iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Some ChatGPT-generated cartoons prompted as “a New Yorker-style cartoon” have carried the signatures of real New Yorker cartoonists—even when those artists did not make or sign the images. Nieman Lab reported the behavior on October 5, 2026, documenting signatures associated with more than 15 cartoonists in its examples and tests. The findings do not mean every such prompt produces a signature, or that the images are actual New Yorker cartoons.
What happened with the viral cartoon?
A cartoon showing Dolly Parton and Tim Curry at heaven’s reception desk circulated after their deaths in late August 2026. It bore “BLOPER,” the pen name of cartoonist Brendan Loper, but Loper told Nieman Lab he had neither drawn nor signed it. The image was generated by ChatGPT after a fan asked for “a New Yorker-style cartoon.” The report dates an X (then Twitter) post of the image to August 26, 2026; one tweet received 25,000 likes. Versions also appeared on Facebook, Instagram and Bluesky. Those likes are for one post, not a measure of total views or reach across platforms. Nieman Lab’s October 5, 2026 report also found generated examples dating to May and others posted in online forums over the summer.
The reporter documented signatures associated with more than 15 New Yorker cartoonists, including Brendan Loper, Harry Bliss, Emily Flake, Joe Dator, Pat Byrnes, Peter Vey, Jason Adam Katzenstein, George Booth, Liza Donnelly, Ellis Rosen, Saul Steinberg and Warren Miller. That is a count of examples in the report, not a complete list of affected artists.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Why do signatures matter?
A signature does more than decorate a cartoon: it can function as a claim of authorship when an image travels without its original context. Loper described his signature as “the certificate of authenticity,” adding that if he puts his name on a work, it is official and his. He called its false use a violation of personhood. Emily Flake compared seeing her pen name on generated work to “somebody attribut[ing] a quote to me that I didn’t say.”
#1 Best Overall
That distinction matters even when an image is not a copy of a specific cartoon. A broad resemblance to a magazine’s visual style and the placement of an identifiable artist’s name on work they did not create are separate issues. A signature can make a viewer believe an artist made, approved or endorsed an image; the reporting does not establish that the artists did so.
What do the generated images look like?
The examples described by Nieman Lab often use familiar single-panel cartoon conventions: black-and-white art, clean linework, sparse backgrounds and sardonic captions. But the results were inconsistent. Some captions did not make sense, some signatures were gibberish, and not every generated cartoon had a signature. The report therefore documents a behavior, not a guaranteed output from every prompt.
Rank #2
What did OpenAI and Condé Nast say?
An OpenAI spokesperson told Nieman Lab: “We believe the future of creativity is one that is fundamentally human, and our focus is on building tools that empower human creativity and creators. We very much appreciate the community flagging bugs and unintended behavior by our models, so we can address them.” After the reporter contacted OpenAI, ChatGPT began displaying a warning that a prompt “may violate our guardrails concerning similarity to third-party content.” The report also said some generated cartoons still carried real cartoonists’ names at publication. That is an observation from October 5, 2026, not confirmation of how ChatGPT behaves now or proof that the warning prevents false signatures.
Recommended Free Tools
Condé Nast, The New Yorker’s parent company, signed a multi-year licensing deal with OpenAI in 2024; the terms were not public in the report. A New Yorker spokesperson told Nieman Lab that Condé Nast had not given an LLM developer permission to train on its cartoons, and that its licensing arrangements did not allow reproduction of The New Yorker’s logo in generated cartoons. OpenAI declined the reporter’s questions about how its models might have ingested signatures from the magazine’s archives. The existence of a broader licensing deal therefore does not establish permission to train on the cartoons or reproduce the magazine’s logo.
Rank #3
- Book includes 2 CDs containing all 68,647 cartoons published in the magazine through 2004
- CDs easy to search or browse by artist, cartoon subject, date of original publication
Nieman Lab also reported that cartoonists generally retain copyright under their contributor arrangements: the magazine has a right to publish commissioned cartoons first, but the arrangements reviewed were not “work for hire.”
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Is it illegal for AI to imitate a cartoonist’s style or signature?
The report does not establish that these particular images violate the law, and no court ruling on them is described. Cornell Law professor James Grimmelmann told Nieman Lab that a signature indicates authenticity, but “attribution is a very small part of the fair use inquiry.” Legal analysis could treat copying a particular drawing differently from imitating a general style; the report does not resolve either question for these outputs.
Grimmelmann also said cartoonists could potentially explore a state-law right-of-publicity claim, which protects aspects of a person’s identity. He said such a claim would require proof that the images were used for a commercial purpose. Nieman Lab found no evidence that the images were being bought or sold. These are possible legal avenues and considerations, not a finding that a claim would succeed.
Quick Recap
Best Value
How to assess a signed AI cartoon you see online
- Do not treat the signature as proof. The reported viral image bore Loper’s pen name, but he said he did not create or sign it.
- Look for the original context. Reposts can separate an image from any explanation of how it was made. Check whether the artist or an original publication confirms authorship.
- Distinguish resemblance from attribution. A cartoon may evoke a broad style without being a specific copied work; a real person’s name on it makes a separate claim about who made it.
- Read dates and claims narrowly. Nieman Lab’s findings describe examples and system behavior reported on October 5, 2026; they do not establish what current ChatGPT will produce or the legal status of every similar image.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
