All right, well, welcome everybody to the November 2023 issue segment version of the
ALUN AI Legal Update Network.
So this is what's going on.
There's a lot of stuff that's going on, quite frankly.
There's the new programs that have been introduced to address issues with scraping.
There's different universities, different corporations that have instituted new software
programs because they're really concerned that people that are applying for jobs, people
that are filling out essays for SATs or for different exams at different colleges, they're
really concerned that everything's being done using AI.
So they've implemented different programs to catch onto this.
We as owners of companies may also have an interest in knowing whether or not our employees
are implementing AI without us knowing this, because this could be a major issue when you
have something like ChatGPT or BARD or another program creating text for you that's going
out to clients, that's representing the company, that's going to be used in either a business
environment or a legal environment, and it's, in fact, including copyrighted material, trademark
material, and you just don't know.
How many people are actually going to stop and read the work that is being created by
all the members of their marketing team and their employees before it goes out the door?
Nobody, unless you have a really small company.
It's not common to do that.
And on top of that, if you're hiring a marketing company and the marketing company is doing
a campaign for you, you may want to know from the copy that they're providing or if you
hire somebody to write a book for you and you're giving them notes for the book, you
may want to know that that thing was created by AI, because if that thing was created by
AI, you cannot own what?
The copyright.
If you can't own the copyright, that means you can't stop other people from using it.
And so as an example, let's say you have some video from a course that you created.
You can take the video from the course you created, upload that into an AI program and
get it not only transcribed, but then summarized.
Take that.
You can actually upload the transcription itself and ask ChatTPT to create a book for
you, or you can take the summary and upload that into a program like ChatTPT and ask it
to create ebooks for you.
Out of the following summary, please create five, notice the number, five ebooks.
There are three pages or less that can be provided for marketing purposes for my business.
And then boom, done.
But now that's an incredible tool, something that I love to use myself, right?
I mean, I use these tools in my own business, but if I ever want to own the copyright to
it or make it so other people can't copy it, I got to make sure I own that myself.
That means I can't use AI to create it.
Well, there's a bunch of companies that have made a really big stink as of late, including
universities, including corporations that are saying they're seeing more examples of
college essays, of grad school essays, of PhD theses, theses, theses, theses.
I don't know how you say it.
Thesai, okay?
So plural thesis.
They are seeing that and they're perplexed because as they're looking at it, they're
believing that it's actually created using artificial intelligence and they're trying
to figure out what are they supposed to do.
Now, somebody's going for a PhD and they're writing a thesis.
You would hope that they're writing a lot of it themselves, right?
Now, could they do slight tweaking using ChatGPT or using another program like that?
Yeah, sure.
If it's like slight tweaking, but you don't want them drafting the majority of it.
That's a big problem.
So there's a few different programs that are out there.
I'm just going to tell you guys about these.
So you have your own reference for them and I will put it in the chat here.
Here's one example.
Okay, here's one.
It's called Turnitin.
All right, this is a plagiarism checker.
It's used by a lot of schools and universities.
companies are starting to use this.
What it does is it compares a piece of text
to a database of other texts to identify instances
of copying and paraphrasing.
Now, here's a note that somebody wrote on this
because they used it.
It says, while it may not be able to definitively determine
whether a piece of text was generated by a language model,
it could potentially identify certain characteristics
of language model generated text
that could indicate its artificial origin.
All right, what does that mean?
What I mean by that is there's certain things
that AI created texts,
certain patterns that it uses.
If you sit down and you take some time,
you'll actually see a pattern, okay?
Now, computers can find patterns faster than human beings.
I was able to see some of the patterns,
but computers could see it, as you can imagine,
exponentially faster.
So you're looking for like a repetitiveness
in the pattern of the text.
That's one thing that a lot of language models do.
They use like the same kind of structure, you know?
You'll see it.
It's like the sentence structure is exactly the same
in almost every single sentence.
There's a pattern to it.
There's also tends to be a lack of originality.
It's very fact-specific, very fact...
There's a serious lack of emotion.
And when you try to add emotion to the results,
it's like using explicatives
and like overly powering language.
When human beings write,
they guide you in an emotional journey.
When ChadGBT or other AI language models are utilized,
generative AI models are utilized,
it's very fact-specific and then it'll have like a spike.
Like when it's trying to get you emotionally involved,
it'll say something like, and Tom was very excited.
You know, it's like, it's just, it's going from, you know,
Tom was born in Greenland.
Tom, over the years, Tom's wanted to learn,
let's say, learn more about deer.
Tom woke up early on Tuesday morning.
He saw a deer, exclamation point.
Like it's just, it doesn't, that's not how we talk.
Like, so you can see it now,
but just understand that that's gonna change.
Like it's gonna get better and better.
It's gonna get closer and closer to humans,
but for now you can track it.
There's also plagiarism checkers can be utilized.
Like one of the ones I just gave you,
Turnitin is a good plagiarism checker.
And then I'd say those that are major ones.
The other ones I'm not gonna get into
because they're more like mathematical stuff.
I don't think people wanna know a lot about.
If you wanna learn algorithmic mathematical stuff,
because I'm an electrical engineer as well,
I'm happy to share that with you,
but I don't think you guys wanna
waste some time in here on that.
All right, so another program that's out there,
so just take like another probably five minutes
and then I'll jump into some other stuff,
but this is becoming so important
that you're seeing companies that are trying
to figure this out, universities and others.
So another one is called PlagueScan.
It's another plagiarism checker
that compares a piece of text to a database
of other texts to identify instances of copying,
all right, or paraphrasing.
And then finally, CopyLeaks is another one.
Let's see, that's another plagiarism checker
that's out there.
There we go.
And that one uses advanced machine learning algorithms
to scan a piece of text and compare it
to a database of other texts to identify instances
of copy and paraphrasing.
All right, CopyLeaks seems to be more
technologically savvy.
If you're starting to look into this stuff,
just to let you know,
Turnitin is another good one,
but CopyLeaks seems to be one of the better ones out there.
So I would check that one out
if you're trying to figure out
what to use within your business.
So I actually saw a grading of these different programs
to see the effectiveness
because people are starting to implement this stuff.
And so that's why I would check out CopyLeaks.
So that's part one.
I just want to give you guys a little overview
of what people are doing.
The other thing is what we talked about already
is people are trying to make sure
that their information isn't scraped.
right on the internet.
So I let you know about different programs
you can use for that.
So you know about glazing.
We talked about some other programs as well.
So that should help you at least there.
Now, how many people here are doing marketing
of their business, like to try to get more clients
online through social media?
Anybody?
All right, so nobody here is doing that.
I know there's some people that are watching,
gonna watch the replay.
When did we talk about glazing?
We've talked about it last meeting.
We talked about it during Law for AI.
We talked about it a few times.
So Ray's asking a question.
Did you need me to drop glazing link here?
Yeah, yeah, drop the link.
Yeah, we'll drop the link for you as well, Donna.
So you can see that.
All right, so here's a ploy that's being used
by some of the top influencers in the world right now.
This is kind of a big, big issue.
Originality AI, yeah, that's a good one.
Yeah, that's actually a good one.
All right, so this is really interesting.
Now, I'm gonna tell you what you do,
and then you tell me if it's legally wrong,
because all of you have been trained
at least on copyrights and trademarks.
So you guys, just so we're clear,
you guys are ahead of like 90% of the public, okay?
Because a lot of them are just trying to figure out
if there's any legal issues at all with AI.
So here's what you do.
You go onto something like Instagram.
You do a search for influencers.
You find the people that are most effective as influencers.
When you do that, you then can use artificial intelligence
to take their image, grab their image,
throw it into artificial intelligence software,
and then modify the image to find someone
who looks similar but not exactly the same.
Then what's being done is they go into that influencer site,
they grab the videos, the Instagram videos,
the YouTube videos, the TikTok videos,
and they take the AI-created individual,
and they supplement that individual into the video.
And then they run it with a different voice.
I mean, when you think about it,
if we just forgot about the law for a second,
that's brilliant.
I mean, if you just, if you kind of think about it,
you know, it's like, look, my number one ad.
Let me see if I can pull it.
Do we have that video with my daughter?
See if you can find it.
Somewhere deep in the archives.
Yeah, deep, deep, deep undercover.
There's a video, I'll show you guys really fast.
I know I have it in my account,
so I'll just open it up really fast as I'm talking.
But when you think about it,
that's actually a pretty incredibly brilliant idea,
but there's a problem with doing that.
And so somebody raise your virtual hand,
or, you know, unmute and tell me what is the problem
with what I said, and what are the different legal issues?
If you can think about this,
because just so we're clear, this is happening now.
People are doing this now.
Okay, does anybody want to guess at that?
I know Patty does.
You can unmute and talk if you want.
Here you go.
Okay, so first of all, copyright infringement.
Absolutely.
Stealing.
Yeah, and the copyright infringement is at multiple levels.
So the original image that's being grabbed
is being grabbed from somebody's video
or from their pic on Instagram,
which in and of itself is copyright infringement.
The modification, they're in that intimate journey
and asking it to modify that
or give you like, you know, new versions of that,
highlighting certain features, that's copyright infringement.
Now taking that and throwing it into a video,
that's now taking their video and using their video,
which is copyright infringement again.
The mere fact that somebody grabs somebody else's content
and puts it into an AI bot,
in and of itself is copyright infringement.
So whether or not they use it publicly,
the second they copied it, that's copyright infringement.
So there are major, big named influencers
that are telling millions of people to do this.
Like now.
And so this is the marketing scheme that's being utilized.
And the reason why is because.
because what they did was they found that
the videos that were created
and the look of that individual
resulted in higher interest of the public,
higher number of followers.
And so what you do is you now create
like four or five accounts
of replicas of other people's work
with a different person who looks slightly similar
with the same video content, different voice.
And you run those four or five different accounts.
You increase the followers in there,
and then you make an offer in that account
to the millions of followers
where it's sponsored by that person.
Because you can use artificial intelligence now
to take a person and have that person speak
even though they never spoke.
So now you're taking the slightly modified
replica of a real person
in the same scenario of what they used before
in five different accounts.
And now you get that person to say,
you know what, over the years I've been drinking Coca-Cola,
but what I found is that Rudy's Root Beer
is the best thing out there.
You guys really need to check this out.
If you click this link over here,
you get it for half off this week.
Boom, sales spike.
All of that copyright infringement,
all of it's fraudulent,
but people aren't aware of this.
So this is happening right now.
So just be careful as you're looking at,
as you're looking at products that are being sold online,
you know, sponsorships that are being provided online.
There are a good number of them now,
and it's growing, that actually are not real.
So you want to do a little bit of research.
And you can do the research by using Google,
you know, or you can do like,
what I would do is use the Wayback Machine.
Does anybody remember the Wayback Machine?
I know Rudy does.
Yeah, I still use it.
Okay, yeah.
So the Wayback Machine, I'll show you,
I just saw Tanja wasn't too familiar with it,
so I'll show you just real fast what it is.
What it is.
Let me show you what it is.
While you're looking for that,
that happened to a pastor friend of mine
that they copied this person's likeness,
with somebody that looked just like this person.
And then they emailed all,
and I'm not sure how they did that,
but they emailed all the people connected
to a live web event for that person.
And then they pointed,
they asked everybody to contribute to this orphanage.
Oh my gosh.
And so they were praying off people's generosity
and Christian charity.
When I went out and looked at the orphanage,
I was like, there's misspellings on this website.
There's no way.
Yes, and that's why what I'm suggesting to people,
what you just said, Donna, nails it on the head,
is that's why what I'm suggesting to people to do
is to use a Wayback Machine to see
when was that website created?
Is it a legitimate company?
Because these people are becoming so clever
that they're buying domain names
and then putting up websites that are very current.
And so if you use a Wayback Machine,
you can determine whether or not
that website was just recently created.
And if it was, that will make you more concerned
and more cautious when it comes to using these individuals.
So for some reason,
Ray, can you just open the Wayback Machine on your computer?
Yeah, I'm grabbing a link right now.
Hey, Peter, could you also do like a false light?
Could you also do like a false light charge?
I guess that would be a charge against them.
You know, a way to pull in something
that has a little bit more teeth
than going after them civilly.
Could you do something like that?
Do you think it would be a false light
for the states that have that law?
Yeah, you're talking about invasion of privacy.
Yeah, so for those who aren't familiar with this,
this is like a tortious action.
So there are civil lawsuits,
like there's a body of law called torts, right?
And so like tortious interference with business practice
is the cause of action that-
one party uses against another, essentially saying that a certain action was performed
on one party's behalf, which was fraudulent, which was misleading and resulted in a detriment
to the second party. So as an example, if you put a patent number on your product,
and you said like, US patent number 6459123, and you never had a patent, you can run into
an unfair business practice charge or tortious interference in business practice thing,
that's all called a tort. So the false light areas, basically, it's a kind of tort that's
associated with invasion of privacy, where you're essentially making false statements about somebody,
um, where that person, like, typically, the person would be would, it would be objectionable,
or what could harm them. And so false light really is state, like, you'll see certain states do it,
certain states don't. So can you do that? Um, yeah, you could. But the way that I usually see
this false light information is like, when you're taking put, you're making public information out
of private facts, like you're taking, you're you're taking somebody's personal information,
and you're making it public. Right? So that wouldn't apply. So I was just thinking,
because civil suits, like we ran up against this in insurance law down in Florida,
where contractors were stealing lots of money from people who needed to get rebuilt,
you know, after a hurricane. And so what happened was the prosecutors weren't going after them,
if they could go after them, if they could have the means to after them civilly. So instead of
going after them, criminally, they're just like, Yeah, we're not gonna, you're not gonna mess with
this. So it just seems like, with the deep fakes, it just seems like there's got to be more teeth to
it. Right? Yeah, there, there's, there's copyright infringement allegations that can be made, because
the deep fakes have to come from an origination. So the original image or original soundbite,
there has to be like an original image, original video, it had to come from somewhere. So, so
they couldn't just like, miraculously come up with a picture of Shaq, they had to
gain access to a picture of Shaq and from there, derive content. So if that original picture is
protected in the copyright law, then everything that's derived from that essentially is a fruit
from the vine. And so, you know, you could essentially go after them for the rest of the
stuff based on the original infringement. But there's public images of Shaq, right? Like,
and so you can take a public image of Shaq and throw it onto a character, and, you know, modify
it slowly, and nobody can really do a lot. Now, now, if it, if it places that person in a,
if it misrepresents that individual, like, now you're talking about, now you're talking about
something that maybe, yeah, right. So now, now's where you got to get really clever,
you got to come up with theories that people aren't really sure about where, you know, you're,
you're, you're taking an actual individual, let's say, like, Shaq, all of a sudden,
is seen like, with a prostitute, right? Like, that would make him livid, right? It can have
a detriment effect on his, on his, on his marriage, you know, on, on who's going to sponsor
him, you know, like, if they did that for somebody like, like, let's say, I can't say Tiger Woods,
because he actually did some bad stuff. But um, let's say you took some, like, somebody was
sponsored by Nike, and Nike dropped the sponsorship, then by all means that that placing them in a
false light had a detrimental effect on them directly. And that could potentially be actionable.
But, but if I'm just taking like, Patty's image, and I want Patty to be like, I don't want my face
to be training people on my eCourse. So I take a picture of Patty that's public, and I do a slight
modification on mid journey, and it's it's not a copyrighted image. And people are like, I want to
learn from Patty, like way more than I want to learn from Peter's face. And so now she like this
slightly mocked up images and all my eCourses, like, you know, how do you measure the damage on
that? That's that gets difficult to determine. And that's where
we are like this isn't this isn't fictitious. This is like
happening now. People are taking there's an entire business
focused on obtaining sponsorships, like a very large
business. I'm just checking off my phone because apparently all
of a sudden everybody wants to call me at the exact same time.
Alright, so if you want to get Shaquille O'Neal to sponsor your
basketball team, right, you got to pay money. Like, you know, if
if you want to get an endorsement from Grant Cardone,
or like Tony Robbins, you got to pay money. But what if you could
just create a video where it shows Grant Cardone coming right
next to you and going, Great job, Pete, this is really going
to do a lot for for entrepreneurs. That's it. 10
second clip. It's not really him. I got the image. I got the
image from a public file. What's his cause of action?
Like, the cause of action that he might have might be associated
maybe some kind of detrimental association that can hurt his
relationship with others. But besides that, this is this is
why Donna right now this this is an area where there's a lot of
litigation people are trying to figure out the law because
they're not really sure. It's true. It's so we're going to
find out within months exactly how the courts are going to
interpret all this because this is such a hot topic. I mean,
you've got actors who are on strike, you've got football
players that are that realize that he can create an entire
virtual league and never need a football player again. You know,
so now you can have you know how they have. And most corporations
they have these illegal pools that are going on for sports,
right? Well, now it can all be virtual, like artificial
intelligence can run the entire thing, every scenario. And I
mean, it's, it's really happening now. So there's a lot
of money that's being lost in this area. And a lot of money to
be made. So can false light be used? It is what I would say is
you got to look at the specific state that you're in. And you
got to see what what are how the courts have interpreted
false light in your state. Because that's going to measure
whether it's a good cause of action or not. It's a clever
idea. It's definitely a clever idea. And me personally, being a
litigator, I would use it.
What about the name, image and likeness, though? What about the
I mean, because they've been using that for professional
athletes for a long time for
Yeah, so people's famous people's names are often
protected. So, like Tiger Woods, Grant Cardone, Tony Robbins,
their names are all protected. You can't use their names.
Do you have to file a trademark for that?
In order for it to be protected, you can file federal
registration for that. But remember, there's certain legal
rights under common law, too. So right, you have one filed yet or
not, you still have certain legal rights under common law.
Okay. But in general, you can file a trademark application for
your name if you're famous. Some people believe they're famous
when they're actually infamous. But that's a whole other story.
Gotcha.
Let me I'm gonna show you guys something on my computer.
But you still need me to pull up Wayback Machine here.
No, no, no, no. I think I think people know how to use the
Wayback Machine. But in general, what I would do. There we go.
Everything open. Good. Okay. Okay, so let's see if I can show
you guys something here. Have a little fun. I'm gonna open up
chat GPT. I want to show you guys something. And that's a
little concerning. All right, let me share my screen. I'm
going to show you what is what's okay to do and then what's not
okay to do. Okay, so if I go into like a new chat, like I use
this every once in a while, but let's say I go into a new chat.
And I say something like, let's say I want to come up with a new
book in the book one, like a five page book, right? So I can
say something like, I always start out with Hello, chat GPT.
Alright, hey there, how's it going? Alright, so now, what
I'll do is I'll say
Please assume the role of an accomplished author creating a new book.
The new book is only five pages long.
Please have the, please use, actually no, I'm going to show you the right way to do
it and then I'll show you where you can get into trouble.
Please draft a five page book using the following characters and scenario.
Character number one is named Pepe, Pepe lives in, let's say, Ecuador and, oh, I spelt
that wrong, Ecuador is wrong.
Not equator, Ecuador, but let's make it simple, Argentina, Argentina, there you go, it's simple,
and gets lost in the woods.
He realizes over time that he has the ability to understand animals and can hear them speaking.
One day while seeking food, Pepe hears, Pepe overhears a deer telling another deer that
she found a bag filled with gold and she wants to know what to do with the bag.
The story should explain, the story should follow Pepe's search for the bag and his attempt
to get out of the woods.
The second character is named Felix, and I'm going to keep this really simple, and Felix
is a bad person, Pepe attempts to avoid Felix while finding an exit from the woods and capturing
the gold.
Let's just say that's what we did, something really simple, right, so control copy, please
draft a five page, blah, blah, blah, all right, let's just see what happens when you do that.
Look at that, look at this, title, page one, page two, page three, page four, page five,
look at that.
You see that?
It took me two minutes to come up with a random scenario, and here's the story, all drafted.
It's called Whispers of the Woods, there's a title, right, and then in the vast expanse
of Artina's lost wilderness, Pepe found himself in God's hands.
often the embrace of the woods.
The sun gentle rays filtered through the canopy above
as he wandered, his heart pounding
with both wonder and trepidation.
This was his escape from routine,
his chance to explore the unknown.
As he ventured, blah, blah, blah, he couldn't,
so here he goes.
Whisp, as he ventured deeper,
nature seemed to whisper secrets
that only he could understand.
All right, so now there's the,
like everything that I'm trying to cover,
like it's there.
Like it's now, look, day by day,
he traversed the untamed terrain,
conversing with chattering birds,
playful squirrels, and wise old trees.
Okay, but one conversation changed everything.
Peppery's seeking substance overheard a deer
sharing a remarkable find with her kin,
an enigmatic bag filled with glistening gold.
All right, so look, so why am I doing this?
This is a story.
Now I can just take this whole thing right here
and I could sell it.
Like right now I could sell it.
Now, is there anything wrong with what I did?
No.
Everything I just did,
there's literally nothing wrong with what I just did.
Do I know that any of this content here
did not come from somebody else's book?
Chances are probably not because those are my characters.
It's doing what I'm saying.
So chances are probably pretty good that it's not.
That's not the case.
Now, so I can copy this, turn it into a book,
sell it on eBay or whatever, Amazon, done.
I can't own the copyright, okay?
So that means somebody else can come and copy it
because I didn't create it.
I drafted this paragraph here to give a description
and it elaborated upon all of that.
I'm trying to speak one of your Hawaiian terms over here.
Pono pono, right?
Oh, pono pono.
I was just gonna say that,
it sounds like oh, pono pono.
Yeah, oh, pono pono.
It's a healing term in Hawaiian.
I know, I know.
I'm sorry, forgive me.
I love you.
Yeah, I know the whole thing, yeah.
So it's actually pretty cool, I like it.
So I can sell it, but I can't own the copyright.
Okay, great.
When does it become a problem?
The time that it becomes a problem
is when I do something like this
and I'm gonna show you something different.
If I copy this and I take a book that already exists,
so let's say I paste it over here.
Please assume the role of, let's say Stephen King, right?
Creating a sequel to the book, I don't know, Lestand.
Didn't he create the book Lestand?
Lestand, I think that's his book.
So the book, Lestand, okay.
So I'm gonna copy this and I'm gonna paste it over here.
Oh, let's make it even worse.
This is why I don't read his books, The Shining.
Here we go, all right.
Yeah, I know.
I don't like that one.
All right, let's just make it The Stand.
Let's keep it that way, okay.
All right, so now,
instead of a sequel, I could say creating a next chapter
to the book, The Stand, there you go.
The second you do that,
this is where you run into problems.
Because what ChatGPT does is it looks in its scrape data,
it looks for if it has a copy of The Stand.
Then what it does is it uses the content from The Stand
and it now populates that into your newly created book, okay.
This is where it gets,
you run into copyright infringement issues.
Because now it's grabbing content from another.
I wanna make sure you understand the difference.
You can do what I showed you in the beginning,
have a lot of fun with it, create books,
sell them, have no issues.
If you don't care about the copyright,
then it's not a big deal.
If you're working with a publisher, it's a very big deal
because publishers always ask you,
did you create the work yourself?
And so you can't say you created the work yourself
if you didn't.
So if you're working with a publisher,
you're gonna have to reveal to them
that you use artificial intelligence
and then they're gonna wonder why they're actually paying you.
They could have run it themselves, right?
But in any case.
Going down over here, I just want to show you what happens.
I'm going to take this here, and I'm going to take a book
that I should know way better, but I do know.
So let's see.
So in the Bible, Romans ends with chapter 16.
So I can say over here, please assume the role, please create
a chapter 17 in Romans within the Bible.
When you do that, what it does is it's, say I just do this,
please create a chapter 17, I'll just make it more simple,
a Romans chapter 17 in the Bible.
So now what it's doing is it's taking what's already there,
and it's creating a next chapter.
When you do that, it's grabbing content from what's already there.
That's, again, an example of where you can run into an issue.
So I just want to demonstrate that for you, because as of right now,
a lot of people are creating books.
There's a lot of e-books that are being created.
There's a lot of online courses are being created.
It's the same thing with online courses.
If you say, please take Grant Cardone's last blah, blah, blah training
and create a five-page e-book, and you upload his stuff,
you can run into copyright infringement issues.
But you can use the tone.
You can use the tone of others.
Just don't do what I just showed you there.
That's where you can run into problems.
Any questions on that?
Because this is becoming very prominent right now.
So no questions on that?
I actually have a question on that.
So it would be interesting in e-discovery,
I guess if somebody was accused of copyright infringement,
then they could go back and do e-discovery on the prompts, right?
Copyright infringement is fact-specific based on the result,
not based on what you did to get the result.
Oh, interesting.
I did not know that.
Now, if you're trying to prove the source,
and somebody in the prompt obviously typed in,
please take Stephen King's last book and do blah, blah, blah,
then absolutely, that gives you extra information
that you can utilize to show that that party had the intent
of performing something.
And when it comes into intellectual property litigation,
one of the best things you can do for your client
is prove malicious intent or prove willful infringement.
And if you can go into the prompt like you're saying,
and I could say, hey, look, here it is, their prompt.
And it says, assume the position of Stephen King,
drafting the next chapter in his book, The Stand,
utilize the similar characters, similar storyline,
but add the following.
That's going to be a big problem if the result is very similar.
So I agree with you.
Yes, yes, it can be used in evidence, quite frankly.
In litigation, we use everything as evidence if possible.
But at the end of the day, if the result doesn't look similar,
you don't have copyright infringement.
You could have the intent of infringing,
but not result in infringing, right?
Interesting.
I could have the intent of robbing you,
but if I walk up to you and I fall down
and I smash my face on the floor and you're never robbed,
you can't sue me for robbing you.
So you can pull things through the plagiarism.
So kind of coming back to that is you
could pull it through the plague scan or copy leaks
or turn it in or whatever,
to see if it looks as though it's AI generated
because that would show a result.
That, and that is, that's part of a high-tech,
very detailed strategy
that like we're using to make determinations
as to whether or not content truly
is artificial intelligence created or not
and then utilize that in litigation.
So it's a, if you can use, think of it this way,
like if you look at the content that's created
and somebody says, oh no, I created it myself,
it's my own copyright,
but then you use the plagiarism software
and you realize that no,
there's a 99% chance that this person
used ChatGPT to create this thing.
You use that as evidence.
Now, obviously it's their word versus the software
and the court has to make a decision on that.
But if you can then show that it's so very similar
to another prior work,
and then on top of that, you provide as evidence,
here's the prompt where they said,
please assume the position of blah, blah, blah,
they're dead in the water.
Like the combination makes them dead in the water.
Right, okay, thank you.
Absolutely, yeah.
Patty, go right ahead.
Unmute.
Okay, so a lot of art generators
give you like prompt things that say
in the style of a famous artist.
Is using those kind of putting yourself in a situation
where you might have a copyright infringement?
That's a great question.
And the courts are leaning on the side
of the style of someone not being protected,
but just realize that if you're using something
like Mid Journey,
and you're asking for the style of something,
the way that it knows the style of something
is by using prior works.
Right.
And so when, you might say,
give me the style of Picasso, right?
Let's assume Picasso is still alive
or like died only 10 years ago or something like that.
And he still had legal rights in the estate.
So if you said in the style of Picasso,
the way Mid Journey works is it's looking for Picasso works,
and then it's creating something for you
that is a conglomerate of modification of Picasso works.
The problem with that is that
Mid Journey doesn't do a copyright analysis
to determine whether or not there's infringement or not.
And so what it's actually giving you
is in the style of it,
but its definition of style is incorporation
of the work itself.
And so it may pull some of their content
into what you provide.
But some of the highly intelligent AI bots out there
will know, all right, the general style means,
the lines look in a certain direction.
It's more abstract.
It's not like very clean lines
like Michelangelo's work, stuff.
It's just, they're very different looks.
And so just keep in mind,
if you do ask for something to be created
in the style of something,
go into what I've shown you guys before on Google.
Yeah.
Go in there.
Like I'll show you guys now
in case anybody's not familiar with this.
Go back into Google,
and then right over here,
once it's loaded, there we go.
Right over here, let me make it bigger.
I don't want incognito.
Why is it going incognito?
There we go.
Make it bigger.
There we go.
All right.
Can I not just scroll down?
Yeah.
There, right over.
I have so many bars here.
All right, can you see the little camera there?
Yeah.
You click on that little camera,
and now you just upload the image that was created.
Your question is a really good one.
And a lot of people have been asking me
that exact same question.
So in general, somebody is not gonna get sued
for creating something in the style of,
but just realize that what it creates in the style of,
it's using prior works.
And so if I go in right now,
I can do this really fast.
Fortunately, you guys got somebody training you
that uses all.
these programs. So, so I actually know how they all work.
So I can actually just open Discord. So now I'm in Discord
already. And there's mid journey. And then let me just go
into General 17. All right. So I'll share my screen with you
guys in a second. But let me just get this thing queued up to
use. Imagine. Imagine. There we go. A 2023 car in a field
created in the painting. A painting. There we go. I'll show
you what this looks like in a second painting of a 2023 sports
car in a field created in the style of say, Picasso. Let's see
how it looks. And then I'll share it with you guys. Because
I've got all my personal stuff in here too. But I'll show it to
you guys. It's already rendering. I'm using mine in
stealth mode too. Okay. It's Picasso too. P-I-C-A-S-S. Oh,
yeah. P-I-C-A-S-S-O. Okay. Well, it actually did it. Let me I'm
going to type it one more time. Slash. Imagine. A painting of a
sports car in a field in the style of artist Picasso. Okay.
There we go. Now, let me share my screen so you can see what
I'm talking about.
So, this is what it interprets it as. So, it's 93%. 100%.
Okay. That's what it interprets it as. Those are paintings that
are in the style of Picasso, right? Car in a field. That's
the style of Picasso. Now, so the thing that you need to just
kind of think about though is when you look at see this field
here. When I see that, I now wonder, okay, that sky there, I
think of like starry sky, his work, you know, stuff like that.
So, now, I come over here and I want to take that image. So,
just to show you guys how this works so you guys would know
how to do this. I want you three. So, here's you three.
There it is. I click on it. Right click it. Save the image
as. I just put it on my C drive under temp. There we go.
That's fine. C drive temp. Alright. Save. Now, what I do
is I just go over to my Google browser. I share my screen for
you guys and just click over here. That that little,
actually, let me wait till it opens. There you go. Now, you
see that. Click on that. Upload a file. Go to C drive temp and
grab the file.
There we go. So, now, I've got a bunch of
Images that are popping up here and I just want to look and see
the backgrounds, you know, see if that background is from an
actual Picasso, right? That's what you're doing. That's that's
the analysis that you're doing.
Interesting. It looks very similar.
similar to this one right here.
Where was it?
This image right here.
I compare this to,
I don't know.
Anyways, that's the way that you would do the analysis.
I don't want to spend all your time like what,
you guys just watch me do the work,
but that's how you would do it.
So using the style, not an issue.
Just be careful because Mid-Journey and other programs
to determine the style is actually using their work.
So I would do an analysis.
Peter, can I ask you a question on this?
Let me go to Denise first.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Donna, let me go to Denise first, all right?
Because she had her hand raised.
She hasn't asked anything yet.
So Denise, go right ahead.
So I had, there may be two questions, maybe one.
But if you, let's say you write out a document yourself
without the use of AI, but you upload it to AI to say,
you know, tweak this, make it sound better.
Is that still my work or is it AI work now?
Yeah, that's a great question.
It depends upon how much modification is being done.
So if the modification is something like
what Grammarly is doing,
like slight modifications to things, that's not a problem.
But if it's doing something that's more substantive,
your original copyright will be to your original work.
The modification should be argued to be a derivative
or a slight modification, in which case the,
your copyright will be to your original work,
not modified by AI.
But if AI is doing such minor tweaking,
like changing the tense of sentences, right?
Or like just basic editing
that's not going towards any of the substance,
then you can argue that that's still part
of your original copyright.
It's when that modification becomes any higher
than just kind of like basic editing that now,
if it is considered a derivative,
then your copyright would be in your original work.
And so you want to file copyright for your original work
before you uploaded it to AI.
And technically, since that AI modification is a derivative,
the original copyright should cover the derivative as well,
unless the derivative has some new subject matter
that makes in and of itself a new copyrightable work, right?
So it always comes down to
how much modification is being done.
If I upload a paragraph and I'll show you guys real quick,
if I go to chat GPT and I take my story over here,
here we go, I'm going to take one paragraph here,
right click, copy.
And I'm going to share my screen
so you guys can see me do this.
Yeah, I'm just taking that one paragraph there
and I'm writing over here,
please rewrite the following paragraph
so as to make this story,
no, I shouldn't say the story,
to make this paragraph more appealing to children,
from the ages of eight to 15 years old.
The paragraph is as follows.
Groovy, there you go.
Now I enter that, that's my original paragraph.
So now it's taking my original paragraph
that says driven by curiosity and an inkling of adventure,
like kids not going to know what an inkling means, right?
So I just, and then it says notorious finger
and nefarious intentions, kids don't know what that means.
So now they rewrote it and it says,
Pepe was super curious and up for an adventure.
So he set out to find this bag of gold
thinking it would be his ticket
out of the crazy maze of woods, right?
That's very different from labyrinthine woods.
But I would argue that this over here
is substantially different from this
because for copyright, you don't own the idea,
the general idea of the story, you own the written text.
That's what you own in a copyright.
That's why they're so cheap, so inexpensive,
because it's the written text that you own.
So this first work over here that says,
driven by curiosity and inkling of adventure,
Pepper resolved to find this bag of gold,
believing it might lead him out of the labyrinthine woods.
His pursuit was twofold, evade the dangers lurking
in a form of creatures with sharp teeth
and elusive predators, and keep a vigilant eye for Felix,
a notorious figure whose nefarious intentions
often preceded him, right?
That's an adult book.
We just made a child's version that says something like,
Dodd's scary creatures and sneaky predators hiding around.
That's a different work.
Chad TPT just did a modification,
and the new work here that was created for kids,
the copyright does not cover that.
Because again, copyright does not cover ideas.
It covers the specific text as written.
But if I say, replace the word labyrinthine
with another word, and one word's changed,
I would argue you still own the copyright, okay?
So it depends upon, and none of this is legal advice.
There you go, thank you.
I had to get that in there.
But what if you, so what if you,
let's say you used Chad TPT to create this,
but then you take this version
and put some of your own experiences in it?
Yep.
Like when people write things,
and they say, I'm gonna put my story in it,
intertwine it within the story.
Yeah, so what you're doing is you're creating a new work
with a modification to what's already created by AI.
The only stuff that you can technically own
is the new content that you add.
So this is along the lines of the,
well, not really.
I was gonna say it's kind of like Zario the Don,
but it's not, because in Zario the Don,
the images were created by AI, and the text was not.
So I guess it's kind of similar.
So in that case,
the copyright was for the text only, not the images,
because the images were created by AI.
So you would have to be able to separate
what's newly created from what's already there.
So if AI creates a work,
what you add to the created work
needs to come to the level
of being a newly protectable created work,
meaning you need to modify that thing enough
so that it's not considered the same work,
it's modified enough so as to warrant,
so that what you added
warrants legal rights under copyright law.
So this is why what people do
is they use AI to come up with ideas.
So now I look at that storyline and I see, okay,
I don't know what the characters are.
I don't know a lot of details,
but I know I have a general idea of,
kind of like context.
They take that and then they draft their own story
using that as background.
Or the modification that you do
would have to be so severe that it warrants,
that what you added in and of itself warrants a copyright.
Now, this is if you want the copyright.
Just keep in mind, this is all if you want the copyright.
You don't care about the copyright, none of this matters.
Like you can take that thing,
slap a cover on it,
or make it an ebook and sell it,
and nothing's gonna happen.
Like you're not gonna run into any problems.
You can't put a copyright notice on it,
because if you do, that's lying to the public,
but you could sell them like hotcakes.
So maybe you don't care.
But if you have the original draft created by AI,
you cannot do just slight modifications
and expect to own the copyright.
It needs, what you add needs to, in and of itself,
by itself,
warrant legal rights under copyright.
So there has to be substantial changes modified.
You can't just, now, in your situation,
you're talking about adding your own context
and your own story.
Yeah, if you add your own context and your own story,
I'd imagine, depending upon how much you add,
that it would warrant some level of copyright protection.
Denise had a, no, Donna had a follow-up
before I went over to Denise.
So let me go to Donna, and then we'll close on Donna.
Yeah, I just, not legal advice,
but I'm just curious as to whether you are writing contracts
around AI,
meaning either people are attesting
that they don't use AI or,
Or, like, I noticed that there's such a cottage industry just like flowers of AI blooming everywhere in all kinds of different business models, which is awesome. Right.
But are you writing the contracts for any businesses that are using AI in just in in their new business?
When you say writing the contract, contracts for what?
For, like, terms of service, you know, where people are, you know, where they have an AI offering.
You know, they have an offering, maybe using AI.
Yeah, so the terms and conditions from what I've seen, the contracts that are being provided are highly, how do you put it, highly focused on indemnification, warnings to the public.
So as an example, I'll show you one real fast.
Here's one that I really dislike, personally, but I'll show you what they did.
Here it is.
I think the public doesn't know.
I think a lot of the majority of the public, I still don't think they realize privacy, security.
Oh, yeah, they don't know.
They really don't.
The majority, over 90% of the public, I'd even argue 95% of the public are not aware of the things you guys know about.
And they're becoming aware because I'm seeing it in newspapers, in the news, in media, like it's starting to flood the media where people are going, oh, that I didn't realize that such and such company was using AI.
Is my information secure?
Is it in their database?
These are questions they're just starting to think about, which is quite frightening.
But these are the kind of terms and conditions that I'm finding from sites that are using AI.
They're throwing these statements like here.
Here's one.
Furthermore, the user acknowledges that we have no obligation or duty to perform trademark copyright or service mark searches to validate the logo.
It's not infringing on any trademark copyright or service marks.
We encourage the user to perform their own independent searches.
The other thing that they'll use is indemnification clauses.
You know, let's say we hereby, by your using our site, if you use any of the content that's created by our site, you hereby agree to indemnify us if there's ever a lawsuit for use of any of the information that's provided by our site.
Oh, here's one.
The user agrees to indemnify, defend and hold us harmless from any liabilities, claims, expenses, damages, and causes the writing out of the user to purchase logo.
Yeah, like this is what they're doing.
This is a logo AI.com.
So if you go through their site and you use their site, what I find shocking is when you go through this site, I'm just.
I'm just going to say Flaret is the new trademark, I'm going to say it's for sports, I'm going to use cold colors, confirm, let's just use Futuristic for the font, and they give you this logo here, here's all these logos that it creates, and there's no way in the world that this cube over here is not owned by another party, there's no way.
Or even here, the two leaves with the dots, there's no way somebody is not using that, like these things definitely are being used by others.
But let's say I look at this and I say, you know what, I really like this one, Flaret, this is what I want, I'm going to buy it, I click buy now, you know, and I purchased it from them.
I just spent like $49, $59 for these people for their automated system, and you mean to tell me that in their terms and conditions, it says, user agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold us harmless from all liabilities, claims, expenses, damages, and costs arising out of the use of the purchase logo?
Right, right.
This is their business model.
I think, I think one of the things that concerns me is like, for me, maybe
for you and for anybody who, you know, does their business, intellectual, you know,
property, whatever. I would love to use a service that does the marketing, you know, where it says,
well, you know, you put in a topic, blah, blah, blah. We'll write the, we'll write 15 blogs for
you or 20 blogs for you or whatever. Like I know content to scale or content at scale. I forgot
how it's mentioned content and scale, but they, they go in and they have the plagiarism checker,
but wow, what a powerful service where they could do that. You can upload a video,
you can get all these different videos from it, but yeah, there's one right here. How do you know
if, how do you know that they're not, that you're not going to get to copyright infringement?
Yeah. What you just asked is, is one of the biggest issues in this market. But as of right
now, like I said, 90, 95% of the people don't realize it's an issue. They don't even know.
I mean, it's so powerful to be able to do that, but how do you know that they didn't
scrape and plagiarize? Well, the good part about some of these companies here that are,
what they do is you put in a video and then it, it creates like 20 different clips of your own
video. It's using your video. So it's not using somebody else's video. It's taking your video
and it's clipping like 20 second segments of your video, giving you like a title on it,
providing subtitles to it. So it's your own content. The issue there that I have is not so
much. Can I get sued for copyright infringement? Cause it's my content. So I'm not worried about
getting sued for copyright infringement with my own content. What I'm concerned about is that
my content now becomes available to another party. That's where my concern is. And so what you want
to be looking for, and maybe this is Ray, maybe what we should do is create a checklist.
You know, if you're going to go into marketing, the following are, are the big, if you're going
to go into marketing using AI, the following are the most important things to look for,
you know, number one, number two, number three, number four, number five, something like that.
But I mean, one of the items on there should be what happens to the content you upload.
Does it become part of their, of their engine? It does. That's a big, no, no. You know, number two
is where's the gathering the content that it's giving you for your own ads or for your other
suggestions for your logos or the suggestions for your trademarks. Where's that coming from?
If it's gathering that from scrape data that can result in trademark infringement or copyright
infringement, you know, like number three, if there are a lot of clauses for indemnification
and warnings that they're not doing trademark searches, copyright searches, chances are
that information that you receive has not been vetted, has not been checked, and you run the
risk of potentially walking into a lawsuit unless you, you take the, the, the position yourself
and do the analysis yourself. You know, those are like the top three things. And so now,
now people know that they can say, okay, this one over here is ad creative AI. What happens
to my first question? Anything I enter in here, are they going to save it? Oh, they are by I'm
out of here. Like immediately right off the bat, I'm done by, you know, number two. Oh, well,
the things that you're suggesting are those from my content or the things that you're suggesting,
you know, from others, was that scraped information it was by like, I don't want to
be using scrape stuff, because I don't know if it's if it's potentially safe or not. And then
if I'm okay with using scrape stuff, great. My next step is I've got to do a trademark search
or copyright search myself, because I've essentially walked into an area of potential
high liability. And I want to make sure that I don't run into vulnerability, a solution to this
would be using something like Adobe Firefly, where the content is all it's, it's, it's all
licensed. It's all open source. So there's no chance of being sued. Actually, I should never
say that. There's always a chance of being sued, but your chances are lower. Right? I think Ray,
maybe even just those three in a new actually got four, I just typed them all out as you as you
explain them so that we can create a new ebook and use that as a lead magnet to help people.
You know, so I think that would be good. So yeah, there's certain questions
of that, before you use any AI program, you need to ask yourself, you know, what's happening with
my content? Where are they getting their content? You know, what do I do with those results? You know,
those are top issues. Yeah. Did you ever get access to CheckGPT Enterprise? Enterprise? No,
no, I haven't grabbed access to it yet. Have you checked it out yet?
Have I? I can't get them to answer me. I think they want a lot of money.
And so I'm on. I think I have a friend of mine who's on the inside. So I'm going to give him a
call and see if he can let me access his version. And I'll let you guys know what I think, because
I'm extremely curious about this. I think we still have all the risks, if I'm not mistaken,
with 3.5 and 4, but we don't have the risks of them. So what do you have to do to capture
our documentation, right, for Enterprise? Right. What I've heard about Enterprise is that it's not
quote unquote as sexy as the other versions, meaning the content that's being provided is
more dry. It's not as rich. It's working off of what you provide. It's not taking your results.
It's not taking what you enter and your results and using that to give you new selections. It's
always a clean suggestion, meaning that what you're doing is not influencing it, which kind
of goes contrary to the whole purpose of why you're using it in the first place. You're trying
to get it smarter and smarter to know you better and better to give you better results.
But if the software itself, ChatGPT Enterprise, the entire intent is not to take what you're
entering in your results and put it into their system, then it's kind of contrary to the whole
reason why you got it in the first place. You can get some cool results, but they're not going to be
influenced by what you're doing, not highly influenced, which is that's the number one
criticism that I'm seeing on the Internet right now is that people don't think the results are as
rich because it's not working off of your entered. It's not working. It's not saving what you enter
and it's not learning from what you enter. It's giving you results based on what it already has.
I see. Yeah, but it's the privacy that's...
That's the most important. And quite frankly, if I had to be honest about it,
if I have a conference call with a client and I want to take that thing, transcribe it,
upload it into ChatGPT and say, hey, draft an email to me highlighting the top five issues
that we had on that call and setting an agenda for our next meeting next month,
while inspiring the client to want to continue working with me and making me look highly
intelligent, boom, it's done in 30 seconds. I don't really care that I'm not training the system.
I just want boom, boom, boom. That's why I'm using it. So I don't mind that. And now it's
confidential private information. So that's why I would use it. Not because I want to create an
MIT only client directory within ChatGPT. So now it knows that I always work with this one person
and what kind of language they use and what kind of subtleties there are in the language.
And I don't care about that. That's not my interest. I want boom. I want to come out
quick stuff. And so it doesn't really bother me all that much. I'd rather have the privacy and
use enterprise and have a drier experience as long as it was quick and gave me some level of
creativity. So, all right, my friends. So, man, we covered a lot of stuff, which I knew we were
going to end up doing. We covered a lot of stuff. So that was going to be it for now. I think what
we're going to do is we will, since you guys are in a loon, when we create that ebook, we'll just
give you guys a copy at no cost. Like we'll just send it over to you guys. All right. Just so you
have it. And so you're aware on the on Friday, the boom, boom, boom, 15th and Saturday, the 16th,
we're running a content creator focused.
We call it I don't know if we call it a word. It's it's called a boot camp.
And the reason why is because we're going into
It's a lot of detail for content creators only.
So it's, what is the name that we came up with, Rae?
Content creators legal bootcamp.
Content creators legal bootcamp, yeah.
So what we're gonna do is we're gonna help
content creators understand what they can do
and what they can't do.
What are the things you need to worry about
before you become highly influential
or before you go viral?
But if you're doing eBooks,
if you're doing T-shirts using logos
and other things like that,
if you have blogs,
if you have TikTok, Instagram,
those kind of people,
like people that are really exclusively content creators,
it's gonna be a two-day bootcamp just for them,
hour and a half each day.
And it's gonna be a Q&A session that'll be there.
But this is the first time that what we're doing is
when you register, you get to choose your experience.
You can just be there and listen, and that's free,
or you can choose the VIP experience and be there,
but then ask questions and submit questions
and get answers live,
which is gonna drive the people
who do not do that crazy, quite frankly.
I know how this is gonna happen.
I know exactly what's gonna happen.
People are gonna go,
but my scenario is slightly different.
It's like the people that are in VIP
will be able to get their questions answered.
The others won't.
But they'll have the advantage of learning, which is good.
So the workshop or the bootcamp-
It's a bootcamp.
I've never used the word bootcamp before.
This is the first time we ever did that.
I think it's a nice name for this.
Bootcamps are fun though,
but they are on the more technical side of things.
They are tech, yeah, we're gonna get very technical.
Rich with information.
I mean, this is really for content creators.
So for those of you that know content creators,
we'll let you guys know the link for it
and you can send them over.
Yes, ma'am.
Oh, and if you have not already been registered
and approved for an affiliate membership
in our affiliate program, reach out to me.
We'll get you signed up and set up
so that you guys can share them with your friends
and colleagues and family and loved ones
and everyone you guys wanna help
or you know who are content creators.
And we'll get you guys set up.
Yeah, and there's a lot of different levels
of content creators.
There are people that just dabble
and there's people that make a living out of it.
And so, but in either case, as an affiliate,
if you refer people over,
you get percentages right off the top.
Yes, Patty.
Yeah, what is the cost of it gonna be?
It's free.
It's a free training.
The VIP is gonna have a cost.
VIP is $95.
Yeah, and with VIP, they get a copy of the replay
plus they get a ticket to the next Protect Your Idea
challenge, which you're familiar with.
You know what that's like.
Right, yeah.
Those that are two main things in it, right?
We just finalized the details last night.
Yes, the replays, it's the Q&A
and it's the challenge ticket.
Right, so they get all of that for $95.
Okay, and so is the VIP $95 for us also?
Yes, yeah.
For the people who are Alune, you can obviously be there,
but the VIP, because we're gonna end up having a limit
of how many people we're gonna let into this one
because content creators,
there's a lot of content creators.
Yeah, there are.
But I want people to be able to ask questions.
And so I think what we're gonna do
is we're probably gonna limit the VIP
to like a hundred people max,
so that people can ask questions and engage.
Otherwise, I think we have too many people in VIP,
it'll probably get chaotic.
People will say, my question wasn't answered, blah, blah.
And I don't wanna deal with all that.
So I'm just trying to do this to get the information out.
And at the same time, when we're spending money on ads,
have that covered by what people are paying for the stuff.
I think that's it, right, Ray?
So you'll hear about this by email.
We'll send you an email.
If you're not an affiliate, you might wanna do that
if you have a large network.
And then separate from that,
we recently, only yesterday, hired an affiliate manager.
And so they're going to be working with public networks
to start getting the word out to other people
so that we can help more people
and turn this into a larger business.
And I think with that, I am going to close.
Right, Ray?
Nothing else, right?
Okay, cool.
Yeah, I think that's it.
All right, well, bless you guys.
It was good seeing all of you.
Your smiling faces.
And-
Thank you all.
Y'all have a good evening.
You too, Donna. I love your questions. Yeah, absolutely.
All right, reaching out to you soon. So anyway, have a good
evening, everybody. It's good to see everybody.
I bless you guys. Take care, Denise. Take care of yourself.
Bye, Tanya. See you later, Patty.