AI generated designs on retail products
If you have not heard of OpenAI’s machine learning models DALL·E and DALL·E 2, the link is here: https://openai.com/dall-e-2/. It’s absolutely amazing, and we would suggest you have a go before reading this article.
The prompt “Hamster playing the violin out at sea by Rembrandt” generated this image:
The authors of this article disagree on the aesthetic merits of this particular image, but there is no doubt that DALL-E 2 can create fantastic images with commercial value and use.
To give another example, this was from “cherry blossom in a william morris print”:
And this was from “oil painting of daydreaming”:
This astounding leap forward in AI comes with many questions. We have set out some legal considerations below.
What rights are there in AI generated works, and who owns them?
But does copyright subsist in it? A brand wanting to commercialise an image will want that image to have copyright so that it can prevent third parties from using the image.
The CJEU said in Infopaq C-5/08 that works are protected if they are original in the sense that they are their “author’s own intellectual creation”. The Court of Appeal in SAS v World Programming  EWCA Civ 1482 interpreted the UK’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 in accordance with this. In Painer C-145/10 the CJEU said that “an intellectual creation is an author’s own if it reflects the author’s personality”, and that a “photograph is an intellectual creation of the author reflecting his personality and expressing his free and creative choices in the production of that photograph”.
Is the text prompt provided by the user of DALL-E 2 enough to mean that the user gets copyright in the generated image? Short verbal instructions to a human painter would not give rise to any copyright in the resulting painting.
And, can an image created by an AI reflect the AI’s personality or express its free and creative choices? These are big philosophical questions.
The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 was of course drafted before these judgments, and does deal with computer-generated works. If there is no human author, section 9 says that for computer-generated works, “the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken”. If the text prompt is enough, then the human user entering that prompt is the author. If not, who is it that makes “the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work”? Is that the user who has typed in a short text prompt, or is it the person who has spent ages training the AI?
If you want copyright in an AI generated work, it may be possible to edit it in a way that you create a new copyright work.
Does DALL·E 2 infringe copyright when it is learning?
Machine learning systems are trained using data – and that training involves copying. Some countries permit this – Article 4 of the EU’s Digital Single Market Directive allows data mining for commercial purposes, but rightsholders can opt out of it. Japan and Singapore also have exceptions, and it may be fair use in the US. There is currently no specific exception in UK law. The UK Government has said that it will allow data mining “for any purpose” without an opt-out. There will still be a “lawful access” safeguard for rightsholders, but that may be quite limited.
What happens if DALL·E 2 itself produces infringing content?
DALL·E 2 has clearly been trained on copyright images and, if asked, will produce an image of Super Mario painted by Andy Warhol, or Mickey Mouse in the style of Picasso. These probably infringe Nintendo and Disney’s copyright. It’s arguable whether they infringe Warhol and Picasso’s copyright. In the circumstances, we have not reproduced the images!
One can also upload an existing image and edit it using AI, or generate variations. These could certainly still infringe.
So DALL·E 2 can be used to generate infringing images, and one receives no warranty from Open AI that the images are free to be used.
DALL·E 2 can create some amazing images. It raises a lot of interesting questions, and not all of those have answers yet. What we are sure of is that it will be transformational.
This article was first published in Trademark Lawyer in November 2022.
You may be interested in...
An update on the independent review of university spin-out companies
Copyright issues with AI webinar
Browne Jacobson advise Maven Equity Finance on investment in Traverse Associates
Three strong restructuring and insolvency team join Browne Jacobson
How to negotiate better ‘green’ provisions in your leases
The reasons for asset-based lending’s growing acceptance as a preferred funding source
Browne Jacobson’s patent litigation team praised for being “dynamic” and a “major player” in IAM Patent 1000 guide
The Metaverse's influence on real estate: Implications for commercial retail clients and law firms
Harnessing the potential of knowledge exchange, research and innovation
How to manage retail sector supply contracts and avoid disputes
Browne Jacobson advise on international sale of entertainment company Music For Pets
Utilising prime retail sites to improve the health of our nation
A new era of opportunity for high street regeneration?
Practical points from High Court ruling that Tesco has infringed Lidl’s IP rights in its famous yellow circle logo
Knowledge exchange and intellectual property
Pitfalls for retailers to avoid when offering access to ‘buy now, pay later’ products
Browne Jacobson’s Manchester dealmakers advise Spatial Global on its acquisition of Heathrow based freight specialist Hollyport Logistics
Register your interest to join our next Home Delivery Academy
Browne Jacobson’s intellectual property lawyers ranked experts in World Trademark Review guide 2023
Supreme court rules on retail tenant's service charge bill
Consumer duty part 3 - 'The drill-down' into the 'cross-cutting' rules
The UK's green agenda - the outcomes of COP27 and actions since COP26
Browne Jacobson’s retail lawyers advise Wilko on its strategic £48m sale and leaseback of Nottinghamshire distribution centre to DHL
Court of Appeal makes plea for legally enforceable arbitration for FRAND disputes
In the ongoing complex litigation between Optis Cellular Technology LLC and Apple Inc., the Court of Appeal ( EWCA Civ 1411) has upheld the High Court’s findings that implementers of standard-essential patents (SEPs) cannot refuse to accept a FRAND license and continue activities in the meantime which constitute infringement: that party must commit to accept a court-determined license if it wishes to avoid an injunction.
Suzanne Harlow joins Browne Jacobson as Non-Executive Director
Law firm Browne Jacobson is pleased to announce that Suzanne Harlow has been appointed Non-Executive Director of its Retail, Consumer & Logistics sector.
Beauty Industry - Plastic Packaging Tax
The war on plastic is being taken to a new level, and businesses that don’t consider sourcing recycled packaging materials could face costly implications.
Is this the end for free returns?
Earlier in the year a number of fashion retailers, boldly announced the introduction of a charging fee for returning any product purchased via their online store. Yet, despite this commercial, and perhaps somewhat controversial decision, at least one major fashion giant that adopted this approach has recorded ‘historic highs’ in its September profits. Browne Jacobson partner, Cat Driscoll who heads up the firm’s commercial team in Manchester and is also head of its Fashion & Beauty sector discusses whether this change has put the average consumer off and whether the days of free returns are long gone.
AI generated designs on retail products
Consumer duty part 2 - 'The drill-down' into the 'cross-cutting' rules
Bruce Willis AI and the problem with deepfakes
A deepfake of Bruce Willis is advertising Russian mobile phones. Many great artistic and metaphysical questions are raised by this performance. However, this article is going to look at the intellectual property law implications, from a UK perspective.
Luxury brands and sustainability – The challenges and solutions
The Retained EU Law
Created at the end of the Brexit transition period, Retained EU Law is a category of domestic law that consists of EU-derived legislation retained in our domestic legal framework by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This was never intended to be a permanent arrangement as parliament promised to deal with retained EU law through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (the “Bill”).
Consumer duty part 1 - 'The drill-down' into the 'cross-cutting' rules
This article is the first in a series aimed to help firms get to grips on a practical basis with the ‘cross-cutting rules’ within the new ‘Consumer Duty’ framework.
Browne Jacobson appoints its first Non-Executive to Chair to support its corporate sector strategy board
Press Release - Firm news
Browne Jacobson strengthens its UK&I commercial practice with hire of new retail & consumer specialist partner
Browne Jacobson has bolstered its commercial practice in the UK with the appointment of commercial contracts and international trade specialist, Emma Roake, into its City-based London team.
Cameras in convenience stores: a potential hornet’s nest..?
Sole director decisions: Another perspective
Merger and Acquisition trends in the specialist lending market
Court of Appeal overturns “fire and re-hire” injunction
The Court of Appeal overturned the “fire and re-hire” injunction, finding that there was nothing in the express contractual provisions preventing Tesco from giving the notice to terminate employment in the usual way.