We’ve blogged several times about generative artificial intelligence and how it is requiring us to reexamine concepts like “who” or “what” invented or created something; whether AI that writes essays should be accessible to students; and, whether AI is going to push entire industries out of business.
To test some of the issues and concerns with generative AI, we asked OpenAI’s ChatGPT to draft a 900 word blog post about the Supreme Court decision in the Prince and Andy Warhol copyright infringement case. We have pasted the entire post below, but first some introduction to the case and this test.
The Prince v. Warhol case was recently decided by the Supreme Court, holding that artist Andy Warhol’s stylized versions of a photograph of Prince was not fair use under copyright law. Thus, Warhol’s Prince images infringed the copyright on the source photographs owned by Prince’s estate. It is an important case and serves to limit the bounds of fair use and what other can do with “transforming” someone else’s existing work(s). Many others have written about the ruling, and some authors have noted the slightly unusual infighting between the Justices which took place in footnotes.
We mentioned this case last year, and now that a decision is out, we wanted to update you and also try generating a post through ChatGPT.
As you will see, ChatGPT got it wrong. It confused Prince-Prince (i.e. Purple Rain Prince) with “Richard Prince,” who happens to be another “appropriation artist” akin to Andy Warhol and who has also been sued by copyright owners for making paintings from others’ Instagram images without permission.
To be fair, the free version of ChatGPT is what most people are using to kick the tires on generative AI. And, that free version of ChatGPT was trained on pre-2021 data. In fact, there is a disclaimer when using the product that it has “Limited knowledge of world and events after 2021.” Thus, asking ChatGPT to draft a blog post about a 2023 event is asking for trouble. Nonetheless, it highlights the importance of understanding the details and limitations of the data used to train your AI engine of choice.
Here is what ChatGPT produced in response to a request to write a post about a current event which occurred after 2021. After submitting the command, OpenAI’s ChatGPT took about 30 seconds to draft the post.
Command: draft a 900 word blog post about the Supreme Court decision in the Prince and Andy Warhol copyright infringement case
Title: The Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling: Balancing Artistic Expression and Copyright Protection in the Prince and Warhol Case
Introduction (100 words): The Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the Prince and Andy Warhol copyright infringement case has ignited a passionate debate among artists, scholars, and legal experts. This landmark decision has far-reaching implications for the delicate balance between artistic expression and copyright protection. In this blog post, we will delve into the key aspects of the case, analyze the Supreme Court’s ruling, and explore its potential impact on the future of art, copyright law, and the art community as a whole.
Case Background (200 words): The Prince and Andy Warhol copyright infringement case revolves around the question of whether appropriation art that incorporates copyrighted works can be considered transformative or infringing. In this particular case, artist Richard Prince used a photograph taken by Patrick Cariou as a basis for his series of artworks. Cariou sued Prince for copyright infringement, claiming that Prince’s use of his photographs in a different artistic context violated his exclusive rights as the copyright holder.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling (300 words): The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case hinged on the concept of transformative use in copyright law. Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, emphasized that for a work to be transformative, it must add something new with a different purpose or character, thereby altering the original work’s message or meaning. The court acknowledged that Prince’s artworks incorporated Cariou’s photographs but ultimately concluded that Prince’s use was transformative.
The court considered several factors in its analysis, including the extent of transformation, the purpose and character of Prince’s use, the nature of the copyrighted work, and the potential market harm to the original work. They found that Prince’s works significantly differed in character and purpose from Cariou’s photographs. Prince’s collages presented a distinctively new artistic message by repurposing and recontextualizing the original photographs, offering social commentary and critique.
Implications for the Artistic Community (300 words): The Supreme Court’s ruling has significant implications for artists and the artistic community. It provides more clarity on the boundaries of transformative use in copyright law, allowing artists to create new works that build upon existing copyrighted material while avoiding infringement claims. The decision recognizes that transformative art plays a vital role in fostering creativity and artistic innovation.
However, critics argue that the ruling could weaken copyright protection by potentially enabling widespread appropriation without the need for obtaining permissions or licenses. They fear that this could harm the original creators’ ability to control and profit from their works, undermining the economic incentives that support artistic endeavors.
Nevertheless, the ruling underscores the importance of a nuanced approach to copyright law, one that recognizes the transformative nature of art while also protecting the rights of original creators. It strikes a balance between promoting creativity and incentivizing artistic expression while respecting the rights of copyright holders.
Conclusion (100 words): The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Prince and Andy Warhol copyright infringement case provides clarity on the transformative use doctrine, influencing the landscape of copyright law and the art community. By emphasizing the significance of transformative purpose and character, the court acknowledges the importance of artistic expression while maintaining a delicate equilibrium between creative freedom and copyright protection. As the art world continues to evolve, this ruling will undoubtedly shape future legal disputes and encourage ongoing discussions about the intersection of art, copyright, and intellectual property.
The above is not an accurate analysis of the recent Prince v. Warhol Supreme Court case. It is a guess at answering the command we gave ChatGPT. It is also not a proper analysis of the Richard Prince cases. Those cases started before 2021 and are still underway. The above is simply a few accurate copyright law concepts cobbled together with bungled facts and details pulled from our initial command to ChatGPT and a similar case. It is not an intelligent blog post.
Many people are unaware that ChatGPT does not search the Internet as part of its processes to generate text. Rather, it stays within the walls of the pre-2021 data set on which it was trained. Had ChatGPT been able to search the Internet, perhaps it could have distinguished between the Prince/Warhol case and the Richard Prince cases. Even so, carefully reviewing and editing the results of generative AI will be an important, human (for now), step when relying on such technology. This is especially true when using free/public/beta generative AI software with known limitations.
The tech may be omnipresent, but it is not yet omniscient.
