This resolves to "YES" if any laws are passed (or judicial rulings made with the force of law) in any OECD country that has the specific intent of hindering generative AI art projects and/or companies. Examples include, but are not limited to:
Copyright laws/rulings that make it clear that training generative AI on copyrighted imagery counts as making a derivative work
Laws/rulings regarding people's personal likenesses that impose restrictions on tools & software capable of generating them, or penalties on those who create them
Laws/rulings against creating e.g. pornography with somebody's face without their consent
This is a fairly broad brush I'm painting with, and will be resolved subjectively in my sole (but trying to be fair) opinion, BUT there are two objective tests I will subject all the above criteria to:
MUST BE NEW LAW: the legislation or judicial ruling has to be new. It can't have already existed as of when this market was posted.
MUST BURDEN THE SOFTWARE/COMPANY: it's not enough to say "no individual is allowed to produce a picture of type X using these tools," because arguably that's already the case with e.g. photoshop. It has to have some burden that attaches liability to an individual or company who produces or maintains or trains software that can produce a picture of type X.
Would you count the China law (https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/12/china-bans-ai-generated-media-without-watermarks/) if it were in OECD?
I would say that this market is extremely undervalued and for that reason I've just made a small bet. Any new law in any OECD country? There are 33 different OECD countries. Within these countries there are likely a thousand or more provincial/state divisions, and within that there are probably 10 to 50 county level divisions, and perhaps 1000 town-level divisions. So all we need is for a township in Bumwhatever, MT or Bumalegre, Colombia to post a law, in any language mind you, that happens to include some clause about the software company behind whatever AI-artwork needing to somehow do some act. This market states nothing about the actual enforceability of the law, just that the law was written.
@PatrickDelaney An example law could be, "all art submitted by any township employee to city social media, banners, website artwork display must disclose at the meeting minutes whether any art was created in such a way that art from original artists styles may have been utilized or derived from, or the software used in the creation of said artwork must clearly disclose that effect." Whether or not this is enforceable does not matter, and whether or not the burden on the software company is a large burden or not does not matter (e.g. the software company may already do what they are stipulating) ... all that matters is that a new law was put in place in any of the literally millions of jurisdictions out there within OECD countries.
@PatrickDelaney I'd interpret the question in a way that this needs to be actually a general law that applies to everyone within the relevant jurisdiction. Your example is basically just an internal restriction the city is imposing itself (which might or might not be a law, depending on where it occurs and how it is implemented). I agree, though, that a this is not made explicit in the market description either way, so would be good to get clarity.
@LarsDoucet Interestingly though China just came out with a national anti-AI art law, but I'm not sure how you would interpret it, they stipulate that all AI art must have a watermark, one could say that's putting some of the burden on the software, because the software is going to want to automatically include that for the user if they aren't already - of course China is not an OECD country.