>DALL-E helpfully slaps a ShutterStock logo on some creations, for example

Seems like you could train the AI to recognize the logos and edit them out?

that you have to do it at all is evidence that its recreating images from its training set and there could be potential copyright issues.

We know AI learns words or symbols from the training set, the training set is the only place it could possibly learning them, that’s not surprising. It’s only meaningful to see a shutterstock logo if the developers of the model are claiming shutterstock images weren’t used in the training.

You don't see how it generating a registered trademark in its output is a problem? You think it's okay to monkey patch this one obvious case and call it good?

If you think it's the trademark that's the issue then removing it is sufficient.

They do not think it's only that one trademark that's the issue.

I think you misinterpreted parent's statement.

Shutterstock would say that the model is a derivative work of their images, much like a photograph of a painting is a derivative work of the painting despite being in a different medium.

They would say they are owed licensing fees regardless of whether the shutterstock logo appears in the output. The appearance of their logo in the output merely proves that the system's outputs are derived from their copyrighted images.

Wouldn’t the appearance of shutterstock’s mark suggest to the consumer that the provenance of the image was shutterstock, when it is not?

But upon the absence of the mark, shutterstock would argue that the provenance of the image WAS shutterstock?

I don’t think this is the salient feature of this phenomenon, but the proximity of these two arguments is interesting.

what if a user copied a line from AP on a reddit comment and some LLM trained on it.