Copyright law: A reason that copyright trolls are less common than patent trolls is that under copyright law, works created independently are not infringing. In court, you might have to prove that you did actually create the thing independently, but I think most juries would be sympathetic to this case. "Oh, you think that the defendant combed through your giant library of millions of logos to find this one specific, rather simple looking specimen."

Also, a lot of logos are simply not "artistic" enough to be eligible for copyright. So in general, logos are more likely to be the subject of trademark litigation than copyright litigation.

Trademark law: In order to claim a trademark you must have used the mark in commerce. So a catalogue of logos not used in commerce is of no real value from a trademark perspective.

+1

Copyrights are more about the process more than the product. This is why "clean-room" implementations do not violate copyright law.

Trademark is about commercial ambiguity.

Usually the method of a copyright troll never reaches the jury stage. It's mostly a racquet to get people to pay you not to sue them or file vaguely legitimate DMCA takedowns on their content.

It's amazing when laws make complete and consistent sense, +100 to this great answer

Do the same thing but with music. There's a ton of existing case law around stealing people's money when their music just happens to contain a handful of similar notes. People have even lost in court for recording music that was entirely different from another artist's work but was in the same genre. (https://abovethelaw.com/2018/03/blurred-lines-can-you-copy-a...)

I don't think it takes that much imagination here. Not sure what good the first step is actually doing you. Might as well just AI-generate your racketeering demand letters without doing that part.

If I just send fake letters, it's illegal (I assume). If I have a legitimate website selling logos, and point to the product page for the logo I accused you of copying, and I can claim copyright ownership over AI generated art, then I have the law on my side even if I get taken to court (I assume).

I'm not a lawyer though, so I'm probably wrong. At the very least, the legitimate website makes the threatening letter look more believable.

This is doing it the long way round. Just set up a website that generates every combination of pixels as you scroll down it.

Or just scrape logos, barely change them, and publish them and threaten legal action.

I like this idea. It's like the library of babel (https://libraryofbabel.info), but for logos.

>Just set up a website that generates every combination of pixels as you scroll down it.

Sure. I guess when it finishes your great great grand-children (I might be very generous here too) can deal with the fallout of such a brute force algorithm.

The scammers will do it anyway and simply claim the logos were all designed by humans.