Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Some ChatGPT-generated cartoons prompted in a broad “New Yorker-style” have carried the signatures of real cartoonists, even though those artists did not make or endorse the images. A viral example bearing Brendan Loper’s pen name, “BLOPER,” was not drawn or signed by him, according to Nieman Lab’s October 5, 2026 report. The signatures turn a style imitation into a false attribution problem; they do not establish that the cartoons are actual New Yorker works or that a court has ruled on them.
What happened with the viral cartoon?
After Dolly Parton and Tim Curry died in late August 2026, an image depicting them at heaven’s reception desk circulated online. It bore “BLOPER,” Brendan Loper’s pen name. 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,” then posted to Facebook. A version shared on Twitter/X on August 26, 2026 received 25,000 likes, according to the report; versions also appeared on Facebook, Instagram and Bluesky.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Loper said people contacted him to ask whether the cartoon was his. Nieman Lab also found generated examples dating to May and others shared in online forums over the summer. Reporter Andrew Deck documented signatures associated with more than 15 New Yorker cartoonists in examples and tests. Names in the report include 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 the reporter’s documented count, not a complete inventory of artists whose names may have appeared.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Why do signatures matter?
A signature is more than a decorative mark: it tells viewers who made a cartoon and can follow the image when it is reposted without its original context. Loper described his signature as “the certificate of authenticity,” adding that if he puts his name on a work, “it’s official, it’s mine.” He called its false use a violation of personhood. Emily Flake compared seeing her pen name on a generated cartoon to “somebody attributed a quote to me that I didn’t say.”
#1 Best Overall
This is distinct from a cartoon merely resembling a broad visual style. A real artist’s name attached to an image can falsely suggest authorship or endorsement, even if the image is not a copy of a particular drawing.
What the generated images do—and do not—show
The examples described by Nieman Lab commonly used black-and-white, single-panel compositions, sparse backgrounds, clean linework and sardonic captions associated with New Yorker cartoons. Some captions did not make sense. Not every output had a signature, and some signatures were gibberish. The report documents a behavior in particular examples and tests; it does not show that every “New Yorker-style cartoon” prompt produces a signature.
Rank #2
A generated cartoon with a familiar format is not thereby an actual cartoon published by The New Yorker. Nor does a signature prove that the named artist created, approved or even saw the image. When encountering a repost, check whether the artist or publication has confirmed it rather than treating the signature as proof.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
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.”
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
After the reporter notified OpenAI, ChatGPT began showing the warning, “This prompt may violate our guardrails concerning similarity to third-party content.” But at the report’s October 5, 2026 publication, Deck said some generated cartoons still carried real cartoonists’ names. That is a time-specific observation, not confirmation of how ChatGPT behaves now or proof that the warning prevents false signatures.
Nieman Lab reported that Condé Nast signed a multi-year licensing deal with OpenAI in 2024, but the terms were not public. A New Yorker spokesperson said Condé Nast had not granted an LLM developer permission to train on its cartoons, and that the licensing arrangements did not permit reproduction of The New Yorker’s logo in generated cartoons. OpenAI declined to answer the reporter’s questions about how its models might have ingested signatures from the magazine’s archives. The broad licensing deal therefore should not be treated as evidence that cartoon training or logo reproduction was authorized.
The report also says New Yorker cartoonists generally retain copyright under their contributor arrangements: the magazine has a right to publish commissioned cartoons first, but the reviewed contracts were not “work for hire.”
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Is it illegal to imitate a cartoonist’s style or use a signature?
The report does not establish that these particular images infringe copyright or violate another law. 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.” A legal analysis could distinguish copying a specific cartoon from imitating a general style; the existence of a signature does not by itself settle that analysis.
Best Value
Grimmelmann also said cartoonists could potentially explore a state-law right-of-publicity claim, which protects aspects of a person’s identity. 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 theories, not findings that any party has broken the law.
- Broad style resemblance: The report does not establish that a style imitation alone is unlawful.
- Copying a particular cartoon: This raises a different factual question from using a broad style, and the report makes no legal finding about the examples.
- A false signature: It can mislead viewers about authorship, but its legal significance depends on the facts and applicable law.
- Commercial use: It may matter to a right-of-publicity theory; the reporting found no evidence these images were sold.
What is established—and what is not
Nieman Lab’s October 5, 2026 investigation documents ChatGPT-generated, New Yorker-style cartoons bearing real cartoonists’ signatures, including the viral image falsely bearing Loper’s name. It also records an OpenAI warning appearing after the reporter raised the issue while some signed examples continued to appear at publication. The report does not establish how common the behavior is across all prompts, how the signatures entered the model’s outputs, whether later system changes addressed it, or whether any of the specific images are unlawful.
Quick Recap
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.
