Social Media Dunks on an AI-Generated 'Batman' Comic Strip – Slashdot

Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive
Nickname:
Password:
Nickname:
Password:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

You could do the same thing a while ago with a photocopier and some scissors.
No, you couldn’t. The “AI” will produce drawings that don’t already exist, with generated images which are similar but not identical to the ones that do. A photocopier doesn’t do that. My mother was a graphic artist and I used to use her lucygraf machine (look it up) to do pictures on my character sheets. THAT was just machine-assisted copying with resize. This is something else.
It’s definitely something else – it’s doing math on content to derive statistics. That isn’t stealing.
it’s doing math on content to derive statistics
As are you. It’s just in your case a large portion of the algorithm is done in an analog fashion.
As for the article itself… look, can we stop pretending that “People Making Fanart” is somehow news, just because the tool they used was AI-based?

can we stop pretending that “People Making Fanart” is somehow news, just because the tool they used was AI-based?
It is news if it is demonstrating how easy it is to create a good comic using AI because that will likely change the industry and put a lot of comic book artists out of a job…which I very strongly suspect is what this is really all about.
You can’t have people deriding it as crap at the same time as saying “it’s easy to create a good comic and put artists out of a job”. People need to pick one if they want to be consistent.
Here’s the reality of the state of art with AI: depending on the topic, you can usually make something “okay” to “pretty good”:
* With a handful of generations if it’s an easy topic (vegetation, landscapes, sky, sea… anything where there’s a good deal of flexibility in the forms things can take)
* With some combination of

People need to pick one if they want to be consistent.
Not really because it is not a binary choice but rather a sliding scale. As you yourself point out AI can currently do a pretty good job of the basics but can’t really make professional grade (yet) and I would tend to agree with that…but the basics are probably all you need for fanart.

However, if it takes care of the basics and frees up an artists time to focus on the rest then one artist becomes much more productive and so you need fewer artists. So even if AI can’t make the professional grade it can
Huh. Wonder how well that has worked out in the music industry? You know where musicians create songs that technically don’t already exist, with generated chords that are similar but not identical.
Can’t wait to see what the multi-million dollar recording artist/studio exec has to say to the machine selling it bigger and better because it ‘remastered’ their hits about as ‘different’ as a Taylor Swift album do-over in the future.

You know where musicians create songs that technically don’t already exist, with generated chords that are similar but not identical.
It depends on the degree of similarity. Lots of songs are very, very similar.
Huh. Wonder how well that has worked out in the music industry? You know where musicians create songs that technically don’t already exist, with generated chords that are similar but not identical.
Can’t wait to see what the multi-million dollar recording artist/studio exec has to say to the machine selling it bigger and better because it ‘remastered’ their hits about as ‘different’ as a Taylor Swift album do-over in the future.
Except for a few things.
1) The music industry pays for “sampling” because the cou
If a human did this, and made a penny on it, it’d be called a copyright violation, unless it was a parody in which case fair-use.
The difference, is that “copy and paste” is literally just copying, and is not “transforming” the content of the work.
Also this is cope by draw monkeys, coping over how their years of training, have been reduced to an algorithm.
You might want to tell this Paramount next time they cease-and-desist another Star Trek Fan movie.
Paramount has copyright of characters when it comes to Trek. You can’t use those characters until the copyright on the works they are in expires because they are significant and recognizable.
So you can’t use existing characters in your derived works?
Characters like, say, Batman or Joker?
You can’t use copyrighted characters in your works whether they are derivative works or not. It’s completely irrelevant whether the artwork is derivative, the standards for which vary between media.
Yes. So how is this derivative work using Batman any different from the fan-movie using Trek characters?

Yes. So how is this derivative work using Batman any different from the fan-movie using Trek characters?
Only technically, and not in a way that makes it legal. But still in a way that couldn’t be accomplished with a photocopier.
Ok, explain which statistics you derived there if you asked Dall-E to make a comic? What is the numerical outcome?
The statistics are within the systems checkpoints or models. The numerical outcome is a digital picture. If you don’t understand how diffusion works, it’s hard for you to understand they are more like copycats of collective ideas, abstracting concepts from both language, and drawings. For example, you can make a stickman figure and ask it to look like a 20 year old person from Bahamas. The system will have a concept of people oh Bahamas, and understand the human anatomy to concoct something that plausibly w

If you ignore the word “derive.”
The legal term for a copyright violation is literally “derivative work”. That doesn’t mean that it’s wrong, but it’s definitely funny that suddenly many of the big powerful companies who have been dumping on fanfiction and other things that riff off content are changing their minds when it suits them to be able to use generative AI.
Ugh, no.
The “legal term for a copyright violation is literally” copyright infringement. You can see this at 17 USC 501.
Here is the definition in the law of ‘derivative work’:

A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.
While it can be an infringement to prepare a derivative work under 17 USC 106, it can also be perfectly legal — such as if the preexisting work is in the public domain, is used by that work’s copyright holder or with their permission, or if it falls under some other exception to copyright, such as fair use under 17 USC 107.
For example, Detective Comics 27 introduced Batman. Pretty certainly every subsequent Batman comic is ultimately derivative of that. The Batman films and tv shows are derivative works based on the comics, etc.
Nothing wrong with a work being a derivative work. They can even be quite good, like how the Aeneid is fanfic of the Iliad.

The legal term for a copyright violation is literally “derivative work”.
No. An unauthorized derivative work is a type of copyright violation. There are other types, like unauthorized copies or presentations.

A photocopier doesn’t do that.
The summary did also call for a pair of scissors. The analogy is a collage, and rights for collages which make use of other peoples’ work are complicated [thelegalartist.com].

And AI generated stuff has an additional problem, in that you can’t ask permission from the original artists because you don’t even know who they are.
I disagree. If one collects enough comics and has a good enough memory, they can probably copy-and-paste just about any scene they can think up, as long as a new character or machine is not introduced.
He was talking about using the photocopier as a tool. You could take existing art, combine it, replace dialogue etc. The resulting work would be different to the source material, but the people who spent time drawing the parts you used will probably expect to be paid.
It’s well established in the music industry with sampling.

“Social Media Dunks on…”
Odd how we’ve found anything after this statement ‘news’ when that action has become the apparent purpose of social media today.
As confirmed by the highly-profitable leech sucking on Capitalism we call Clickbait, Inc.
We had ChatGPT write the dialog after giving it an outline plot of a halo comic (John 117 visits an undersea civilization, located tens of km underwater to stop a series of events involving a powerful ancient artefact causing a galactic disaster.. stop me if you heard this one). I asked it to generate text dialog for the first few pages of a 110 page comic. It stopped at page 14, asking if I wanted to proceed. …and my friend had walle create pictures of a few panels of said halo comic. Not bad at all .. I
It’s best to do outlines iteratively – overall work outlines, chapter/subsection outlines, etc – until you get to a small enough increment that the whole content can easily fit into the AI’s token limit. And one should edit the content it spits out at each higher-level stage before passing it down to the next lower level.
Re, licensing characters, this is one AI case where copyright actually does apply. You can’t copyright styles, but you can copyright fleshed-out “well-delineated characters” (not just char
Most copyright holders understand that fan art is free advertisement. There’s a vast difference between drawing your own Batman comic (and charging money on Patreon to get each page early) and drawing a single picture of Batman and Joker facing off against each other.
The former can be problematic, especially once you start making money off it. The latter just means the copyright holder doesn’t need to pay anyone anything to keep the characters fresh in the fans’ minds.
For the record, the former case you describe isn’t at all what’s being described here.
Thanks!
I wonder what the point is where fair use stops and copyright kicks in. I’m pretty certain me and my friend kicking the tyres like we did is fair use, since we didnt publish. But would 1000 people like us playing around with generating a comic in a Facebook group also be fair use as long as we didn’t charge?
We’re basically on our way to making something like the Star Trek holodeck — you give the computer some instructions as to what you want, as basic or detailed as you like, and then you have fun with it.
Frankly, I’m looking forward to it.
https://www.legalzoom.com/arti… [legalzoom.com]
Copyright protection of derivative works
There are two ways that derivative rights are protected under copyright law.
First, the derivative work has protection under the copyright of the original work. Copyright protection for the owner of the original copyright extends to derivative works. This means that the copyright owner of the original work also owns the rights to derivative works. Therefore, the owner of the copyright to the original work may bring a copyright infringement lawsuit against someone who creates a derivative work without permission.
These are obviously derived works from copyright protected originals. The AI dataset includes the original art. That copy may or may not have been a copyright violation. But, publishing a derived work from that original is clearly a copyright violation. You may disagree with copyright and intellectual property law but as of now there is no legal debate. These works are copyright violations unless they were granted a license to publish by the copyright owner.

These are obviously derived works from copyright protected originals. The AI dataset includes the original art. That copy may or may not have been a copyright violation. But, publishing a derived work from that original is clearly a copyright violation. You may disagree with copyright and intellectual property law but as of now there is no legal debate. These works are copyright violations unless they were granted a license to publish by the copyright owner.
This is the part I can’t get my head around. Everything we humans do derives from previous experiences. Most famous works of today can be clearly traced to earlier works (Harry Potter draws from D&D, Tolkien etc., which in turn draws from earlier works still, all the way back to 1000AD folklore and beyond). Why is it acceptable that humans build experiences from earlier works and use that to create something different? How is it different when an AI reads 1 million comic books and makes a new comic as o
Because you misunderstand the legal meaning of the word “derived”.
Tolkien does not own the swords and sorcery good bs evil fantasy drama.
However, it would be legally unwise to write your own stories in Middle Earth or use his characters in your for profit art without permission.
An AI writing fan fiction is really not fundamentally different from humans doing the same.
Just because copyright owners don’t go after every violation and fan fic does not mean those fan fics are legally safe.
Copyright violation is a civil matter, not criminal. The owner has to actively do something about it.
Well for starters making comparisons to humans would imply the AI is exactly like that of a human. Obviously this is not true (at least for current AI tech), and prior cases such as the infamous monkey selfie show that just because something can imitate human works does not necessarily entitle it to human rights. Especially when there is still a human behind the AI operating it to output potential copyright violations. That sort of obfuscation just makes it easier for both individuals and institutions alike

These are obviously derived works from copyright protected originals. The AI dataset includes the original art. That copy may or may not have been a copyright violation. But, publishing a derived work from that original is clearly a copyright violation. You may disagree with copyright and intellectual property law but as of now there is no legal debate. These works are copyright violations unless they were granted a license to publish by the copyright owner.
This is the part I can’t get my head around. Everything we humans do derives from previous experiences.
Because it’s not about the sources, it’s about the work.
Consider two individuals.
Individual A is from an isolated tribe on an island free of any modern influence. They write an amazing song generated only from the inspirations of their centuries old traditions. And so their tribe encourages them to leave the island and share their song with the world. Unfortunately, by incredible random chance, the song is note-for-note and “made up random sound”-for-word identical to Yesterday [wikipedia.org].
Individual B is a Beatles fan
My argument is that whether the generated work infringes copyright depends not on who created it, but the work itself.
And yes, there’s a fuzzy line where a work goes from “original” to “copyright infringement”. This line is a bit easier to navigate for humans since we typically do understand when we’re borrowing too heavily from a previous work so we stay far back from that line unless copying is our intent. In theory that line should be in the same place for humans and an AI, but that question would ultima
Nah… By that argument any human who *ever* looks at any copyrighted artwork can never produce “clean” artwork.
Not at all. You can do a cartoon of a mouse but it can’t look like Mickey Mouse.
The law is quite clear and courts will not take kindly to word game arguments.
You don’t the like the law, shrug. But it is still the law.
The Law of Disney clearly states that nobody can do with the Mouse what the Mouse does with others.
Disney is legally allowed to rip off Buster Keaton, the courts decided.
Nobody is allowed to rip off Disney.
Which is why d34dmaus winning the trademark suit against Disney was such a big deal. Disney had never lost before.

The law is quite clear and courts will not take kindly to word game arguments.
You don’t the like the law, shrug. But it is still the law.
[citation needed] Which law, which article?
I already posted a link. If you don’t like it, complain to the lawyers at legalzoom.
I’m sorry but you looked at Mickey Mouse so it went into the network of neurons you call your brain. Anything you ever draw that looks remotely like a mickey mouse (overly round ears… a smile) is suspect by that logic.
It’s the same reason you have “clean room” development. If the coders have *ever* seen the code, it’s suspect.
It’s the reason I didn’t read Lord of the Rings in high-school. Every person who did lost their own unique worlds and started producing knock off Tolkien campaign worlds.
In any ca
Yes, that was the argument in the case of the IBM PC clones.
Nobody who had ever worked at Intel was allowed to work on IBM-compatible PC, only “virgins” allowed, for copyright reasons.
Show me the specific work in question you’re referring to. Specific work. Remember that styles are not copyrightable.
Characters are absolutely copyright protected. Try publishing your own derived Mickey Mouse cartoon and see how that works out for you. After trial, the Disney lawyers will feed your puppy remains to the pigs, slaughter the pigs and feed them to the dogs they kill the dogs and drop their corpses into the deep ocean.
Trademark. Not copyright.
You said copyright of derivative works. Show the original work that you feel is being infringed. Not character copyright (which is a special category with high standards, and does not at all apply to all AI art (or non-AI art), only special cases).
Copyrights in a character is really just a shorthand way of referring to the portions of one or more copyrighted works that describe the character, often as a gestalt.
But there is not really such a thing as a character copyright; only copyrights in works.
If you make your own Mickey cartoon you are at least infringing on the Steamboat Willie copyright from 1928 and maybe more depending on what version of Mickey you use.
Good news though: The 1928 version hits the public domain in three months. So long as you
Who said characters? Rei said styles.
You seem to not understand the difference between copyrights and trademarks (obvious with your mickey mouse comment).
You also seem to not understand english.
You are once again showing that your username is completely wrong.
Rei can say anything she wants. I don’t play the chase the moving goal post game with her. I’ve made my point. She moved the goal post. I am not going to follow any further.
The article is about using an AI to rip off a well known Batman depiction from a particular artist who presumably owns copyright.
She didn’t need you to white knight for her. She’s a grown woman with a brain and perfectly capable of making and defending her points.
You’re just one of my NPC stalker trolls. I could say “Merry Christma

These are obviously derived works from copyright protected originals.
You might think that if you were completely ignorant of what a derived work is.

The AI dataset includes the original art.
The dataset the model is made from includes the original art, but the model doesn’t include the original art. That’s an important distinction you’re glossing over in order to support your argument.
Shrug, we’ll see if those word games work in a real court. I wouldn’t bet my life savings on it.
You said two ways and first — what’s the second?
Also, the person who holds the copyright of a preexisting work used as the basis for a derivative work does not get the copyright of an infringing derived work. That would be unconstitutional, and it’s not in the law. Rather the copyright of a derivative work is only on the original portions, and to the extent that it is derivative an unauthorized work may simply not be copyrightable. This is all under 17 USC 103.
The second way is not relevant to this conversation but is at the link. That paragraph is a quote from legalzoom.

These are obviously derived works from copyright protected originals. The AI dataset includes the original art. That copy may or may not have been a copyright violation. But, publishing a derived work from that original is clearly a copyright violation. You may disagree with copyright and intellectual property law but as of now there is no legal debate. These works are copyright violations unless they were granted a license to publish by the copyright owner.
Works are considered derivative or transformative on the basis of their similarity to a copyrighted work not the modality of the works creation.
Yes and if you look at this dude’s AI generated Batman it is clearly a clone of someone else’s well known art.
Perhaps, but there are examples of comic artists copying photos in terms of composition and posing, and not getting sued. In fact some made a career of it.
Maybe they were just lucky, maybe artists tend not to sue over such things because they consider them fair. Then again, photographers have sued and won over other photographers copying their composition and the like.
What’s the goal here? Do we want art to be more available and basically free thanks to AI, or do we want to protect artists special talent an

The AI dataset includes the original art.
The training set, or data set used to make images? (since both are sets that exist, but are different sets for different purposes. The latter … that’d be absolutely false if everything went to plan (including avoiding overfitting/overtraining), just look at how much smaller the actual generation data set is compared to the training data, for instance.
If the AI folks keep presenting these types of things in the framing they are, which is to say they are presenting this as “we are replacing the artist” rather than “these are just new tools for artists to use”.
If they had perhaps reached out to one of the many comic artists who have worked on Batman throughout the years and asked them to use this to generate something there might be a bit more acceptance but this ends up feeling like a bunch of tech people saying “pfft, we don’t need you creative types anymore we did this in 5 minutes!”
If the AI folks keep presenting these types of things in the framing they are, which is to say they are presenting this as “we are replacing the artist” rather than “these are just new tools for artists to use”.
Holy Straw Men, Batman!
(The original author, of course, said nothing even remotely resembling that [twitter.com] – your post is pure AI-paranoia extrapolation, and reflects entirely on you and your fears rather than the author’s motivations)
Let’s quote them
OpenAI’s latest image generation model, DALL-E 3, makes it SO easy to create comic books! Here are 4 panels for a fan-made Batman comic made in under 5 minutes.Prompts included in the ALT.
So, while they didn’t “say that” to me it’s fairly implied. You can say I am reading too much into it but that’s my opinion and also yours. To me at least it’s pretty obvious the underlying threads here.
It is not even remotely implied.
Well that’s your opinion and I have mine and the pushback to this as stated in the article seems to suggest many besides myself also have that opinion.
Now I do not take this as the stated goal of OpenAI itself (I would say they are neutral) but rather it’s proponents like Ammaar here.

your post is pure AI-paranoia extrapolation, and reflects entirely on you and your fears
Also forgot to mention this is as much of a strawman as what you accused me of. AI in my opinion is pretty neat and has lot’s of cool uses but my issue the framing the general demeanor and background of the people promoting it and what they are choosing to do with it.
AI likely will replace the artists. Not now, but soon.
We will still need people to write the prompts and guide the AI, but those will be different people, with different skill sets, not the current artists.
Without humans to refresh the set of original art, all AI artwork will eventually degrade into noise. Without humans, all AI will then be copying each other, with bits of information lost in each copy. It’s a lot like how a lossy image or sound will eventually degrade into indistinguishable noise as each copy of a copy is made.
Why should it be a goal or AI art should be something we value at all when art is the pre-eminent human thing we do. Outside of language it’s the thing our big cerebral cortexes allow us to do and care about.
The very nature of art itself is human, it doesn’t exist in nature only to the extent we recognize it as humans as such. Without the context of the human experience of the person creating it it’s functionally worthless, just numbers and colored pixels. There’s a reason we packed the Golden Record wi
That’s like saying that with arrival of robots humans will no longer need to eat or breathe.
Artists create because humans are compelled to create.
Both making and using of tools and expression of inner thoughts and emotions predate hunting and gathering or even humanity.
AI-generated “art” is as worthless to a human as “art” produced by a monkey. At best it can look pretty, signifying and expressing nothing.
Its natural path is that of another “computer” form of art – MS Office clip art.
I would argue a lot of the pushback comes from all the crypto and NFT grifters coming in to hawk grifts rather then actually care about contributing to the arts.
And of course your typical greedy companies wanting to cull jobs to cut costs.
There is an argument about whether it constitutes as art, but that debate is not new and likely will never be fully addressed in our lifetimes, AI or no.
That said, even the Pro-AI crowd cannot deny the part about culling jobs especially in light of the layoffs and other fi
I think philosophically the pushback will continue even as the AI gets better because there’s a philosophical nature as to what art is and what it means to us as humans and I think if you take that human experience and authorship and detach it so significantly it’s falls outside of the very definition of what art is, it’s just empty numbers, monkeys at typewriters creating things they have no context to understand.
I do think there are things about AI that real artists will make real art with but the way it’
And some of it melted together. I don’t know whatever you’re on about social media, I’ll ignore that. But I like the metaphor. Because I see these as tools and these tools are populated with raw materials.
I almost think now that the artist should be responsible for the integrity of its tools and the raw materials used. One wouldn’t make a sculpture of someone else’s material unless it’s a parody? Let the lawsuits decide, I guess, but that’s by current view.
Could we do one where the AI-generated script isn’t complete crap? Batman runs himself down with the Batmobile while the Joker mocks him… there might be a human out there who would write that, but you know it would be framed with some kind of explanation for Batman being in two places simultaneously and wanting to kill himself.
I guess the advance here is that the artwork wasn’t all weirdly distorted and full of blends of components of different images into twisted chimeric horrors. Then again, I suspect
Of course a human brain has it’s “create a Batman comic” neural network connected to an entire lifetime of human experience (including feedback on early attempts at output) to filter out the stupid.
The AI has only been trained on Batman comics and doesn’t have any understanding of language or story or how an audience might react.
We’re going to need many orders of magnitude more complexity in an AI before it can accept an input, understand it in a meaningful way, then create output that is satisfying to the
The mindset of many Slashdotters with regards to creativity is perhaps ironic considering many here (including me) were likely in part raised and inspired by creatives to get into IT/CS.
Never an article goes by where someone is quoting Arthur C. Clarke, Adam Douglas, or the arbitrary Terminator reference that has been popular as of late. Regardless of how much their tastes have changed, there has to have been some love for the media that effectively gave birth to our nerdy little subculture. Even if the sci
>The mindset of many Slashdotters with regards to creativity
Creativity is when you apply a filter to randomness and search for a pattern in the results that inspires you, then apply your experience to that pattern to shape it into something that’s more ‘normal’ without going so far as to render it totally mundane.
I think what makes creative people creative is that their filters are less restrictive and they’re less bound by their learned rules. And depending on where they land on that implied creativity
Batman has another 10 years before copyrights on the basics go bye bye… Hard to imagine where the technology will be by then.
Copyrights lapsing on the earliest works (e.g. Batman, Superman) is not going to lead to much. It’ll be only the very early stuff, missing a lot of things that would make Batman/Superman recognisable as we know them today. Also, these characters are protected by trademarks.
It’s a legal minefield. As derivative works would almost certainly see legal action, it’d be simpler to create a brand new character that dresses funny and fights street criminals.
“… it’d be simpler to create a brand new character that dresses funny and fights street criminals.”
Reminds me of that old one:
Chuck Norris and Superman had a race to see who was the fastest. The loser had to wear his underwear on the outside.
That only covers the golden age Batman though, who was quite different to the modern one which really started in the 80s. It will be interesting to see what happens – when Winnie the Pooh fell out of copyright, there were some unsanctioned uses of the character, but none of them were very good. Part of the issue being that the supporting cast was mostly still covered by copyright, part of it that no real money was getting thrown at it for fear of what novel arguments Disney’s lawyers might come up with.
The entertainment industry seems obsessed with pumping out endless remakes, reboots, and other assorted regurgitating of old ideas. AI will make this faster and easier until finally, we will be drowning in an endless sea of derivative crap
Hopefully, once we get bored of it, there will be a revival of real creativity

… drowning in an endless sea of derivative crap
Hopefully, once we get bored of it, there will be a revival of real creativity
I feel that way already lol
The real question is: is it any good. Maybe if one generates enough variations, by sheer accident some may be fairly good, but so far you still need a human vetter to critique and tune. Not enough authors have the skill to tune such bots well, but that will probably change.
[“That’s literally just Brian Bolland’s Joker. The shamelessness of this ‘technology’ is appalling. I guess it’s okay to steal.
If stealing songs, software, and movies isn’t a crime, neither is this. Nothing was taken. The original is still in place. It’s just ones and zeros.
Did I miss anything?
All new media will now only be decoupage of old media. Cultural victory achieved.
Don’t bother creating anything new.
This gives birth to the new new boheme, beyond authenticity, maaaan.
Seriously, I think it will spawn a new artistry intent on denying reduplication. More performative, like Girl with Balloon/Love Is in the Bin.
Or even the use of psychedelics (again) in order to find “unseen” art. Should be interesting after all the heavy breathing has subsided.
ST:TNG’s first season, politicians copying the speeches of others, totally derivative science fiction made with the expectation that viewers are unaware of what’s been written in the past, and so on.
And maybe if AI wrote the scripts for SF shows they wouldn’t have ships moving at hundreds of times the speed of light navigated around obstacles by humans with a normal nervous system, and relying on the connection between their eyes and hands.
Lots of SF written many, many, years ago did a much less unrealistic
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Here’s What’s New in Python 3.12
Could ‘The Creator’ Change Hollywood Forever?
If in any problem you find yourself doing an immense amount of work, the answer can be obtained by simple inspection.

source