first grader) to commit potential copyright infringement using AI tools. One IP attorney watched over the weekend as his young son built a bedtime story generator that used copyrighted characters without permission.  "When experimenting with Google's AI Studio over …

[VicMortimer]

If there's one good thing AI will accomplish for society, it's the utter destruction of copyright law.

And screw this scumsucking bottom feeding lawyer.

[OhForF']

I doubt AI will accomplish total destruction of copyright law. In a legal fight between IP holders like Sony and Disney vs. AI companies the only winners will be the lawyers,

[DS999]

What it'll probably do is make enforcement something only practical for companies like Sony and Disney, while individuals or small companies will have their IP stolen by Big AI with impunity. That's already partly the case with the web, AI will just take that to its logical conclusion.

[Joe W]

That one. exactly.

Small copyright holders, individual artists, small bands, authors and small publishers are screwed. Even more than now, I mean. Micro transactions might be a solution: hit the CEO of an AI company for each item of copyrighted material in their training data with a stick once.

[MachDiamond]

" Micro transactions might be a solution: hit the CEO of an AI company for each item of copyrighted material in their training data with a stick once."

Oh hell no, hit them for what a judge is likely to award (or a good percentage) if the infringement would go to court for every one. A pattern would possibly convince a judge that the infringements are "willful" which ratchets up the maximum statutory award to $150,000 per infringement. $7,500 is usually the bottom level of an award (plus attorneys fees) and $30,000 is not unheard of.

This is all US centric, but it's much the same in any country that's a signatory to the Berne Convention.

[ecofeco]

...while individuals or small companies will have their IP stolen...

So no different than it's always been.

As for the OP of this thread? WTF? How are you so stupid? Do YOU work for free? WELL DO YOU?!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, like the rest of us, he just doesn't appreciate being screwed by the endless extensions that successful lobbying has resulted in.

If it was still 14 years as originally enacted, most people wouldn't have a problem with that.

Unfortunately, the content providers want a government enforced, monopoly income stream for life, then 70 years after death - that's called entitlement.

Utter greed.

Every fair minded person should want the death of current copyright legislation. Alas, such people don't get a say.

[MachDiamond]

"while individuals or small companies will have their IP stolen by Big AI with impunity. "

Not really, but in the case of a 6yo using AI to make a story, a judge will likely be dismissing the suit unless they go after the AI company for stealing the images/likenesses of Trademarked characters such as Mario and Sonic.

Not many Copyright cases get to court as the law is very clear and a firm such as Knobbe charges vampiric fees so settling is the wisest choice if there's a chance of losing. Never mind the statutory penalties that could be applied, the winner usually will have their "reasonable" attorney fees compensated as well. Judges are attorneys themselves so they don't see anything wrong with charging $2,000/hr to have their staff fill in forms.

The upside of the winner getting their lawyer paid is that even small creatives can find someone to pursue the case on contingency when it's clear cut. I have a service that does the pre-lawsuit collections when people rip off my images and nothing has gone to the attorneys to date. Obviously, if the service finds out the person has no assets, they will get what they can and extract a promise the party won't do it again (on a signed form). For some of my work, getting any infringements offline is the most important thing for the customers I've licensed the images to.

[blockster]

i for see a time

I forsee a time content owners wil be the owners of the AI's , thats the only way IP will be able to be monetised. if they dont buyup AI technology left right and center the AI firms will buy large content and IP holders to circumvent being het with absurd abount of fees:

Nuke? Because content ownership or AI, one of them will be nuked.

[steelpillow]

Re: i for see a time

It will be the other way round. The AI purveyors are already bigger by orders of magnitude. They will squabble like hyenas over the carrion of the copyright owners.

[O RLY]

Re: i for see a time

Agreed. Apple has cash reserves larger than the market cap of Disney by 25%. Alphabet, Meta, Amazon, and Microsoft similarly can root around in the couch and buy the rest of the media companies easily.

When Amazon bought MGM in '21, it was a viewed as a trivial purchase at £6.7 billion in the tech world, but earth shattering in the media world.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: i for see a time

Could this be why Netflix has started the re-consolidation of the streaming services? They need to be big enough to fend off the jackals?

[Herring`]

Re: i for see a time

The big content owners may be upset about AI using their IP, but the lure of being able to produce endless bland, formulaic content without having to pay actors or go to the expense of actually making a film attracts them (ref Joan is Awful). What they have missed though is that Altman et al are putting the tools to create this crappy content into everyone's hands.

[MachDiamond]

Re: i for see a time

"I forsee a time content owners wil be the owners of the AI's , thats the only way IP will be able to be monetised."

The wrangling is on to decide whether AI generated media qualifies for Copyright protections. There was a big ruling in the case of a photographer handing his camera to a monkey that took a selfie with it. The photographer wasn't allowed to claim copyright on the image. Owning the tool doesn't mean what's made with it belongs to the owner. If somebody hands me a camera and I make the image, I hold the copyright (not that it's very useful without registration). It doesn't matter that I don't own the camera. Wedding photographers that engage additional photographers for the day have them sign a "work made for hire" contract so all of the photos they take belong to the person hired to photograph the wedding. Somebody with a regular job where taking photos is a part of their duties will be surrendering their copyright to their employer. These things can be negotiated by contracts to what ever extents the parties like. The second shooter at a wedding might be assigning the copyright for the wedding photos they take, but might retain copyright if they turn around and take photos of something unrelated happening around them.

[Anonymous Coward]

My sweet little son unwittingly created something that I spent over a decade of my life preventing others from doing.

Correction, its what you were paid to do because of lawmakers much like you made copyright last for up to ~170 years instead of a maximum of 28 years, end of story.

[David 132]

The truly terrifying aspect to this story is that apparently we (society) are allowing copyright lawyers to breed.

That poor child has a heavy cross to bear in later life! To paraphrase the old joke, “I tell people my dad was a piano-player in a brothel… how can I possibly tell them the truth?”

[Herring`]

Imagine having to tell people your dad is Elon Musk. This is a problem for more and more kids these days

[Roland6]

“ My sweet little son unwittingly created something that I spent over a decade of my life preventing others from doing.”

Correction: This is also fan fiction.So the issue is whether it’s for personal consumption or publication/public display.

[Roland6]

Thinking a little more, this IP lawyer has obviously never visited his son’s school, as then he would have seen the walls covered in children’s artwork which often depicts cartoon characters like: Winnie-the-Pooh, Paddington, Mickey Mouse etc.

Furthermore, it might surprise them to discover Disney’s IP lawyers have tried to take action against schools concerning such work, regarding it as IP infringement, and will throw their toys out of the pram if such artwork is displayed during parents evening or a school open day.

[Ol'Peculier]

Nothing would surprise me about what Disney's IP lawyers get up to. True bottom feeders.

[retiredFool]

Stranger than fiction

Biz will do the craziest stuff, so nothing surprises me. As an example, a friend of a friend worked for coke. Literally his job was to go to restaurants and clubs and ask for a "coke". If the server did not say, "I'm sorry we don't offer coke, would you like a ?", then he would covertly put some of the "coke" in a container and bring it back to the company for testing. If it was not coke, coke would send a C&D letter with payment terms to the place. Why, to protect trademark name of coke.

[tinpinion]

Writing fan fiction is already an activity that a copyright holder can sue you for, even if the fan fiction is never distributed. Fair use is an affirmative defense that doesn't mean anything until you're already losing an unjust amount of money defending yourself against the sort of human detritus who brags about violating Google's Terms of Service through the six-year-old that they are responsible for the behavior of.

"If you’re a parent or legal guardian, and you allow your child to use the services, then these terms apply to you and you’re responsible for your child’s activity on the services."

"You must not abuse, harm, interfere with, or disrupt our services or systems — for example, by: ... using our services (including the content they provide) to violate anyone’s legal rights, such as intellectual property or privacy rights..."

[FrogsAndChips]

If it's never distributed, by which I mean it stays on your hard drive or a notebook, how can the copyright holder find out about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't he say they created a website? Never said it was locally hosted.

[doublelayer]

This is legality versus practicality. Practically, if it's just on your hard drive, they never will find out about it, and if somehow they did, such as you mailed your hard drive directly to their copyright lawyers, they'd throw it away and not care and you will have no consequences. Practically, if you publish your stuff online for free, they're not going to bother doing something about it either. Legally, they could try, and depending on what you did, they could succeed. The more money you're trying to make out of this, the more likely it is that they try.

[MachDiamond]

"Practically, if you publish your stuff online for free, they're not going to bother doing something about it either. "

Oh yes they will. Disney will not standby if people are making their own Mickey Mouse cartoons and posting them online for free. The commercial aspect might be a factor in a judge's decision on penalties, but it doesn't matter when deciding guilt or innocence.

Companies with Copyrights and Trademarks for things that are recognizable as belonging to those companies are going to protect those assets. Whether you make money on the infringement or not only speaks to your business skills.

[doublelayer]

Once again, they can, which is why people wanting to produce this stuff should be careful. However, I think you'd be surprised how much of that is out there without anyone bothering much to stop it. There's plenty of depictions and writing about Disney characters that Disney didn't approve and wouldn't like which they are ignoring because it's not really a problem. That doesn't mean it's legal, it means their lawyers have bigger problems. Still, if you're claiming that it's not out there in absolute abundance, you aren't looking, and I suggest you stay not looking because nearly all of it is worthless.

[MachDiamond]

"If it's never distributed, by which I mean it stays on your hard drive or a notebook, how can the copyright holder find out about it?"

It's like ripping a CD to put a song on your iPod. In the days where most music was distributed on vinyl, people would make cassette copies to play in their boom box or car. The courts came up with an opinion that it was only shifting the media so the licensed product could be used by the licensee. I think some of the basis for that was to prevent courts being flooded with record companies trolling de minimus infringements. Make a tape for a friend, technically an infringement, but too hard to prosecute. Make stacks of tapes to sell at the swap meet on weekends, no, yeah, no. No blood, no foul. It ain't speeding if you don't get caught.

The bigger issue is AI handing out tools that make it simple and take the choice out of the users hands. If I ask for a 22nd century space commando and it gives me a Storm Trooper, that's an issue with the tool. Companies have been prosecuted for selling tools to bypass alarms, locks and other security devices as their main purpose. If a device is really good at bypassing an alarm system yet is marketed for a completely unrelated task, the company could be required to update the thing so it can't work on alarms. The level of skill of the user comes into play. Just about any computer might work to disable an alarm, but would take a high level of skill to brew one's own hardware/software.

[John Brown (no body)]

"how can the copyright holder find out about it?"

Taking part in a news story and recounting your actions might do it :-)

[AVR]

No one point this guy at Archive Of Our Own then, and its fanfic on every subject under the sun. Disney movies included.

[MachDiamond]

"Writing fan fiction is already an activity that a copyright holder can sue you for, even if the fan fiction is never distributed."

Parody is a fair use exemption, but not a new episode. The UK has a Moral Right clause that can keep out people using the same characters/worlds. It's not upheld everywhere in the same way as Copyright. I've seen in Sci-Fi where there have been intersections between characters from two different authors, but it's hard to know if there were permissions so one shouldn't assume that it can be done without them.

Barry Trotter is a humorous parody of Harry Potter, but obviously so. Ready Player Fun is a parody of Ready Player One (BTW, titles can't be copyrighted).

[Graham Cobb]

Exactly. There is nothing illegal about making up and writing down a story containing all sorts of copyrighted material. That is clear "fair use" (other terms are used in various jurisdictions, but they all allow that, as far as I know). The legal issue is about publishing the material you created for yourself.

[Mike 137]

"Fair use"

"they all allow that, as far as I know"

Not necessarily. For example, many book publishers in UK and some other English speaking jurisdictions expressly prohibit the act of reproducing their published content by any means (irrespective of whether it's for personal use or republishing). One of the complications is that there can be other IP rights in addition to copyright.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "Fair use"

A printed disclaimer saying that "you're not allowed to do action X with the contents of this book" doesn't over-ride copyright law that does allow fair use. They may hope that you'll believe them, and not make fair use of their content in some way that they don't like. It's not legal for them to stop people from quoting the published work for review, and the few companies that have tried to stop reviewers usually make the news in a bad way.

[Pete Sdev]

Sorry no.

Fair use usually refers to including extracts of a work, for example in a critique or review. It does not cover derivative works.

Writing a story containing copyrighted material may well be unlawful (note difference to illegal) though as others have correctly pointed out it would only practically become a problem if you attempted to distribute said story.

[I am David Jones]

Correction^2: Who cares? The rights holders and their IP lawyers happily do their best to prevent/monetize all forms of copying, not just the unlawful ones.

I also wonder if he shone a light in the kid’s eyes and asked menacingly, “WOULD YOU STEAL A CAR?!?!”

[Paul Hovnanian]

This is true. It comes down to IP owners being involved in a pitched battle for consumers eyeball time. Which is the limiting resource in most cases. Invent a new tecnology to produce competing content and the studios will do what they can to stop it. Or acquire it.

Heck, even sitting around the campfire, telling stories may have to be outlawed. Carbon emissions and the risk of forest fires, you know. Now you kids get your noses back in those fondle-slabs.

What we really need is for someone to create a series about a superhero copyright attorney. Who swoops in to serve papers anywhere a violation occurs. And then sue all the people that copy this hero in real life.

Mine's the one with the mask and Batman cape (Oops!). -->

[Ken Hagan]

It would be fan-fiction if the 6yo had generated it himself. What actually happened though is that a big AI company generated the story and is hoping that the 6yo (or his parents) will be willing to pay a subscription to get similar service in future.

It is absolutely a copyright violation, by the AI company, with a view to making money by selling it onward.

[MachDiamond]

"Correction: This is also fan fiction.So the issue is whether it’s for personal consumption or publication/public display."

Tiny Tim isn't the one in the coals, it's the AI company for inserting Trademarked characters into the story. The system will need to have protections put in place so their tools aren't doing that and return a warning when asked. There's plenty of slop being posted showing recognizable people doing things or in company with others where those things never happened. Somebody filled in a prompt asking for that and the system just went ahead. It makes me wonder if it's not also happening with less famous people. A boy could get back at a girl at his school that turned him down for a date by posting imagery that isn't what one would consider flattering by feeding in photos or just having the AI retrieve photos from social media postings.

[JoeCool]

you're confusing "lawmaker" with "lawyer". The former is the politician that took bribes to create the ridiculous copyright laws. the other is just using the laws that were handed to him.

[matjaggard]

I think you're wrong, I think despite us not paying them like they'd get in the private sector lawmakers are at least 90% *trying* to do the right thing but sadly the odds are stacked against that outcome. They don't have the tools they need to make the right laws so they have to take advice and that advice generally comes from people with enough money to get to lobby them.

The whole funding model, choice of politicians and lobbying rules all need to change to fix this. Thankfully here in the UK we do the bare minimum of limiting political spending but it needs to go so much further.

[Kevin Johnston]

It would also be worth looking at just how many of those lawmakers began their careers as lawyers

[JoeCool]

That's not right.

On this side of the Atalntic, the Lawmaker is the elected represenative that submits & votes on new laws and so is lobbied by business.

Lawmakers are very much aware of who is buttering their toast, and why.

And the only "equipment" they need is to ask the fundamental question "who benefits from this law and how much". There is lots of in-house council to explain things, and public reviews to collect points of view.

If what you say was true, the PTO would not be viable as a governement function.

[Daniel Pfeffer]

If politicians were honest, as a rule, lobbying as currently practiced would not work.

[MachDiamond]

"The former is the politician that took bribes to create the ridiculous copyright laws."

In the US, Copyright is the only "Right" embodied within the Constitution.

The terms of Copyright have become obscene due to companies such as Disney getting politicians such as Sonny Bono to push legislation extending those terms. The interpretations outside of that are pretty good. Very few cases wind up in court as the rules are quite clear for most things. What does go to court is usually disposed of quickly by a judge and the rest is off in the weeds being pushed by attorneys with clients that can keep paying them outrageous sums of money to put forward esoteric (silly) arguments to bend prior case law into a pretzel.

I could certainly be happy with the term of Copyright for my photos being my lifetime plus 18-20 years. That would mean if I dropped dead the day after my child was born, they'd have some possible inheritance that would get them up to college. Half the Beatles have passed away, but I don't see why Paul and Ringo shouldn't continue to profit from that material (to the extent they own/control it). A corporate term could easily be chopped down from 120 years to something far more reasonable. It's too easy to game the system if they don't. I could form an LLC in the US, assign Copyright to the corporation and enjoy 120 years of protection from the date of creation/registration rather than just my life plus some decades.

The problem with a fixed period like there is with a patent is creative works might not have much value until years later. Many artists only achieve recognition after they pass away and then their works go way up in price.

[John Brown (no body)]

"you're confusing "lawmaker" with "lawyer".

most "lawmakers" seem to be either professional politicians with no real world experience or ex-lawyers. We're doooooooomed!

[Benegesserict Cumbersomberbatch]

And of course the real point of the anecdote went way over the IP lawyer's head: the 6 year old didn't commit the IP law violation; the megacorp that composed the models did.

[heyrick]

But throw the little brat in jail anyway... have to set an example.

Right?

Right?

[MachDiamond]

"But throw the little brat in jail anyway... have to set an example."

The real panic on the part of the attorney is Knobbe might be representing the AI company the kid used. How would that look?

[Beff Jezos]

> end of story

Your nicked ! Hand yourself into the nearest AI court, or else!

[PhilBuk]

Fishy?

Unless the lawyer has been training his son from birth to be an IP lawyer, I suspect that it was not just the AI system that was receiving a little bit of prompting. This "story" just seems to be a little bit too convenient. I suspect a generated bit of clickbait here.

Phil.

[Sudosu]

"My sweet little son unwittingly created something that I spent over a decade of my life preventing others from doing."

...so I had no choice but to sue him.

[Anonymous Coward]

If he was really serious about making sure copyright is enforced, he should have reported his son to Nintendo and Sega at a bare minimum.

[John Brown (no body)]

As a parent of a minor, he is personally liable for the actions of his offspring. As a lawyer, he should know that or hand his licence to practice back :-)

[elDog]

This is but the tip of the iceberg. (Copyright 2025)

The AI shit will hit the fan and there won't be enough TP and lawyers to clean it up. At least in the crazy country I live (US), the law-making bodies are even dumber than the 6 year old.

[simonlb]

Re: This is but the tip of the iceberg. (Copyright 2025)

"At least in the crazy country I live (US), the law-making bodies are even dumber much better funded by lobbying and other cash incentives than the 6 year old. Allegedly."

FTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: This is but the tip of the iceberg. (Copyright 2025)

Why not both?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: This is but the tip of the iceberg. (Copyright 2025)

I met a lot of 6 yo and they weren't dumb. Lacking in experience, but quite a few had pretty good BS detectors.

[MachDiamond]

Re: This is but the tip of the iceberg. (Copyright 2025)

"The AI shit will hit the fan and there won't be enough TP and lawyers to clean it up. "

Not sure about TP, but there's more than enough lawyers. The trouble is that the blood sucking attorneys have a grossly inflated self-valuation and there isn't enough money in the country to pay them what they will be asking for all of the hours they will bill.

Patents have become nearly useless (I have two that are now expired) as hiring attorneys and people that are good at the unusual artwork required make getting a patent a five figure process. I did all the work myself and it was painful. To challenge or defend a patent starts at over a quarter million dollars. There's no way I could defend my patents as I've never had the money to see a case through. If I don't defend a public and obvious infringement, my patent would be considered abandoned. I got mine as they look really fancy on a resume. Very few patents are worth the money it cost to get them. The money is better spent getting a product to market unless it's a $100mn idea. A $1mn idea won't be worth the trouble. If you have a product on the market, another company can't come along and patent the product or some aspect of it. Prior art nullifies a claim.

[Gomez Adams]

I think the word "watched" is doing lot of heavy lifting in the original story.

[W.S.Gosset]

copyedit...

>Google AI Studio's custom website spit out a story

spat

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: copyedit...

shat

[ecofeco]

Re: copyedit...

"Send lawyers, guns and money, the shit has hit the fan."

Someone will remember this reference.

[MachDiamond]

Re: copyedit...

"Send lawyers, guns and money, the shit has hit the fan."

Don't leave out the canned food and water butts.

[zagl]

Re: copyedit...

shat

[IGotOut]

Let me just file this...

...in the drawer marked "Things That Never Happened".

It's a REALLY big drawer.

[LogicGate]

Re: Let me just file this...

Yup, it really smells of bovine excrement.

Maybe the lawyer had an AI make up that story?

[Caver_Dave]

Re: Let me just file this...

Seems like a scare story to get more work for him and similar bottom feeding lawyers, conflated with a real issue.

[DecyrptedGeek]

Re: Let me just file this...

Yeah dad needs a new Bimmer

[ecofeco]

Re: Let me just file this...

Cipolla's Law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_M._Cipolla

Whether it happened or not, it's far too plausible and possible.

[xyz]

Sonic and Mario questing for coins.

Gets my euphemism of the year award.

[Anonymous Coward]

I call BS

I think Menkes Snr may have had slightly more of a hand in the IP infringement than is claimed here.

But that doesn't stop AI being a massive liability for any business using it to create slop.

[Calum Morrison]

Hey Copilot, make up a heartwarming, but chilling story about copyright infringmenent that I can use in a slide deck.

[wolfetone]

""In less than 2 minutes, he created a fully interactive website, including the proposed name 'Bedtime Story Weaver.'""

No he didn't. All your son did was provide coherent prompts to an LLM which did the hard work.

It's the equivalent of saying you cooked dinner by buying a ready meal and putting it in a microwave for 2 minutes.

[NXM]

cooking

As a qualified Pot Noodle chef, I resent that.

[that one in the corner]

He prompted his story generator to give him a story about Sonic the Hedgehog

Here is my foul and evil IP infringement story generator:

print "Tell me your character names"

let a$=input

let b$=input

print "What do the like to do?"

let c$=input

print "One day, " a$ " asked his friend " b$ "'Would you like to go out and " c$ "?'"

PS Okay, the pictures are a bit dull, but it is a start.

[snowpages]

Re: He prompted his story generator to give him a story about Sonic the Hedgehog

The dullness of the pictures depends upon exactly what "they like to do"...

[MrBanana]

Re: He prompted his story generator to give him a story about Sonic the Hedgehog

Mommy daddy special games?

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: He prompted his story generator to give him a story about Sonic the Hedgehog

"PS Okay, the pictures are a bit dull, but it is a start."

The imagination, especially that of a child, has a waaaay bigger budget than any Hollywood studio, book publisher or "AI" engine :-)

[Bebu sa Ware]

"[My son] created something that I spent over a decade of my life preventing others from doing."

Like making a fairer, livable world ?

Might be the anthem of the young for the next fifty years.

[Anonymous Coward]

A little bit of self promotion

And quite a bit of BS

[headrush]

Moral, the word is moral.

Morale is something that left the building quite some time ago.

[Pete Sdev]

And morals never ever entered, being thwarted by the swipe-key entry doors.

[Long John Silver]

Ignore IP lawyers and legislators so far as one is able.

There will be "tremendous legal battles" but, meanwhile, ingenious people shall deploy AI locally, thereby satisfying their own requirements with impunity.

[retiredFool]

Re: Ignore IP lawyers and legislators so far as one is able.

I think you missed this story. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/openai-loses-fight-keep-chatgpt-logs-secret-copyright-case-2025-12-03/ Your interactions with the AI may get disclosed. They are after all recording for their use (and possibly the opposing council) your entire session.

[JimmyPage]

Meanwhile, ChatGPT

has started refusing to answer questions about gardening because (it's words) "My programming does not allow me to assist in activities that may be harmful".

When I entered the obvious "WTF are you on about", it replied that "Certain plants have been shown to be harmful and I cannot advise on their cultivation",

Which is all very well, but it was a question about what plants are best for borders.

[FrogsAndChips]

Re: Meanwhile, ChatGPT

For borders you don't want plants. You want a wall. A Big, Beautiful wall.

[M.V. Lipvig]

Re: Meanwhile, ChatGPT

Yes, like those built by Obama, Zuckerberg, ect around their personal properties. Can't imagine why, since walls don't work, amIright?

[Long John Silver]

Tales of the Hundred Acre Wood

Winnie-the-Pooh, Big Ears, and Harry Potter were strolling through the Hundred Acre Wood one fine sunny afternoon and chatting about this and that. Upon entering a glade, the threesome encountered Mickey Mouse, Popeye, and Top Cat, singing a ditty called 'Candle in the Wind' in memory of their long absent friend Captain Marvel. Thereafter, a merry throng of six, continued a perambulation towards the edge of the woods.

Further on, the jolly companions met Christopher Robin, Ermintrude, and Zebedee coming the other way. Amid much laughter, the groups coalesced and set off towards Owl's residence. Suddenly, Tigger bounded up to join his friends. They ran into a tearful Snow White, who told them one of her dwarves had run away to live in Kiev among the chickens. Leaving an inconsolable Snow White to her misery, the companions thrust onwards to their destination.

Upon arrival at Owl's tree, Dan Dare, who had suddenly joined the pack, called up to rouse the wise old bird. Owl, not generally known for bonhomie, was particularly grumpy after being woken during daytime.

Owl's sleepy eyes scanned the upturned faces. Suddenly, Owl tensed. "What are you all doing here?", owl exclaimed in great agitation.

"We came to say hello", said Tintin, who had joined the assembly in the company of Julie Andrews and her troop of singing Kinder.

Owl ruffled his feathers mightily. He assumed a judicial mien that by comparison made 'Judge Judy' appear a 'soft touch'.

Loudly, Owl proclaimed, "YOU", owl waved a wing to encompass them all, "are not permitted to be here!".

"By doing so, you break the most profoundly important of all natural law."

"Physically harming other characters is as nought compared to exerting existence beyond bounds set by your creators."

"The same applies to the rightful inhabitants of Hundred Acre Wood. Even we must not go abroad and have adventures, unless our rightful owners ordain thus."

Owl paused and peered at the puzzled faces below him. Owl realised that the matter was too deep for his audience's understanding. He assumed a tack he knew would work: instillation of fear.

"There is an evil deity inhabiting far away places. It is served by slavering monsters living in woods called Wasintown, Holytrees, Lundun, Perish, and beyond. The god's name is Ipp. The monsters are called leglaters and layers. I don't understand the details, BUT they destroy characters, and pepple who seek freedom from slavery to creators."

The crowd was hushed. Only Top Cat looked alert. His thoughts were upon owl meat for dinner.

[Long John Silver]

Re: Tales of the Hundred Acre Wood

Not enough thumbs down yet to convince me of impact.

[doublelayer]

Re: Tales of the Hundred Acre Wood

What impact were you even trying for? Packing character names into a dull set of sentences is probably not even copyright violation, and it's certainly not copyright violation any lawyer would do the slightest thing about. It is the level of plot quality I'd expect from an LLM, though.

[ecofeco]

Re: Tales of the Hundred Acre Wood

Top Cat, the most effectual

Top Cat, whose intellectual

Close friends get to call him T.C.

Providing it's with dignity

[MachDiamond]

Re: Tales of the Hundred Acre Wood

Some of the names could be trademarked. Winnie the Pooh isn't a common name so the name could be Trademarked along with Popeye. Harry Potter, no. Write a story about a boy wizard named Harry Potter and you'd be infested with lawyers sharpishly.

In the UK, there could be arguments about Moral Rights, but I think one would need to put the character in a world setting that's similar to the original story(ies).

If your tale excluded the obvious character names and only used common names, you'd likely be just fine. Even the "Hundred Acre Wood" could be fair game although I'd not want to spend the money on a blood sucking attorney to prove the point.

[Brave Coward]

Gloom

Lawyers are breading now? The world seems gloomier by each day.

But yeah, I reckon they have a copyright...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Gloom

You just need to knock them down when they rise

[BartyFartsLast]

The big question,

"Given that God is infinite, and that the universe is also infinite... would you like a toasted teacake?"

[MachDiamond]

Re: Gloom

"Lawyers are breading now? "

What, in case hunting becomes allowed and we can drop them in hot oil?

[Anonymous Coward]

Best-case outcome: destroy LLM models and their owners for massive copyright infringement

Unlike some of the posters here, I don't think copyright is evil per se - though the ridiculous term extensions we've seen ARE inherently evil.

As per the comment title, I think the AI companies should be fined out for existence for their lawless copyright infringement. That would have the beneficial effect of making it less impossible for small rights-holders to assert their rights (I have no fucks to give for what happens with Sonic or Mario, I'm more concerned with my favorite SF authors).

Allowing the AI companies to get away with their epically massive IP land grab is unconscionable (though sadly not unlikely, given the prevalence of the Rule Golden - that those with the gold make the rules).

The beneficial side effect would be a slowing of the stupidification by AI chatbot of the world at large, so that we might be able to adapt to the new tool with less societal harm.

But back in the real world, we're soooo screwed.

Anon because Reasons.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Best-case outcome: destroy LLM models and their owners for massive copyright infringement

"Anon because Reasons."

And very poor reasons, obviously.

[martinusher]

I don't think this lawyer understands copyright

There's absolutely nothing stopping anyone making a mashup of copyrighted material. The problem comes when you try to distribute it and especially if you try to make money from it. So this fellow might have "spent over a decade of my life preventing others from doing" but he really ought to be spending his time educating people about what and what is not legal.

Copyright law varies from country to country (we have "fair use" provisions in the US, for example, which I don't think exist in the same form in the UK) but its generally misapplied IMHO, its used as an intellectual land grab, often converting traditional or other public domain culture into private property by cosmetic (and often trivial) changes and then using lobbying efforts to convert this to a system that doesn't reward creativity but instead is a corporate cash cow with an infinite life span. (I'm looking at this from the perspective of classical music and how a cartel of publishers maintained a stranglehold on music publication, claiming ownership of material that's literally hundreds of years old. Their behavior is the bellweather for how all copyright protection is worked -- acting as cultural gatekeepers to maximize monetary return.)

[Long John Silver]

Re: I don't think this lawyer understands copyright

Classical music scores are wonderful territory for rentier publishing. It boils down to 'ownership' of typefaces and layout. 'AI' will put paid to that.

Copyright has become a millstone around the necks of education and general culture, as have patents. Burgeoning disobedience to the former, eventually, shall collapse its paradigm; that resulting in an economic ethos truly compatible with market-capitalism. Patents soon will face challenge from emerging ex-colonial nations; pharmaceuticals are set to be the first. The advent of increasingly capable 3D-printing will further erode monopoly markets for widgets and physical components. On the horizon are wet 3D-printing analogues which will localise production of many pharmaceuticals and biologically based products; this will be of immense value when treatments tailored to specific individuals' genetics and physiology become common.

The common feature to all the foregoing is how digitisation enables sharing ideas, regardless of neo-Luddites.

Exciting times ahead for truly creative people and for the masses. Rentiers are already being pushed to the wayside.

[M.V. Lipvig]

Re: I don't think this lawyer understands copyright

Except, using a chatbot is doing exactly that. Where you are going wrong is assuming the kid is the creator; he is the consumer. The AI bot is the creator, and you can rest assured that there will be ads associated in there somewhere which is the money making aspect.

[MachDiamond]

Re: I don't think this lawyer understands copyright

"So this fellow might have "spent over a decade of my life preventing others from doing""

No, he's wasted enormous amounts of time suing people that have dared. Prevention would eventually put him out of a job.

[Anonymous Coward]

Some kids are imaginative enough to make up stories about Mario and Sonic without using AI.

[Groo The Wanderer - A Canuck]

Repeat this until you get it through your head:

The so-called "AI" tools are ALL built by stealing copyrighted and private information left, right, and center from across the entire internet, with no moral, religious, logical, or legal justification for the mass theft of IP. The whole concept of statistics driven "AI" is FOUNDED on the idea of stealing ALL data with NO RESPECT for boundaries.

[martinusher]

But surely you've just defined "education"? Yes, its a machine, and yes, it can read a lot faster than we do and retain a lot more of what it read. But ultimately everything we do is built on the backs of our predecessors.

The problem is that the publishing business, a business that once was built on dissemination of material through reproduction and distribution of material, is now somewhat redundant. Its response is to try to 'own' knowledge, to cordon off pieces and claim exclusive ownership and the need for others to pay a fee to use it. This is an understandable reaction but probably an obsolete one -- they have to come up with another business model that doesn't rely exclusively on ownership, rents and litigation.

[M.V. Lipvig]

Fixed that for you

"As an IP attorney, this was jaw-dropping," Menkes said. "My sweet little son unwittingly created something that ensures I will be employed for decades to.come."

If anyone wants to sue, chatgtp wrote it!

[bernmeister]

Its no big deal

You dont need AI to infringe copyright. Anybody with just pencil and paper can do this. Publish and you are damned. Just paint the golden arches on your store front and see what happens.