It’s not the style that’s being copyrighted so much as the prompt instruction by the user to make the generative AI use their name/brand as the source because it’s impossible for the gen AI to regulate how much it uses. Your brand/ identity is copyrightable even if a style technically isn’t! The idea is that if someone is using your name/company specifically in the prompts and getting an output because it was trained on your work enough to be able to spit things out as well as it being without your consent, you should be compensated. Especially considering so much of generative AI slop is being used for profit. Even though it’s not copyrightable, people are making money off which is where it gets even messier beyond the AI companies profiting off training on works without creator consent.

However, it’s true a style can’t be copyrighted. This is all about the technicalities prompting language and names like “Ghibli”, “Disney”, etc having copyright status.

That said, though, I actually am quite confused by this as some other’s have said. The ones who want to directly copy will just use other software.

I guess maybe this is a strange marketing idea hoping to feed off of the feeling of generative AI users who will feel more comfortable using this Gen AI because it is supposedly made not to infringe on other artists? Im not really sure that is going to help either side, though. It’s not like anyone seeing the generated work is going to immediately know what AI tool made it unless it’s on that tool’s website.

The AI will still work and produce images just fine for those thinking otherwise, by the way. This kind of thing can actually only come into play if the prompts specifically use the artist/studio’s name in prompt instructions. Which is where Sony would benefit from being given the works by artists/studios. Sony AI would technically prevent anyone from deliberately using your brand without your consent, but the works are still used in a general pool of training data to make output.

So I’m also skeptical if it will be able pinpoint exactly what artworks were used by the AI generating an image. This may be a really convenient loophole for Sony most of the time. As far as I can tell you don’t get compensated for unlawful use of your work because someone trying to do so simply can’t. They just stop it from happening, supposedly, by making direct prompt directing it to look like x or y works make the AI deviate even further from x or y influence than they might normally use

On paper the idea is a valid idea. Whether it can work in practice without problems anticipated by other comments can’t fully be weighed on until we see some development.

Sony, as one of the world’s prime content distributors and holders of art related IP, has every interest to protect creators. This is exactly what they state it is, hardly about training AI on other people’s stuff.

As though every single AI company out there isn’t *already* training on their content without consent. As though every single AI company out there wouldn’t still be training on their content without consent of Sony had never thought of this.
As if Sony wouldn’t also already be training on their content without consent (and surely currently is) if they didn’t see this as a profitable public image opportunity.

This system is being developed not to stop AI from copying art styles or specific themes. Its to compensate the share and right holders, as in this example, Studio Ghibli—their animators, when their style gets copied unlawfully. And as for the AI training, this entire thing is still in its Trial and Error phase. I’m sure the companies who sees AI copying them as a threat will be willing to spend a fortune to Sony to do this to protect them.

Next time just give that R&D money to real human artists to make you some decent content, Sony… 🙄

So we’re just lumping “style” in with copyrights now? That’s our future? Bickering over compensation because the picture you made looks like it’s inspired by the picture I made? Can’t wait to sit down as an artist and try to make art that hasn’t been influenced by any other art that exists in the world… 🙄

I hate A.I., but not as much as I hate our B.S. copyright laws, and this is only strengthening their case. It completely throws the idea of fair use out the window. “Style” isn’t even copyrightable in the first place, and fair use gives artists a wide berth for how they use and transform other works. We’re NOT going to defeat A.I. slop with copyright law, we’re only going to further hamstring that last remaining human artists.

While i do mostly agree with this. I will say that in an environment that seems to push more and more sketchy this is at least a step in the right direction.

Tbf, there’s literally no other way to tell the AI what not to do. The AI will never know the Mona Lisa, for instance, is someone else’s work that shouldn’t be copied unless you specifically tell it so, much like how a million monkeys on typewriters could stumble onto writing Shakespeare and never know. Both examples are famous by human standards, but AI is about as knowledgeable of that as the million monkeys unless you tell it so, much like how a child would never know unless you show them those works.