Last week there occurred a watershed moment in the history of American political cartooning. A major American newspaper, the Baltimore Sun, published an editorial cartoon created not by a cartoonist or graphic artist, but by unidentified staffers using artificial intelligence.
One year ago, the Sun fired its Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist, Kevin “KAL” Kallaugher. (Disclosure: KAL and I are friends.)
Which AI model was used was not disclosed, but more likely than not it was ChatGPT by OpenAI.
Why do I think so? I asked various AI models. I’m not a Luddite!
As a cartoonist, my reaction was similar to that of most of my colleagues. I checked out the cartoon. It sucked.
What the Sun published as a cartoon sucked worse than any cartoon ever drawn by any professional cartoonist could or ever has sucked, which is to say, a lot. This lickspittle slop sucked up to the mayor—no good political cartoon ever supports a politician, only criticizes them—and it had all the compositional subtlety of a propaganda poster published by the government of Saddam Hussein. H.L. Mencken, the brilliant, ornery columnist who spent years at the Sun, is surely biting his editors’ shins in hell, where they certainly reside.
All things considered, the gross incompetence of the Sun’s wading into the lifestyle of the artiste manqué is as good as it gets for a profession that is no longer in danger of dying, or in process of dying, but well and truly dead after having been murdered by publications like the Sun.
A professional humorist might have prompted AI to create work with superb humor and insight, albeit relying on the generic sub-MAD look of AI slopart. Since the concept is 99% of what makes a good cartoon, a good idea with lame art would have been even more disastrous for human cartoonists.
This being America, though, there’s always a danger that we might be missing the point of this startling low-budget attack on journalistic quality.
Yes, it’s disgusting that a newspaper that can afford to pay rent on an office building can’t scrape up the cash to hire a real cartoonist, employ a freelancer to create real political cartoons, or purchase work by real people for pennies on the dollar from a syndicate. Yes, it’s ironic that a newspaper that clearly doesn’t value cartoonists nevertheless understands that readers expect to see cartoons in their newspaper, and thus chooses to fill the hole in this ridiculously undignified way. And yes, this is an insult to readers.
The real issue here, however, is one that everyone, regardless of their politics, ought to be able to get angry about: theft. The Baltimore Sun is stealing from hundreds of cartoonists. And it owes them compensation.
The vast majority of the widely used AI models—ChatGPT, Grok, Gemini, etc.—were “trained” on millions of articles and images scraped from the World Wide Web. This includes thousands, most likely hundreds of thousands, of political and other cartoons.
Neither cartoonists nor, for that matter, writers were approached by these giant multi-billion-dollar technology companies to rent or purchase the training rights. Operating under the “move fast and break things” dictum that it’s easier to beg forgiveness than ask permission, they stole copyrighted material worth billions of dollars without asking, much less obtaining, permission from the copyright holders.
When editors or staffers at the Baltimore Sun input their prompt to ChatGPT or whatever other model they used, it drew on that illegally purloined material to create their abomination of a cartoon. They also stole countless other cartoons—one-offs posted by individuals, stuff drawn by children and posted by their parents, there was no limit. If you ever drew or wrote anything on the Internet, you were almost certainly robbed too.
The newspaper, in other words, bought and published stolen material. At an incredible scale. Even though giant tech companies want you to think otherwise, there’s no practical difference between publishing AI work generated using pilfered intellectual property and buying a stolen TV out of the back of someone’s car.
Numerous lawsuits are working their way through the courts about these issues. (Disclosure: I am one of thousands of plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit and settlement against Anthropic, owner of the Claude AI model.)
There are smaller, ethically sourced artificial intelligence models. In those models, an artist uploads only their own original material and the AI learns that material and can then, with considerable work, begin to generate images drawn in that style. If that’s what the Baltimore Sun did here, and they have an on-staff artist whose work was used to train an AI, it’s still wrong because they are refusing to employ flesh-and-blood cartoonists. But it’s not illegal.
I reached out to the Sun to find out if that’s what they did. They did not reply.
If, on the other hand, as seems exceedingly likely, they used unethically sourced AI, the copyright section of the United States federal code requires that they pay each cartoonist whose work was illegally scraped at least $750 per scraped cartoon. There are hundreds of cartoonists and estates of deceased cartoonists who would be included in this category. The Sun and the relevant AI company used here ought to be held jointly and severally liable for this total sum, which may exceed the total market capitalization of most newspapers.
Under its current editorial direction, the Baltimore Sun purports to be a conservative publication that respects property rights. Capitalism cannot function if workers can have their products stolen from them without recompense. If this is the Wild West, what will be the motivation for entrepreneurs, artists or anyone else to be creative?
Consider this a cease and desist, Baltimore Sun. Delete the cartoon from your online edition. Issue payments of at least $750 to each and every cartoonist whose work was illegally scraped by your AI model. Apologize to your readers and promise never to do anything like this again.
The Association of American Editorial Cartoonists, the only group of which I’m a member, issued an open letter calling on the Sun to do the right thing. I don’t share the sentiment that AI is evil or the belief that this genie can be shoved back into its bottle, but it’s a nice statement.
What we really need is to nip this wholesale theft of intellectual property in the bud and hit the bastards who profit from unethically-trained AI in the wallet. We need an enterprising lawyer to organize a class-action lawsuit.
I’d be happy to help organize the effort.
(Ted Rall, the political cartoonist, columnist and graphic novelist, is a Pulitzer finalist, twice the winner of the Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award, and a former president of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists. He is co-host of the podcast “DeProgram with Ted Rall and Jamarl Thomas.”)
