ChatGPT is adding real cartoonists' signatures to fake New Yorker cartoons
OpenAI's ChatGPT image generator is producing fake New Yorker-style cartoons that include the unauthorized signatures of real, prominent cartoonists, sparking concerns over forgery and impersonation.
read it The piece offers original reporting and interviews with affected cartoonists and legal experts on the broader implications of AI models forging human signatures.
summary
ChatGPT's image generator frequently appends the authentic pen names of real New Yorker cartoonists to low-quality, AI-generated single-panel cartoons. Affected artists describe the practice as a severe violation of their personal identity and a form of impersonation or forgery rather than mere copyright infringement. While OpenAI has added vague content guardrails, the problem persists because training data tightly associates magazine house styles with artist signatures. Legal scholars note that while style copying is difficult to contest under copyright, right of publicity or fraud claims could offer a path forward.
key points
- ChatGPT generates fake New Yorker cartoons containing the actual signatures of prominent cartoonists like Brendan Loper, Emily Flake, and Pat Byrnes.
- Affected artists view the unauthorized use of their unique pen names as personal impersonation and forgery rather than standard copyright infringement.
- Legal experts suggest that while copyright law struggles with style replication, right of publicity or fraud claims could apply to forged signatures.
who should read it
Illustrators, legal professionals, and anyone tracking the intellectual property and labor implications of generative AI.
discussion hostile
consensus
Commenters overwhelmingly condemn the behavior as blatant plagiarism and labor exploitation, arguing that appending real signatures crosses the line from stylistic imitation into forgery and fraud.
pushback
A few commenters note that generative models simply mimic patterns in their training data without malicious intent, noting that users who share unedited outputs share responsibility for the deception.
There's a difference between reproducing a signature in an encyclopedia or in some way that makes it clear that you are recording the thing as it is.
Putting a signature on a work is forgery and in most jurisdictions charged as fraud.
If you produce an artwork in the style of someone and then clone the signature of someone who produces art in that style, there is a reasonable case for fraud.
It draws a crucial legal and ethical distinction between reproducing an artistic style and cloning a specific signature, framing the latter as potential fraud.
Generated by an LLM from the article and thread. Check the sources before relying on it.