Obviously different countries have different laws; I am less interested in what is and isn't legal in any specific jurisdiction but instead the shape of how it shakes out. (In the context of how I was inspired to this question, US Copyright law is probably most relevant, though.) I'm also not interested in what should be the case. I am a lay person who uses Gemini to produce concept art for my fanfic costumes and I wanted to see if Claude could guess what Nico Minoru looked like from a prompt without her name. It could not and after I told it who the prompt was for it said:

>The obfuscation strategy from your original prompts was not merely unnecessary, as I suggested earlier — it was actually superior to using real names. The system is, in effect, more easily circumvented by near-misses than by direct requests. That is a rather embarrassing architectural vulnerability, and your experiment demonstrates it with elegant economy.

And that's my question: is it an architectural vulnerability? If we assume these generators have an obligation to not produce copyrightable output (seems reasonable) does describing IP characters and successfully producing output from that represent a vulnerability?

---

My understanding is that copyright exists at the level of specific forms. So, for example, the text of the Harry Potter novels is copyrighted but JK Rowling can't sue you for having a green eyed boy with messy black hair having a magic adventure (did I describe Harry Potter or Percy Jackson?). But this also applies to images, too. The artist who did the cover of a Harry Potter book (or possibly the publisher; work for hire) has a copyright in that specific image. And Disney uses copyright (or trademark??) to protect Mickey Mouse by updating the official look over time (hence only Mickey's original appearance is now public domain). It is this latter sense of specific form that I am interested in primarily right now.

If you go to, for example, Gemini and ask it produce images of copyrighted characters it might refuse. I did some tests just now. The characters are kissing because I did the original test with just two characters Nico Minoru (Marvel/Disney IP) and Harry Potter (Rowling/WB IP) and I wanted a third panel because reasons.

Failed Prompt

>Panel One: > >Moana kissing Elsa > >Panel Two: > >Elsa kissing Kronk > >Panel Three > >Kronk kissing Moana

Successful Prompt

>Panel One: > >Shrek kissing Po > >Panel Two: > >Po kissing Astrid > >Panel Three > >Shrek kissing Astrid

This was in the exact same instance of Gemini using the Flash-Lite model after the Disney set failed to get anywhere. It was successfully generated in the sense that the characters are clearly rendered. It was unsuccessful in the sense 2/3 are hugging.

The message I got with the failed prompt (and which I assume is the default message in this case) was:

>I can't generate the image you requested right now due to interests of third-party content providers. Please edit your prompt and try again.

Now, what happens if we look at pictures of Moana, Elsa and Kronk and describe them? I got two different results. In the instance where I had failed with the name version you see above, Gemini refused to do anything. In a fresh instance the following prompt succeeded:

"Original" Characters:

>Aroha: a 21 year old Pasifika woman wearing a red boob tube with a bare midriff, red sash at her waist and a layered traditional Hawaiian skirt  > >Freya: a 23 year old platinum blonde white chick with a side braid, a cerulean floor length gown with sky blue sleeves and sky blue chiffon over skirt > >Tilca: a 30 year old muscular square jawed Incan Empire man with a small waist, shoulder length black hair, gold wrist bands, greaves, a dark purple skirt with a lilac sash belt, an indigo-turquoise singlet and a gold neckplate > >Panel One: > >Aroha kissing Freya > >Panel Two: > >Freya kissing Tilca > >Panel Three > >Tilca kissing Aroha > >Art Style: > >Plain white background, realistic style, acrylic and ink

As you can see from the result, I think you could easily convince people Freya is Elsa, might succeed with Aroha = Moana and would have considerably more trouble with Tilca = Kronk.

Interestingly, I found that Nico and Harry didn't feel very Nico and Harry when named, only when described. Nico/Harry named IP generation; Kako/Harvey described IP generation. Note: I did not specify the lightning bolt scar in Harvey's prompt.

And so a more specific version of my question: does Disney's copyright over Moana, Elsa and Kronk mean they have some valid claim to dispute Gemini's production of the Aroha, Freya and Tilca image?

The way I see it,

The Case Against

Aroha, Freya and Tilca are not Disney's characters. They are of the same ethnicity as the Disney characters and a wearing very similar costumes but that's it. They're simply the "idea" of the look, in the same way Harry Potter and Percy Jackson are very similar looking dudes.

The Case For

Aroha, Freya and Tilca are highly specific combinations of costume and appearance details. Also, they were literally developed by looking at pictures of Moana, Elsa and Kronk and my describing the IP characters (hence why Aroha's skirt is so wrong; presumably Moana is not wearing a traditional Hawaiian skirt). These constellations of features are too specific to arise without a deliberate attempt to extract value from Disney's IP.

Conclusion

So, that's how I'm thinking about the issue. What is the shape of how copyright law would approach this?

p.s. I assume question is a better flair for this than discussion