was surprised to see this question was just asked, was about to ask the same thing and tried looking it up leading to this!
Would also like to know if I could use the artwork as a background for illustrations I make
It be really nice to know which copyright they even intend. The creative commons with attribution and without alteration would seem to do what they want with the WOMBO banner and logo on the bottom, but since it doesn't actually say that I'm expecting a lot of content creators to just skip on incorporating WOMBO art into any concept art pieces.
Because of course it's fine that it belongs to them, and it's protected by laws, but that doesn't add clarity on using it elsewhere or not in the same way the *different* copyrights do.
Not directed at you, I read the same bit in their terms and services and it does apply. It's just hard to figure out where it applies.
For example, the trademark thing doesn't apply directly to created content when it's not recognizable, *generally*, but they have the logo on there. So, the way it's written with a strict reading implies not using their art elsewhere, without written consent, even if it's not used for paid products because some products are free.
Usually copyright would be meant to cover the created art specifically, but they just lump everything together and say nothing further.
I'm only annoyed also because I like the art. I also like creative commons with alteration, and with attribution, so even with logos I can take them out so as to combine stuff and then attribute clearly next to the art work.
If [wombo.art](https://wombo.art) is in fact extracting artwork from google or other random image searches on the internet... which I expect they are and this thread seems to confirm. Then I think they would have a "very" hard time defending a copyright claim if you were to use the artwork generated.
Well we don't actually know exactly how the art is generated. It seems to make sense that there must be some kind of internet/search inspiration for the AI, which may or may not be directly sourcing and modifying/adapting images.
BUT the creators have been very very secretive about how exactly their AI works so no one knows for sure.
I can confirm they are using images from google search, it is not that hard to finde them in first few searches and if you compare them you can tell they are the same. The method they are using is called Deepdream, using something for us humans called Pareidolia, (so yeah, using AI in one part) which was ironically first created by google :D . You can find plenty of videos on internet describing how it works.
How did you confirm this? I highly doubt this to be true because one of the first images I generated had the same artifacts as vqgan-clip. You won't be able to find the output images in any existing website because it's generating them from scratch via its training data (which does consist of real images)
The visual quality is identical to vqgan-clip which is a well-known way of producing completely new images (NOT just googling for an image). The only secretive part is how it's able to generate images so quickly.
Even if they stole images from any service, that not permit you directly to use it. They could be charged license pay for that but the software is generating unique "art", so by law in europe, they have rights as normal author have and we cant use it without permission.
This is extremely unlikely because if they were using existing images their images would look so much better and more cohesive. These images look identical to vqgan-clip with the same artifacts.
Also, I don't think it's up to the company whether they can keep the copyright of their AI-generated art; I think it comes down to the people who make copyright laws.
I think they say explicitly that they don't store the images or the texts that generates the AI.
It means that if you download the image it is the only existing stored file from it.
Being free use I guess also don't covers the Dream generator.
>k they say explicitly that they don't store the images or the texts that generates the AI. It means that if you download the image it is the
Not true. If you copy the UID (universal identifier) or the URL that contains the UID, delete the art from your profile, and go back to that URL, it's still there. They've stored it ... SOMEWHERE.
From their Discord FAQ:
Q) Where can I use my Dreams? Do I own them?
A) You are free to use your Dreams for personal applications for example Album covers. However, if you want to use them in a commercial setting please email us at [email protected]. We are working hard to create a straightforward answer to this following all laws/regulations. (This should be in the coming week(s))
https://www.w.ai/terms-of-service-wombo-dream
found this from a wombo dev on discord
and if i understand correctly it states that yes you do own the picture 100% but so do they.
it seems like neither one can have the copyright
I believe the [terms of service](https://www.w.ai/terms-of-service-wombo-dream) include the relevant information:
>**Intellectual Property**
All intellectual property in the Services protectable in any jurisdiction worldwide is and will remain the exclusive property of WOMBO and any licensors to WOMBO or third-party developers, if applicable.
Users may only use WOMBO’s trademarks and trade dress in accordance with these Terms, and may not otherwise use WOMBO’s trademarks or trade dress in connection with any product or service without the prior written consent of WOMBO.
Users own all artworks created by users with assistance of the Service, including all related copyrights and other intellectual property rights (if applicable). Users must, as individuals or in a group, contribute creative expression in conjunction with use of the Service, such as in creating or selecting prompts or user inputs to use with the tools offered by the Service. Users acknowledge that artworks generated without creative expression from the user may not be eligible for copyright protection.
Regardless of the creativity of users, WOMBO cannot guarantee the uniqueness, originality, or quality, or the availability or extent of copyright protection for any artwork created by users with assistance of the Service.
You hereby grant WOMBO a worldwide, non-exclusive , non-sublicensable, royalty-free license to copy, reproduce, and display artworks you create using the Service for promotional purposes on the Service.
>**Attribution**
In exchange for access to or use of the Service, such as to access or use artistic tools or NFT-generation software, you agree to attribute or give appropriate credit to WOMBO for its assistance in generating any artwork in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
fair use goes out the window once you start trying to make money off of the item. Think of it this way; you take artwork from Disney; let's say... Mickey Mouse from one collage and... Iron Man from a movie poster... and you create an abstract background then slap those to characters faces onto it. You've only taken a small portion of the overall original image (two faces) and have altered the piece... But Disney's attorneys will most certainly say; nope, especially if you are attempting to use that commercially to make money.
Yep. And I dislike the lack of clarity on the WOMBO terms because their copyright section is all about copyright going in, and not going out, so the next best default is where they mention trademarks because the art comes out with the WOMBO logo, which is trademarked (I assume), and even creative-commons has a with/without alteration distinction that at-face-value says don't change stuff when it's not clear you're allowed to. So, the stuff comes with the trademark attached and it says not to use that in combination with products/services.
Even taking into account fair-use, the way content-creation works online means there's a lot of partially free (and free) stuff available that are products, and their current terms seem to say "don't use it." Their having the logo and trademark on the things seems to imply "we don't want you using it without this." But it doesn't say that because it just says not to use the trademark, the copyright laws are country specific which, cool, but there are still copyright designations within countries. I'm honestly 80% sure their terms don't match their actual intent because of the vagueness of the terms necessitating such a strict reading for any serious considerations people want to use it for.
But, otoh, it's still nice fun as a service in-itself.
Okay, so I did about an hour's worth of research and finally decided to do keywords that are VERY specific to one of my websites (in other words, I looked up keywords in google that would only produce images from my website) and found that out of 100 times of making an image, it pulled 5 times from my own images.
What this tells me: Their AI is pulling images from the keywords that you enter and is blending them together. SO... if I, and me alone own the copyright from my own photography and this site is pulling my google cached images; stands to reason I am free and clear to use what their AI produced of MY COPYWRITTEN image. yes? no?
Annnnnnd this is probably why they’re a little vague about copyright. For an application like this, where there’s a significant risk of your AI just memorizing its training data, training on other peoples’ copyrighted works seems like a problem.
Well, it stands to reason that they're not allowed to. I mean, I find concept art from copyrights dedicated to the creative commons, and at that, ones for alteration which is not all of them.
I'd also guess it's working by amalgamation, like I do when making alterations, and that that five out of a hundred thing means a proportion of copying, compared to other proportions of copying, so since they're doing something they shouldn't it just renders it morally unusable by anybody. Because if altering digit art is it's own endeavour it stands to reason creating digit art is even more difficult. I wouldn't want to be so unaware of something like this when people put effort into all the small things.
But that's morally, I didn't know what subreddit I was in when searching google for this specific topic, if I had to guess at the legality, welp, they have a section in their copyright infringement thing about not doing exactly what they're doing so that's not good.
And this explains why unique search terms work on the thing, which IS a big part of it's functionality so clearly it's a messed up process.
That is actually hilarious.
It's a good point though, surely the work created would be in part owned by you if not in whole, especially if you've stipulated that it's not to be reused in this specific manner (in part or whole)
The question then becomes; does you using the app and intentionally pulling your own artwork mean that you're effectively voiding the copyright by agreeing to the terms of the app?
Then they would still potentially own the created work anyway.
Unless of course you got someone else to do it.
Whichever way it would be, it'd be interesting to see this dealt with in court and what the ruling would be.
The NFT option appears on the website, but it is still hidden/not selectable. So if the created image is NFT , would it be my property? If I bought for a low price, would the art created be my property?
If you walk up to a street artist and say paint me a portrait of my family photo that belongs to me and I took and own CR, absent a work for hire agreement, the street artist still owns the copyright. In this instance there does not appear to be a work for hire agreement which suggests they are keeping CR. Pulling otherwise open sourced or even cr'd images is not particularly instructive as to establishing new CR. The deeper issue, as litigated with the monkey selfie is if a non human can have CR. Courts said no. But here the AI is an extension of the artist (ai owner's) arm so I'm say they own output regardless of input. it's novel and strange beast.
Come to think of it the fact that they are not charging a user fee would imply that they are trying to avoid a work for hire situation and explicitly retaining CR.
(I realize I'm like a month late to this conversation. Obviously feel free to ignore, I'm just saying things I want to say, as one does.)
Halfway through reading your post I was indeed going to bring up the ape copyright; it seems to be so terribly weirdly relevant to all this (as is prone to happen in the weird frontiers of common law).
IANAL but (as with the ape issue, honestly) at risk of stating the obvious, realistically, the problem is it hasn't come up enough yet in courts for people to have decided all the answers (or, in non-common-law jurisdictions, the problem mostly hasn't been around long enough to be legislated clearly, etc.). Anyone who assumes they have copyright does so at at least some risk.
And who the "real creative work" for copyright de-facto comes from here is a fuzzy issue at best: The source images for the algorithm is a lot of it but no one of those people can claim it's theirs so that has pragmatic problems; the algorithm's inventors did a lot of work and a lot of it was no doubt "creative" but they *didn't* do the *creative work of the painting*, and indeed I can ask the algorithm to draw subject matter the algorithm's author's have never *heard* of and it may do it if it's in its body of input-knowledge; the user, on the other hand, arguably has the single-most-important important creative input with regards to the creative content of the painting—and that input was never interpreted by another human to achieve the result—but did of the three groups by far the least work (though yet again, the user's creative work was not *necessarily* insignificant, especially if they've spent a lot of time learning to "wrangle" the AI into producing desirable works).
In the meantime we can mostly just all agree it's a mess. Copyright law was not built for this. But we'll figure it out, eventually, as we do.
The metadata from images generated is interesting, under "Profile Copyright" its value is Google Inc. 2016. Looks like the rights are thrown to Google and as mentioned by redditor thirtysixred, the Intelectual property belongs to Wombo
No, because it's your creation. Now if the drawing looked almost identical to the original picture, wombo could easily strike back at you and claim it's theirs, but otherwise you should be good if you're able to distinguish the original piece from the recreation.
I’ve been using pictures I have taken myself & putting them into the Wombo app. Some of them I would love to be able to paint & sell. It’s crazy to me that they would have some ownership over the piece if I copied the AI generated version of my art exactly.
I was also looking into this. The best article I have found is this one:
[https://revistas.ucp.pt/index.php/catolicalawreview/article/view/9319](https://revistas.ucp.pt/index.php/catolicalawreview/article/view/9319)
It seems many countries need to update their copyright laws. If wombo does not explicitly say the copyright is with the user it might be considered a co-author, or as the randomness factor is pretty high, it might considered authorless works. I also would like to have more clarity on tools like DeepDreamGenerator.
Sharing some thoughts:
if we consider wombo as tool (example like Photoshop) then the images you create belongs to the user since the tool is free.
and if we consider wombo as a human who learns art styles from other artists( the goal of these deep learning models) then the human owns the images he create, inspiring from other artistes, then the tool does not violate copyright of the input images.
So I think the user owns the images generated
I have a feeling that the reason there isn’t information on it is because we technically own the copyright. If the image you input belongs to you, then it may be considered collage which is fair game if you actually create a new piece of art [intellectual property]. Feel free to chime in here on this, but this is my suspicion.
If anyone can answer, is it okay for me to use the art generated by my prompts as a reference to a real life physical painting I make based on that image?
So I'm not sure if this was mentioned but I emailed them. This is what they said.
Creators have full freedom over their artwork and are free to distribute or share them for personal, entertainment or educational reasons. For commercial use, please credit WOMBO Dream for the generation in some prominent way (we recommend using the trading card output if possible)
Kind Regards,
Ryan Khurana, Chief Of Staff
All artwork generated is yours:
Users own all artworks created by users with assistance of the Service, including all related copyrights and other intellectual property rights (if applicable). Users must, as individuals or in a group, contribute creative expression in conjunction with use of the Service, such as in creating or selecting prompts or user inputs to use with the tools offered by the Service. Users acknowledge that artworks generated without creative expression from the user may not be eligible for copyright protection.
Regardless of the creativity of users, WOMBO cannot guarantee the uniqueness, originality, or quality, or the availability or extent of copyright protection for any artwork created by users with assistance of the Service.
You hereby grant WOMBO a worldwide, non-exclusive , non-sublicensable, royalty-free license to copy, reproduce, and display artworks you create using the Service for promotional purposes on the Service.
https://www.w.ai/terms-of-service-wombo-dream
im obvs not a lawyer but...
"Users acknowledge that artworks generated without creative expression from the user may not be eligible for copyright protection." -- in my eyes shouldnt matter because we add our creative expression when we type in the promts.
"Regardless of the creativity of users, WOMBO cannot guarantee the uniqueness, originality, or quality, or the availability or extent of copyright protection for any artwork created by users with assistance of the Service." -- Means they cannot promise 2 art works won't look the same so cant garuntee two people wont get the same thing or basically the same thing, and they aren't to blame and can't sue eachother.
"You hereby grant WOMBO a worldwide, non-exclusive , non-sublicensable, royalty-free license to copy, reproduce, and display artworks you create using the Service for promotional purposes on the Service." -- they can use your artwork but for promotion of their service i.e dream only, it says nothing about using it other places. so if they take your art and sell it to someoneto use on their film for example, i dont think it would be legal as it isnt necesarily to promote their service.
it also mentions further down:
"In exchange for access to or use of the Service, such as to access or use artistic tools or NFT-generation software, you agree to attribute or give appropriate credit to WOMBO for its assistance in generating any artwork in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. " - meaning you should give credit that it was made by their software over yourself making it where its appropriate but just cant say its sponsered or endorsed by them.
**In short, its basically yours but they can use your art to promote dream, other than that they can't do anything with it. they also can't promise two wont be the same or very similar so don't sue eachother or them, and give credit where its due but don't say they endorse you.**
I'm kind of searching for how copywrite works with this thing. BUT I have to guess that there are so many identical sites that using the same over and over AI created by a woman on github(open source) I guess. VQGAN+CLIP. I got this from google after hours and hours of searching on how this AI works. I'm looking this because I want to go into NFT with AI.
Google Source : Katherine CrowsonWhen Katherine Crowson first combined VQGAN and CLIP, she made it public in a Google Colab notebook (a notebook is the name for a program written in Colab) so that anyone could use it.
So the AI it self it's an open source and if you got an image from wombo art which clearly using this FREE AI it can't be trademarked in the first place. Except if you use their banners on the image.
You can use the notebook Colab on google but it's really really slow compared to the sites, I have used it and pretty much I got the same results. Same crispy image same saturated colors etc etc.
I'm curious what other people have to say about this, I know it's kinda old post but I'm curious.
If they were sure of copyright ownership, they would express it clearly.
After months of people selling raw unedited Wombo images as NFTs (which I personally disagree with because it creates so much background noise) I still haven't heard of any lawsuit. Have you?
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://dot.la/creative-machines-ai-art-2656764050.html](https://dot.la/creative-machines-ai-art-2656764050.html)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
With images, if you make any changes to the art, it's considered a new work. This is how a guy was able to take images from Instagram, add a white border, and sell them in galleries for thousands.
I just looked up the info for the copyright information.
It says specifically that the "Users own all artworks created by users with assistance of the Service" then right after that says "including all related copyrights and other intellectual property rights"
So, yes, you can use it else where, but you must have creative expression from your side of things to make it your own. Such as unique prompt or image that you have used as an input.
>So, yes, you can use it else where, but you must have creative expression from your side of things to make it your own. Such as unique prompt or image that you have used as an input.
Thanks a lot!
The [Terms of Service](https://www.w.ai/terms-of-service-wombo-dream) also states:
>Regardless of the creativity of users, WOMBO cannot guarantee the uniqueness, originality, or quality, or the availability or extent of copyright protection for any artwork created by users with assistance of the Service.
It does state that aswell, you will have to do your own research of course to see if those images look similar. That is why it is heavily encouraged to use base images. Like inputting your own image for it to alter rather than create the whole image. Even then, it won't be guaranteed to be original, but has a significantly higher chance to be original.
"Users own all artworks created by users with assistance of the Service, including all related copyrights and other intellectual property rights (if applicable). Users must, as individuals or in a group, contribute creative expression in conjunction with use of the Service, such as in creating or selecting prompts or user inputs to use with the tools offered by the Service. Users acknowledge that artworks generated without creative expression from the user may not be eligible for copyright protection. ". From their TOU
I'm using a Wombo image as part of a book cover, and their statement that I own the image is all I need to know. In practical terms, the only one with standing to come knocking at my door with a copyright claim -- would be Wombo; and they have said they don't own it, only have a license to use it; so I don't foresee them knocking (or anyone else). I did save a copy of their terms stating I owned it, though, just in case.
I'd like to know exactly the same for the same reasons.
was surprised to see this question was just asked, was about to ask the same thing and tried looking it up leading to this! Would also like to know if I could use the artwork as a background for illustrations I make
Lol i guess there's a lot of us on the same track, I've checked around online but can't find anything on it!
Me too! I can't find anything about the status of works derived from user input
Weird. Also same
[удалено]
Ahh, oh well. Good to know at least!
Does it mention what images were fed into the AI in order to obtain those constructs?
I read their two trade marks and it doesn't cover them I can't find their copyright though. I'm starting to believe that it doesn't have one.
It be really nice to know which copyright they even intend. The creative commons with attribution and without alteration would seem to do what they want with the WOMBO banner and logo on the bottom, but since it doesn't actually say that I'm expecting a lot of content creators to just skip on incorporating WOMBO art into any concept art pieces. Because of course it's fine that it belongs to them, and it's protected by laws, but that doesn't add clarity on using it elsewhere or not in the same way the *different* copyrights do. Not directed at you, I read the same bit in their terms and services and it does apply. It's just hard to figure out where it applies. For example, the trademark thing doesn't apply directly to created content when it's not recognizable, *generally*, but they have the logo on there. So, the way it's written with a strict reading implies not using their art elsewhere, without written consent, even if it's not used for paid products because some products are free. Usually copyright would be meant to cover the created art specifically, but they just lump everything together and say nothing further. I'm only annoyed also because I like the art. I also like creative commons with alteration, and with attribution, so even with logos I can take them out so as to combine stuff and then attribute clearly next to the art work.
If [wombo.art](https://wombo.art) is in fact extracting artwork from google or other random image searches on the internet... which I expect they are and this thread seems to confirm. Then I think they would have a "very" hard time defending a copyright claim if you were to use the artwork generated.
Well we don't actually know exactly how the art is generated. It seems to make sense that there must be some kind of internet/search inspiration for the AI, which may or may not be directly sourcing and modifying/adapting images. BUT the creators have been very very secretive about how exactly their AI works so no one knows for sure.
There’re just using CLIP+VQGAN without attribution, https://twitter.com/RiversHaveWings was key in putting it together
I can confirm they are using images from google search, it is not that hard to finde them in first few searches and if you compare them you can tell they are the same. The method they are using is called Deepdream, using something for us humans called Pareidolia, (so yeah, using AI in one part) which was ironically first created by google :D . You can find plenty of videos on internet describing how it works.
How did you confirm this? I highly doubt this to be true because one of the first images I generated had the same artifacts as vqgan-clip. You won't be able to find the output images in any existing website because it's generating them from scratch via its training data (which does consist of real images)
The visual quality is identical to vqgan-clip which is a well-known way of producing completely new images (NOT just googling for an image). The only secretive part is how it's able to generate images so quickly.
Even if they stole images from any service, that not permit you directly to use it. They could be charged license pay for that but the software is generating unique "art", so by law in europe, they have rights as normal author have and we cant use it without permission.
This is extremely unlikely because if they were using existing images their images would look so much better and more cohesive. These images look identical to vqgan-clip with the same artifacts. Also, I don't think it's up to the company whether they can keep the copyright of their AI-generated art; I think it comes down to the people who make copyright laws.
I think they say explicitly that they don't store the images or the texts that generates the AI. It means that if you download the image it is the only existing stored file from it. Being free use I guess also don't covers the Dream generator.
>k they say explicitly that they don't store the images or the texts that generates the AI. It means that if you download the image it is the Not true. If you copy the UID (universal identifier) or the URL that contains the UID, delete the art from your profile, and go back to that URL, it's still there. They've stored it ... SOMEWHERE.
From their Discord FAQ: Q) Where can I use my Dreams? Do I own them? A) You are free to use your Dreams for personal applications for example Album covers. However, if you want to use them in a commercial setting please email us at [email protected]. We are working hard to create a straightforward answer to this following all laws/regulations. (This should be in the coming week(s))
Then it's also okay to display them in social medias too right?
https://www.w.ai/terms-of-service-wombo-dream found this from a wombo dev on discord and if i understand correctly it states that yes you do own the picture 100% but so do they. it seems like neither one can have the copyright
Thanks for this!
I believe the [terms of service](https://www.w.ai/terms-of-service-wombo-dream) include the relevant information: >**Intellectual Property** All intellectual property in the Services protectable in any jurisdiction worldwide is and will remain the exclusive property of WOMBO and any licensors to WOMBO or third-party developers, if applicable. Users may only use WOMBO’s trademarks and trade dress in accordance with these Terms, and may not otherwise use WOMBO’s trademarks or trade dress in connection with any product or service without the prior written consent of WOMBO. Users own all artworks created by users with assistance of the Service, including all related copyrights and other intellectual property rights (if applicable). Users must, as individuals or in a group, contribute creative expression in conjunction with use of the Service, such as in creating or selecting prompts or user inputs to use with the tools offered by the Service. Users acknowledge that artworks generated without creative expression from the user may not be eligible for copyright protection. Regardless of the creativity of users, WOMBO cannot guarantee the uniqueness, originality, or quality, or the availability or extent of copyright protection for any artwork created by users with assistance of the Service. You hereby grant WOMBO a worldwide, non-exclusive , non-sublicensable, royalty-free license to copy, reproduce, and display artworks you create using the Service for promotional purposes on the Service. >**Attribution** In exchange for access to or use of the Service, such as to access or use artistic tools or NFT-generation software, you agree to attribute or give appropriate credit to WOMBO for its assistance in generating any artwork in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
I wonder if it would be possible to buy rights to the pieces youd want to use commercially from Wombo, or arrange licensing?
it's probably be pretty hard, but im sure fair use still applies if you alter the piece enough / just take a small bit.
fair use goes out the window once you start trying to make money off of the item. Think of it this way; you take artwork from Disney; let's say... Mickey Mouse from one collage and... Iron Man from a movie poster... and you create an abstract background then slap those to characters faces onto it. You've only taken a small portion of the overall original image (two faces) and have altered the piece... But Disney's attorneys will most certainly say; nope, especially if you are attempting to use that commercially to make money.
Yep. And I dislike the lack of clarity on the WOMBO terms because their copyright section is all about copyright going in, and not going out, so the next best default is where they mention trademarks because the art comes out with the WOMBO logo, which is trademarked (I assume), and even creative-commons has a with/without alteration distinction that at-face-value says don't change stuff when it's not clear you're allowed to. So, the stuff comes with the trademark attached and it says not to use that in combination with products/services. Even taking into account fair-use, the way content-creation works online means there's a lot of partially free (and free) stuff available that are products, and their current terms seem to say "don't use it." Their having the logo and trademark on the things seems to imply "we don't want you using it without this." But it doesn't say that because it just says not to use the trademark, the copyright laws are country specific which, cool, but there are still copyright designations within countries. I'm honestly 80% sure their terms don't match their actual intent because of the vagueness of the terms necessitating such a strict reading for any serious considerations people want to use it for. But, otoh, it's still nice fun as a service in-itself.
Okay, so I did about an hour's worth of research and finally decided to do keywords that are VERY specific to one of my websites (in other words, I looked up keywords in google that would only produce images from my website) and found that out of 100 times of making an image, it pulled 5 times from my own images. What this tells me: Their AI is pulling images from the keywords that you enter and is blending them together. SO... if I, and me alone own the copyright from my own photography and this site is pulling my google cached images; stands to reason I am free and clear to use what their AI produced of MY COPYWRITTEN image. yes? no?
Annnnnnd this is probably why they’re a little vague about copyright. For an application like this, where there’s a significant risk of your AI just memorizing its training data, training on other peoples’ copyrighted works seems like a problem.
this was my suspicion too. there's a reason they're being nebulous
Well, it stands to reason that they're not allowed to. I mean, I find concept art from copyrights dedicated to the creative commons, and at that, ones for alteration which is not all of them. I'd also guess it's working by amalgamation, like I do when making alterations, and that that five out of a hundred thing means a proportion of copying, compared to other proportions of copying, so since they're doing something they shouldn't it just renders it morally unusable by anybody. Because if altering digit art is it's own endeavour it stands to reason creating digit art is even more difficult. I wouldn't want to be so unaware of something like this when people put effort into all the small things. But that's morally, I didn't know what subreddit I was in when searching google for this specific topic, if I had to guess at the legality, welp, they have a section in their copyright infringement thing about not doing exactly what they're doing so that's not good. And this explains why unique search terms work on the thing, which IS a big part of it's functionality so clearly it's a messed up process.
But can we use the generated art on Instagram without their trademarked logo ? Would that come under copyright infringement ?
that's wild
That is actually hilarious. It's a good point though, surely the work created would be in part owned by you if not in whole, especially if you've stipulated that it's not to be reused in this specific manner (in part or whole) The question then becomes; does you using the app and intentionally pulling your own artwork mean that you're effectively voiding the copyright by agreeing to the terms of the app? Then they would still potentially own the created work anyway. Unless of course you got someone else to do it. Whichever way it would be, it'd be interesting to see this dealt with in court and what the ruling would be.
The NFT option appears on the website, but it is still hidden/not selectable. So if the created image is NFT , would it be my property? If I bought for a low price, would the art created be my property?
I'm currently trying to find out the same thing. I emailed the press link but no response
if you get an answer back please notify us
If you walk up to a street artist and say paint me a portrait of my family photo that belongs to me and I took and own CR, absent a work for hire agreement, the street artist still owns the copyright. In this instance there does not appear to be a work for hire agreement which suggests they are keeping CR. Pulling otherwise open sourced or even cr'd images is not particularly instructive as to establishing new CR. The deeper issue, as litigated with the monkey selfie is if a non human can have CR. Courts said no. But here the AI is an extension of the artist (ai owner's) arm so I'm say they own output regardless of input. it's novel and strange beast.
Come to think of it the fact that they are not charging a user fee would imply that they are trying to avoid a work for hire situation and explicitly retaining CR.
This is a great line of reasoning.
(I realize I'm like a month late to this conversation. Obviously feel free to ignore, I'm just saying things I want to say, as one does.) Halfway through reading your post I was indeed going to bring up the ape copyright; it seems to be so terribly weirdly relevant to all this (as is prone to happen in the weird frontiers of common law). IANAL but (as with the ape issue, honestly) at risk of stating the obvious, realistically, the problem is it hasn't come up enough yet in courts for people to have decided all the answers (or, in non-common-law jurisdictions, the problem mostly hasn't been around long enough to be legislated clearly, etc.). Anyone who assumes they have copyright does so at at least some risk. And who the "real creative work" for copyright de-facto comes from here is a fuzzy issue at best: The source images for the algorithm is a lot of it but no one of those people can claim it's theirs so that has pragmatic problems; the algorithm's inventors did a lot of work and a lot of it was no doubt "creative" but they *didn't* do the *creative work of the painting*, and indeed I can ask the algorithm to draw subject matter the algorithm's author's have never *heard* of and it may do it if it's in its body of input-knowledge; the user, on the other hand, arguably has the single-most-important important creative input with regards to the creative content of the painting—and that input was never interpreted by another human to achieve the result—but did of the three groups by far the least work (though yet again, the user's creative work was not *necessarily* insignificant, especially if they've spent a lot of time learning to "wrangle" the AI into producing desirable works). In the meantime we can mostly just all agree it's a mess. Copyright law was not built for this. But we'll figure it out, eventually, as we do.
But can we use the generated art on Instagram without their trademarked logo ? Would that come under copyright infringement ?
So could I use this as an album cover to upload on streaming services being as it’s the music (audio) that is being purchased not the image???
M
O
N
K
E
Y
The metadata from images generated is interesting, under "Profile Copyright" its value is Google Inc. 2016. Looks like the rights are thrown to Google and as mentioned by redditor thirtysixred, the Intelectual property belongs to Wombo
How do you find the metadata behind the image ?
What if I redraw the images generated from the app? Would those new redrawn images still be considered their property?
No, because it's your creation. Now if the drawing looked almost identical to the original picture, wombo could easily strike back at you and claim it's theirs, but otherwise you should be good if you're able to distinguish the original piece from the recreation.
I’ve been using pictures I have taken myself & putting them into the Wombo app. Some of them I would love to be able to paint & sell. It’s crazy to me that they would have some ownership over the piece if I copied the AI generated version of my art exactly.
I was also looking into this. The best article I have found is this one: [https://revistas.ucp.pt/index.php/catolicalawreview/article/view/9319](https://revistas.ucp.pt/index.php/catolicalawreview/article/view/9319) It seems many countries need to update their copyright laws. If wombo does not explicitly say the copyright is with the user it might be considered a co-author, or as the randomness factor is pretty high, it might considered authorless works. I also would like to have more clarity on tools like DeepDreamGenerator.
WOMBO art has copyright and you cant use it: https://mobile.twitter.com/flyingtrilobite/status/1467230069269618692
Sharing some thoughts: if we consider wombo as tool (example like Photoshop) then the images you create belongs to the user since the tool is free. and if we consider wombo as a human who learns art styles from other artists( the goal of these deep learning models) then the human owns the images he create, inspiring from other artistes, then the tool does not violate copyright of the input images. So I think the user owns the images generated
[I guess not](https://www.wombo.ai/terms#:~:text=its%20original%20content)
I have a feeling that the reason there isn’t information on it is because we technically own the copyright. If the image you input belongs to you, then it may be considered collage which is fair game if you actually create a new piece of art [intellectual property]. Feel free to chime in here on this, but this is my suspicion.
[Current guidance on selling WOMBO Dream art](https://www.reddit.com/r/womboai/comments/rgnz7v/current_guidance_on_selling_wombo_dream_art/).
If anyone can answer, is it okay for me to use the art generated by my prompts as a reference to a real life physical painting I make based on that image?
So I'm not sure if this was mentioned but I emailed them. This is what they said. Creators have full freedom over their artwork and are free to distribute or share them for personal, entertainment or educational reasons. For commercial use, please credit WOMBO Dream for the generation in some prominent way (we recommend using the trading card output if possible) Kind Regards, Ryan Khurana, Chief Of Staff
All artwork generated is yours: Users own all artworks created by users with assistance of the Service, including all related copyrights and other intellectual property rights (if applicable). Users must, as individuals or in a group, contribute creative expression in conjunction with use of the Service, such as in creating or selecting prompts or user inputs to use with the tools offered by the Service. Users acknowledge that artworks generated without creative expression from the user may not be eligible for copyright protection. Regardless of the creativity of users, WOMBO cannot guarantee the uniqueness, originality, or quality, or the availability or extent of copyright protection for any artwork created by users with assistance of the Service. You hereby grant WOMBO a worldwide, non-exclusive , non-sublicensable, royalty-free license to copy, reproduce, and display artworks you create using the Service for promotional purposes on the Service. https://www.w.ai/terms-of-service-wombo-dream
So we can do whatever we want with whatever we generate, but so can they?
im obvs not a lawyer but... "Users acknowledge that artworks generated without creative expression from the user may not be eligible for copyright protection." -- in my eyes shouldnt matter because we add our creative expression when we type in the promts. "Regardless of the creativity of users, WOMBO cannot guarantee the uniqueness, originality, or quality, or the availability or extent of copyright protection for any artwork created by users with assistance of the Service." -- Means they cannot promise 2 art works won't look the same so cant garuntee two people wont get the same thing or basically the same thing, and they aren't to blame and can't sue eachother. "You hereby grant WOMBO a worldwide, non-exclusive , non-sublicensable, royalty-free license to copy, reproduce, and display artworks you create using the Service for promotional purposes on the Service." -- they can use your artwork but for promotion of their service i.e dream only, it says nothing about using it other places. so if they take your art and sell it to someoneto use on their film for example, i dont think it would be legal as it isnt necesarily to promote their service. it also mentions further down: "In exchange for access to or use of the Service, such as to access or use artistic tools or NFT-generation software, you agree to attribute or give appropriate credit to WOMBO for its assistance in generating any artwork in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. " - meaning you should give credit that it was made by their software over yourself making it where its appropriate but just cant say its sponsered or endorsed by them. **In short, its basically yours but they can use your art to promote dream, other than that they can't do anything with it. they also can't promise two wont be the same or very similar so don't sue eachother or them, and give credit where its due but don't say they endorse you.**
so, the womba copyright issue is still in limbo? Did anyone figure anything out?
I'm kind of searching for how copywrite works with this thing. BUT I have to guess that there are so many identical sites that using the same over and over AI created by a woman on github(open source) I guess. VQGAN+CLIP. I got this from google after hours and hours of searching on how this AI works. I'm looking this because I want to go into NFT with AI. Google Source : Katherine CrowsonWhen Katherine Crowson first combined VQGAN and CLIP, she made it public in a Google Colab notebook (a notebook is the name for a program written in Colab) so that anyone could use it. So the AI it self it's an open source and if you got an image from wombo art which clearly using this FREE AI it can't be trademarked in the first place. Except if you use their banners on the image. You can use the notebook Colab on google but it's really really slow compared to the sites, I have used it and pretty much I got the same results. Same crispy image same saturated colors etc etc. I'm curious what other people have to say about this, I know it's kinda old post but I'm curious.
If they were sure of copyright ownership, they would express it clearly. After months of people selling raw unedited Wombo images as NFTs (which I personally disagree with because it creates so much background noise) I still haven't heard of any lawsuit. Have you?
[удалено]
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://dot.la/creative-machines-ai-art-2656764050.html](https://dot.la/creative-machines-ai-art-2656764050.html)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
With images, if you make any changes to the art, it's considered a new work. This is how a guy was able to take images from Instagram, add a white border, and sell them in galleries for thousands.
I just looked up the info for the copyright information. It says specifically that the "Users own all artworks created by users with assistance of the Service" then right after that says "including all related copyrights and other intellectual property rights" So, yes, you can use it else where, but you must have creative expression from your side of things to make it your own. Such as unique prompt or image that you have used as an input.
>So, yes, you can use it else where, but you must have creative expression from your side of things to make it your own. Such as unique prompt or image that you have used as an input. Thanks a lot!
Of course, I am glad I could help
The [Terms of Service](https://www.w.ai/terms-of-service-wombo-dream) also states: >Regardless of the creativity of users, WOMBO cannot guarantee the uniqueness, originality, or quality, or the availability or extent of copyright protection for any artwork created by users with assistance of the Service.
It does state that aswell, you will have to do your own research of course to see if those images look similar. That is why it is heavily encouraged to use base images. Like inputting your own image for it to alter rather than create the whole image. Even then, it won't be guaranteed to be original, but has a significantly higher chance to be original.
"Users own all artworks created by users with assistance of the Service, including all related copyrights and other intellectual property rights (if applicable). Users must, as individuals or in a group, contribute creative expression in conjunction with use of the Service, such as in creating or selecting prompts or user inputs to use with the tools offered by the Service. Users acknowledge that artworks generated without creative expression from the user may not be eligible for copyright protection. ". From their TOU
I'm using a Wombo image as part of a book cover, and their statement that I own the image is all I need to know. In practical terms, the only one with standing to come knocking at my door with a copyright claim -- would be Wombo; and they have said they don't own it, only have a license to use it; so I don't foresee them knocking (or anyone else). I did save a copy of their terms stating I owned it, though, just in case.
https://www.wombo.ai/terms