Re: Fair Use? I Think Not
"Which is a simplistic statement and, as given, is also true for every one of the "fair use" exemptions - satire, critical review etc."
ChatGPT does not restrict it's output to such uses. In any case the derivative work happens much earlier in the process, when the model is updated as a result of being trained on the work in question. The secondary derivatives are largely irrelevant except to show that the model itself is clearly derivative of its inputs
" Not sure that "spark of creativity" has a legal meaning?"
Literally the basis of copyright protection in the US
Copyright is originality and fixation
Works are original when they are independently created by a human author and have a minimal degree of creativity. Independent creation simply means that you create it yourself, without copying. The Supreme Court has said that, to be creative, a work must have a “spark” and “modicum” of creativity.
"And the "netflux" logo example is showing decent Fair Use, btw. So in that case, it was all working ok."
In what context is this fair use? I go to ChatGPT and ask it for a logo for a company with a name , it produces a copyright and trademarked image being used as logo for a similarly named company . If I go on to use that logo, is this fair use? Why is chatgpt able to reproduce this logo in this circumstance if it wont reproduce it if I ask to directly?
How is it fair use for a literal copy of this logo to exist somewhere in the dataset inside chatgpt and be produced on demand, without attribution or copyright notice, to a query, and presumably be used as a basis for producing logos in general in answer to similar queries.