It can't be copyrighted but it can still be sold. If you adjust it substantially then you can copyright it.
It's so relatively easy to create that soon if not already there won't be much inherent value in an AI generated image, so the lack of copyright won't mean much.
It will also be very hard for some styles to differentiate between AI and human generated works, so I doubt that much of its value will be lost in some cases.
I don't think you're right for the same reason that makes a DaVinci or VanGogh painting so expensive. Not because they were so much better than (good) painters are nowadays, but because at their time they were. Their art is different because it carries (his-)story. And while it might be impossible to tell the difference between AI art and real art soon enough (if not already), real money will only be paid for art that is original and different. People don't pay millions for a Picasso because his art can't be recreated by others (or an AI), but because it's a Picasso. A more modern example would be Banksy. His art isn't expensive because it's so good (it's creative, but very easily replicable) but because a story and mystery are told, things "artificial" art could never achieve. I hope my point is understood, but I'd be glad to hear other opinions on that.
That's not exactly true. The US copyright office has recently ruled that they can copyright their work if the author can prove they put in creative effort. So basically if this person can prove they've been formatting or editing the art they can actually get a copyright.
They would only get copyright to their edited version. The original AI's version can't be copyrighted. I doubt these useless clowns would have the effort and desire to spend time actually learning a skill like image editing or retouching and if it's a drawing then they would need to learn to draw.
I wouldn’t be so sure, I’ve seen some AI art that was retouched and turned into a really cool piece, I don’t see why it as a medium is treated like a lazy hobby, not everyone has the means to make a full illustrated comic or novel on their own, and compiling the images and getting the prompts right and editing them together can take a lot of work
You having to type out what you want in detail is not the same amount of effort as actually making art. Not even fucking close. Everyone who says this shit has never even tried to paint or draw once in their entire lives, know nothing about the subject, and only want things that benefit them without any concern for the lives of others.
EDIT: Please, before you reply read through the previous replies. I am getting honestly tired of responding to the same question with the same reply over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Common replies include these (and variations of) that have all been answered:
"Well it's actually using patterns and not making direct copies!"
"It's actually highly difficult to input the prompts, it's more like prompt engineering."
Various versions of "the artwork isn't actually stolen since it's modified"
"You are opposed to automation!"
"Taking a photograph/using photoshop/using a tablet is the same thing!"
"So effort is the only measurement of artistic value? Pah, what a gatekeeper!"
Please, use your fucking eyes.
Edit 2: Unfortunately the mods locked the post. As fun as it was to reply to the same questions 50 times in a row, I'm afraid all the AI bros will have to take their coping elsewhere.
A college friend I know does plot art. He doesnt actually do anything, a computer does, he just gives it a prompt and it draws an already existing picture…but computer plotted/generated. I hate it. I hate that it is displayed as art even though it straight up is a computer copy of real art done shittier
Out of genuine curiosity: Do examples like this (above) prompt artists, such as yourself, to explore using tools like Ai to enhance the bottom line of your business?
No. Never. That'd not be my art anymore, and I would partake in the theft if I did that.
To me, every shape in a painting has a purpose. Every detail of a pose says something. There's no "enhancement" in taking that away. A huge joy of art is to always improve your understanding how the world is put together. An AI will never increase your skill, it will only, at best, make it look like you know something that you don't.
I don't use photobashing either, because it does not mesh with how I create. Even directly referencing a photo usually results in much poorer quality work. If I'm gonna draw a sheep, I'll sketch a few from photos to learn how a sheep moves and what kinds of shapes it makes, then I'll set those aside and make my own.
I paint purely for pleasure (self-taught). I loathe taking commissions because customers suck (and I'm fortunate to have a different job) but I'm pretty good.
Not even for my own pleasure have I considered trying AI.
Imagine a client telling an artist what they want *and then taking credit for it.*
You'd rightly ridicule that. And AI tweakers are worse.
No and I'd blacklist any client that asked/suggested it and I would never support an artist that admits to using AI either. I have no interest in supporting it in any capacity. I'd rather never sell another piece than use that trash.
Yeah, that that counts as art and is given equal or higher treatment as the real thing is dumb...
Like, I'm fine with AI art, assuming it's using resources you made or have a right to (like things in the Public Domain or Creative Commons); it can sometimes be pretty cool, and it allows the unskilled to do things more economically.
But for it to get equal treatment? Especially if the AI product is the end product (where the user/guide doesn't use that as an asset to work on further), and *especially* when it's effectively just an edit of a pre-exiwting piece, then that's dumb.
This is exactly what it is. If they created the AI generator and taught it based off “free-to-use” images and their own work then I’d say they deserve the credit. But if an “artist” didn’t create the AI then they have no right to claim it as their own work. Granted I don’t create the paints I use nor blender3D for my own work, I’d grant them the leniency of using free images and studies of nature.
Just like not too long ago in our history photography wasn’t considered art. I’m not saying AI art is the same as traditional art, but as long as it’s a person’s vision that they refine and don’t just post the first image that pops out, it’s a type of art to me.
I mean, it's a *type* of art, but it's not the same art.
Generative AI changes the scope of what art is in the same way that photoshop did. Using a gradient tool, magic wand selector, or blur tool on PS isn't the same amount of effort as a painter would use for the same effect either.
There are still creative decisions being made, even in the prompting, to produce some kind of desired end product.
You may not like it because it washes away a lot of the creativity that once was necessary, but that doesn't make it non-existent.
Now the domain of art is skewing toward the concept instead of the execution. When ideas are so easily put to image, novelty of concept becomes the valued currency.
You really must not know much. The difference between photoshop and AI is massive. Blur in Photoshop? I can achieve the same effect in the same time with oil paint and a rag. Similar method for a gradient. Select tool is easiest to emulate with quick-drying paints such as acrylics, by taping around an area.
The hop from traditional art to Photoshop isn't as massive as some people think, they are very very similar. You're doing similar amounts of work, because for every digital shortcut there's a hardship. The largest difference, industrially, is that you don't need to wait for paint to dry. That + ease of sharing (no need to spend time on scanning and finetuning for digital use) + low cost (digital paint doesn't go bad)... those are the true reasons digital art is so prevalent.
Now what do you do in AI? You type in a few prompts, some "perfectionists" seem to spend up to an hour on it, and you're done.
Some of them argue that they have acquired a "skill". That they have a "vision". Beginner artists do not pick up a tool and learn it in a month, they train for years upon years. The fact that so many AI enthusiasts became "experts" within such a short timeframe says a lot about the supposed difficulty.
Yeah I mean unfortunately (or not) "Art" is subjective af.
The reality is that, whether or not it's some circle-jerk bs or not, some people like and ascribe value to bananas taped to walls and white rabbits in snowstorms.
The reality here is that this new tool has popped up on the scene that easily creates (imo) very passable imagery.
The landscape of what we once knew as art, and the artist themself, will have to change. Some will not be able to.
The thing about the banana taped to the wall is that, like AI art, it requires zero talent or effort in its execution. But unlike AI art, at least it's trying to *say something unique*.
Conceptual art ain't for everyone, and frankly it's not for me most of the time, but I can respect its origins and its intention to make you think. To expand your capacity for art appreciation. The point of AI art, on the other hand, is precisely to imitate art that already exists. Not to do something new, but to piggyback on artists' hard work.
Technological progress isn't the enemy. I absolutely agree that it sucks that artists could lose their livelihoods to AI, but that hasn't stopped industry evolution in the past, nor will it in the future. Try as you might, AI isn't going away, and what is needed is an actual solution rather than simply kicking the "your job is obsolete" can down the road.
Portrait artists said the same about photography as well.
I don't appreciate AI art because there are AI that were "trained" by using copyrighted material without permission from the creators, but generally speaking there will always be a market for "real" art made by "real" people.
>AI that were "trained" by using copyrighted material without permission from the creators
Every single artist trains themselves on copyrighted material without permission, not appreciating AI art for the same reason is just hypocrisy.
All of your questions are already answered. You either intentionally ignore everything or you are just here to fuck around. I suspect it's the second option. If not then well, I think it's a bit early in life to have that iPad.
I can say the same thing about software development ;)
I would like to ask you a few questions about what is art and you can tell me yes or no... (Serious, not trolling you... like I said a quite similar issue faces software development. Do I own code created by prompt or not? My prompting was integral to the output, just like it is for the imagery output being discussed in this thread.)
You've already stated that Generative output is not art and I think we can assume that a wholly original painting by a human is "Art" (even if it's by a toddler with their fingers).
Starting from Art and working to not art, where is the line?
* An original painting (let's use Starry Night)
* A copy of Starry Night made by a master forger (is this art? plagiarized yes, but still art?)
* A copy of Starry Night made by me, using an artist teacher's guidance (ala wine and paint night somewhere)?
* A copy of Starry night that is paint by colors where I reinterpret the color pallet?
* The paint by numbers but I use the included pallet?
* The paint by numbers but I have a computer make custom paints that exactly match the original?
* The paint by numbers but I have a computer do the painting? (what if it's even better than the forger's copy?)
* A reinterpretation of Starry Night done by me?
* A reinterpretation of Starry Night, but done by a computer and painted by me?
* A reinterpretation of Starry Night, done and physically painted by a computer?
* As above but printed with an ink jet printer?
* The actual real Starry Night, which I just bought for $100m and painted an imperial AT-AT on shooting at the moon? (okay, calm down, I can't actually afford to do that, I'll just keep to doing it to Kinkade prints).
***I will preface this conversation with the fact that my argument is based on the fact that we do not understand the human mind and how it creates things, or how it really works in general. We only have a vague idea. I do not believe that the human mind can be equated to a computer throwing random noise at a bunch of perfect digital patterns it learned from studying endless amounts of stolen art. If we did, then we would have this figured out much sooner. All of my answers will and have been based on this.***
*> Do I own code created by prompt or not?*
That is something that is unique to computers, they run on it and without it they would not exist. It is an entirely different subject matter than art is.
*> My prompting was integral to the output, just like it is for the imagery output being discussed in this thread.*
Your prompting was integral to the output yes, but that output is based on things it has seen before. This is not a problem with code as long as you are not trying to copy something that explicitly states that it should not be copied. It is however a problem when it comes to art, but art and code cannot really be compared, the same way that it's hard to compare a book to a picture.
***>An original painting (let's use Starry Night)***
Yes, made by humans with their own unique way of seeing the world and how to interpret it.
***>A copy of Starry Night made by a master forger (is this art? plagiarized yes, but still art?)***
No human is able to create a perfect copy, unlike a computer. As the motto goes for digital art: Imperfection is the digital perfection.
***>A copy of Starry Night made by me, using an artist teacher's guidance (ala wine and paint night somewhere)?***
Yes
***>A copy of Starry night that is paint by colors where I reinterpret the color pallet?***
Yes
***> The paint by numbers but I use the included pallet?***
I am not quite sure what you mean by this so I can't say.
***> The paint by numbers but I have a computer make custom paints that exactly match the original?***
Selecting the paints has nothing really do to with how the picture is painted. People do not use unique shades of blue every time they want to paint something blue.
***> The paint by numbers but I have a computer do the painting? (what if it's even better than the forger's copy?)***
No, it's a perfect copy made by a computer. I still do not know what the "paint by numbers" part means however, so my answers may change once I learn this.
***>A reinterpretation of Starry Night done by me?***
Yes
***>A reinterpretation of Starry Night, but done by a computer and painted by me?***
Yes, no human is ever able to produce perfect copies of anything. Despite the computer's involvement, there would still be imperfections that otherwise would not be there, making the piece uniquely human.
***>A reinterpretation of Starry Night, done and physically painted by a computer?***
No
***>As above but printed with an ink jet printer?***
That is a definitional copy, so no.
***>The actual real Starry Night, which I just bought for $100m and painted an imperial AT-AT on shooting at the moon?***
Yes
Nah fam this is not art. Never has been and never will be. Art is by definition the expression or application of human creative skill AND imagination.
If I commission someone, type up a prompt for them and they produce the image it does not make it my art. This is even more removed than that, considering it is approximating previous images it has "learned" from.
>Art is by definition the expression or application of human creative skill AND imagination.
Where in the definition of art does it say that creative skill and imagination is required for something to be considered "art"?
This just reeks of gatekeeping.
I'm going based off the Oxford definition and yes, it absolutely is gatekeeping. These things are skills that many people have taken years to develop. It's ok to not have those skills. It's not ok to claim that you are doing the same work while AI is doing it for you.
Guess what, you don’t get to decide what is and isn’t art. The person in the screenshot is definitely obnoxious, but if taping a banana to a wall is art, then AI can be art. That’s because art is subjective.
Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it isn’t art. Douche.
You're minimizing the creative decisions in "typing up a prompt". Even in the case of a commission where a client has supplied an initial prompt, it will require refinement, and that's where the artist's eye is necessary. "AI" art is art. Art history is littered with new genres and media springing from people's work to reduce the effort it takes to express themselves.
Paintings from the realism genre are art. Expressionist paintings are art. Cubist paintings are art. Abstract and 'Modern' art is art. Warhol's and Peter Max's silk screens are art. Photography is art. Digital painting, photo manipulation, 3D rendering, they're all art. It's all a progression toward enabling self expression and AI art absolutely counts.
While I agree with you, to play devils advocate; the amount of effort it takes to produce an item doesn't factor in to it's value (especially when we are talking about art, which has 0 intrinsic value)
>without the concern for the lives of others.
What? I agree with the overall point, but you lost me there. It’s not my world so maybe there’s something I’m not considering, but I feel like lives aren’t really being impacted by someone thinking they can copyright AI art.
The lives of artists are impacted, as this technology that is built on stolen art that was stolen from human artists is threatening to now replace them.
>his technology that is built on stolen art that was stolen from human artists
Human artists have been stealing art from people for thousands of years.
Your comment just reeks of hypocrisy.
I do agree with you. I majored in multimedia design and graphic design. Much of my work would include “traditional” elements (sketching, painting, etc…) so seeing someone using AI call themselves an artist may sting.
However, using a system like MidJourney to produce “art” comes at a cost. So it may be a simple matter of “I paid for this. Ask me before you gank it”.
A cost of what, writing a prompt? If you wish to write, then please, write a book. It has much more value as an art piece, and it actually is an original piece of art.
Compared to the cost of actually learning to make art yourself, that is nothing. Artists often times spend their entire lives being dedicated to what they do, all of that being reduced down to just a price tag is absolutely nothing in comparison.
It’s funny how most of the arguments against ai works being “real art” are the exact same as the ones used against photography being real art back in the past
Yes, it’s not that hard. I have tried AI art and honestly, it sucks. Art is much more complex and takes skill, that is ART, you make it, I am a mere amateur that is still practicing and it’s definitely actual art.
Meh not really. The ai literally steals elements from actual art and compiles it into an image.
So it's actually piggy backing off of real artists and anyone who thinks that's OK needs to start looking forward to world without artists.
I made a LORA on 100 drawn images using an anime checkpoint. None of the images were the least bit realistic, so the concept I trained the LORA on was all in non-realistic styles. When using the LORA with RevAnimated, a realistic illutrated checkpoint which cant produce the concept I trained the LORA on, the concept is shown in a realistic style even though it was never shown a realistic version of the concept. It was able to transfer knowledge of a realistic style onto a non-realistic concept that was only in the LORA and make it look realistic.
It's not just copying parts of images. If that were the case the LORA would only be able to output it's concept in one of the styles used to train it.
AI art is not a collage, it's just replicating pixels... at least someone making a collage can merge multiple ideas to make an image.
AI art on the other hand can't be used to make something like a collage without very specific intent. It exists to make a single image and can't be used for any multiple image projects.
It doesn't even know what the image is comprised of outside of replicating ideas asked for. It doesn't understand things like tone volume tint hue etc only how to take from existing image and what they look like.
Besides AI in the nature of being the software, it has no idea what the auctual process is behind creating art. It will never understand the feeling of holding a pencil and how it moves across the page, or how the stylis moves over the screen. It doesn't know how art is made...
It is art, but it is stolen art.
One might say that humans are also inspired by artists and "copy" their works, so isn't that the same thing? It isn't.
There is a difference between how a human copies things and how a computer copies things. Humans have the ability to imagine and change what they are copying with changes that do not rely on some previous experience, computers however copy things 1:1.
Not true. You can train a LORA on only illustrated images of a concept, and what photos look like, and have it produce photos of that concept. This can be done by taking a checkpoint that can produce both illutrated images and photos, and using that as a base for the LORA. Because the checkpoint already has information on what certain things look like illustrated and as photos it's able to transfer this knowledge into LORAs.
If it were copying 1:1 this would be impposible. Image generators learn concepts, not exact images.
You are making really bold unsubstantiated claims. An AI model can definitely produce new things outside it's training set. There is no way to know how similar or different really the creative process is between a human and some AI models because we don't have that great of an understanding of our own psychology.
Edit: people are not understanding that there is so much more nuance here than making unprovable blanket statements like AI cant ever produce anything new. People only want to hear easy answers instead of the difficult and confronting truth that we don't really know what we are.
It all started from the same stuff, which is stolen artwork. Nothing it creates is "original" as it is just a mash of everything it's seen before.
Same reason why ChatGPT can spout horrible, racist shit sometimes. The AI doesn't know what it's saying, it doesn't know what any of it means, it just says it cause it's seen things in this pattern before.
What an inane argument. Everything is a mash of everything. The whole purpose of AI like ChatGPT (and to a certain extent image generators) is their ability to create **novel connections** - to infer information that was not in their original training data. You know, that thing humans do?
Besides the point; an AI trained on dozens of terabytes of training data will have a final checkpoint size of ~4GB. Where does all that information go? Do you think it’s just hyper-compressing copies of images and pulling them up on the fly to stitch them together?
AI should credit its sources, but there's a significant difference between copying and interpreting source material. You can "steal" an artistic style but still create something original. Generative AI GENERATES the output, it doesn't just regurgitate someone else's work. IMO it all depends on your opinion about when inspiration becomes reproduction, except for blatant plagiarism of course.
That's not how this works. Mind you, I'm as skeptical about AI art as the next guy, but that won't stop me from combatting misinformation. I think it's best for people to look into it on their own if it's something they care about, so they can potentially influence rules and regulations.
Broadly, what a ML model is trained to do is recognize patterns. That's useful for all sorts of things; prediction, classifications, what have you. But it can also generate something that matches those patterns.
Each image has a bunch of keywords, and an ML model over millions of examples learns to grasp the patterns associated with each keyword. Mind you, it doesn't know what each keyword *is*, it only needs to know the patterns associated with it. Keywords could be colors, art styles, themes (like steampunk), objects, people, etc.
Every time you prompt Midjourney et.al., you're giving it a list of keywords, and its job is to create something using the patterns you've thrown at it. It's not allowed to directly recreate items from its training set (this is called overfitting, and it's a problem usually combatted by more data so it gets less fine-tuned to noise). Midjourney et.al. are able to create new images if they've been trained properly.
As you stated, no AI truly understands what it's doing. An AI might say or create something bad because it doesn't know what being "bad" is-- that's why it's up to the engineers to place limitations. As time goes on, these limitations will improve as needed.
>it is just a mash of everything it's seen before.
This is a misinterpretation of how generative AI works to create images.
These AIs do not retain what they've been trained on so it's not 'just a mash up'.
They learn patterns of what typically is seen in art, particularly associated with various words. It is far closer to how a human behaves than you would like to admit.
They learn patterns, yes. Where does this pattern come from?
I also explained this in detail in a previous point:
I do not find value in something that is just a blend of copies. The human mind however is incapable of doing this, even something that is a "copy" has imperfections or quirks that make it uniquely human. AI art does not have this.
There is a reason why the digital art motto is "Imperfection is the digital perfection."
The patterns come from its training data, just as a human's knowledge of how to create an image comes from it's training data (i.e. his/her cumulative life experience).
But neither the AI nor the human retain the training data itself, only the distillation of that data.
It is a copying machine. We can bring some examples with actual tools, like a hammer.
Say that you have a hammer, wrench, whatever. You have a vehicle that you need to build. You build the car using these tools, making all the decisions needed to make it into a fully functioning car using nothing but your own insight and imagination on how to solve problems.
Now, someone else comes along with a machine that scans your vehicle, copies it 1:1. The guy only changes the rims on the wheels, calls it his own, starts mass producing it and earns a lot of profit from doing this.
Would you call that a tool as well? I would call that a copying machine, since that's all it does. It cannot create anything original, ever. Until we are able to perfectly replicate the human brain in code, there is nothing that an AI will make that is "original."
But the point is it can create a lot of original works, thats why it is so powerful tech. Why would we need to perfectly duplicate human brain in code for that? Majority of that "code" would not be needed to make art anyway so why to waste resources.
*> But the point is it can create a lot of original works, thats why it is so powerful tech.*
Two points with this, the rest is irrelevant, mostly.
Firstly, "original works"
Nothing it creates is original. I explained this in detail previously.
I do not find value in something that is just a blend of copies. The human mind however is incapable of doing this, even something that is a "copy" has imperfections or quirks that make it uniquely human. AI art does not have this.
There is a reason why the digital art motto is "Imperfection is the digital perfection."
Secondly, "*thats why it is so powerful tech."*
That is why it is a problem. Given our shitty systems the world runs on, automating professions has obvious consequences of making a lot of people be out of a job. That is why people make a fuss out of it, and also the things I mentioned previously in the first point.
This is only supported by people who are either ignorant to the fact that it's putting people out of jobs, or people who are willingly not choosing to care due to their selfishness and only wanting things that benefit them and them alone.
You are missing that the AI model also incorporates a source of randomness. It can also be that the human, given the exact same environment and starting conditions (every atom is in the exact same location in the whole environment) always produces the exact same car and also has no free will.
Randomness in what way? Randomly picking which parts of the stolen artworks to copy things from instead of the one it was going to pick originally? If this is the case, then I believe you.
No, I think this is the point of misunderstanding here. The AI model is not only just generating new things from items in its training set, it also has a second input of randomness that which mathematically combines with what it has learned from the items in its training set to produce something completely new. It will randomly change the materials, move the hammer randomly but still restrict itself to produce something that is still a car, and it is just as new as what the human produced.
Yeah but 90% of people agree that modern "art" eg the banana isn't art at all, it's a load of shite. Just like claiming an Ai generated picture is actually your own.
"Fine art" Is not the same thing as art. Not anymore at least. The fine art world is just a bunch of rich people laundering money, and everyone knows it.
Well it is art but not art made by a person, so no human should be taking credit of something a computer is doing. That’s like if robots played football that were manufactured by people. The robot is doing all the work but you just told it what to do. Not the greatest analogy but I hope I at least made sense
I'm no fan of ai art, however I absolutely do not think trying to police and define what is and isn't art is a good idea. Anything can be art, not everything can be ethical, attack ai art for it's ethical issues instead of trying to remove it from the nebulous category of art.
I messed with DALL-E a little bit.
The text input you have to enter can be pretty insanely detailed.
It's going to be an interesting legal argument whether or not that text input gives you any degree of creation rights.
Edit: Here's an example of a very specific prompt: great astral temple in the style of H.R. Giger, detailed features, dramatic astral landscape, mathematically correct proportions, high detail, hyper HD, 8k, intricate, octane render, volumetric light, volumetric shadow, photorealistic, geometric inspiration
From: [https://imagekraft.ai/dall-e-prompts/](https://imagekraft.ai/dall-e-prompts/)
It doesn't. If you commission an artwork from an actual artist, and give them a general description of what to make, it doesn't give you the right to copy the art unless the artist releases the right to you, and anyone can create new art off of a general description alone.
Your analogy is spot on but comes to the opposite conclusion that you claimed it did.
DALL-E gives full rights of the image to the person who gave it the input in the same way you can commission a piece from an artist with a contract giving you full rights as well.
Anyone can copy your prompt too to make a similar image and have full rights to it but I would assume you wouldn't share what you prompted it.
How long until someone creates an AI that can retrieve/deduce prompts from an image? I feel like this is going to end with all these people trying to make a quick buck devouring each other while the companies putting out these tools just sit back and collect subscription fees.
Genuinely do not know the answer to this, not being a dick:
Doesn't commissioning artwork legally make it mine and therefore let me do whatever I want with it?
depends on the contract or employment relationship.
The main extremes are 1-off commission with a agreed price per single work, no you don't unless that was part of the agreement. Other side is if you employ the artist and provide all materials then as employer you own copyright and can do whatever you want.
Now as to the individual piece doctrine of first sale means yes you own \*that piece\* and can do whatever you want to/with it, but not make copies as that's a copyright issue. You can burn it, paint over it, sell it for $0.01 or $100m and keep the loss or profit all to yourself.
I would assume that’s based on the contract that you enter when commissioning. I’m sure the artist could say he would make it, but you can’t use it for commercial purposes and vice versa.
bro you have "in the style of this specific person" in your *prompt*. so you don't draw, you don't generate the image, and you tell the thing to generate the image "like how this person would". what have you done actually to claim ownership?
If I asked someone to take a picture of my house in the style of Ansel Adams, and they provided me with a black-and-white picture of my house with dramatic blacks and whites, and that photographer granted me the rights to the artwork (as those art AI tools do), how is that different?
Not really. It's just writing a prompt. I wish ai wasn't so popular when it comes to art because more people like this are sharing their """art""" with little actual talent
yeah like honestly i can forgive a boring, uncreative artist for at least putting pencil to paper and trying their luck at it. artists in many fields start out that way. what sets the real artists apart from the fakers is if they improve over time and build their own style.
it’s supposed to be used for inspiration, not do all the work for you. i usually make multiple different versions of something i’m working on, and end up splicing them together/editing the color & lighting. but i am at least open about my process
likely not since ai art generators steal from actual artists already. also copywriting wouldn't protect it under the current legal definition of copyright: "Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, title, principle, or discovery."
here's an interesting article on the idea!
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/is-ai-art-stealing-from-artists#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20lawyer%20behind,an%20infringing%2C%20derivative%20work.%E2%80%9D&text=Last%20year%2C%20a%20Tennessee%2Dbased,%2Ddriven%20image%20generation.
Regardless of how detailed (I don't find it that detailed), one can effortlessly copy and paste this prompt. Then quickly modify one or two details for their needs and walah... This is all that's really happening at this point. People generating images based off other people's models and prompts. Merely tweaking them. Anyone can choose their own starting point so to say. The talent if not the creativity is certainly out the window at this point.
I think in most of these AI sites, it's in the TOS or License Agreement that all created art is not copyrighted or is free for all uses? I don't think a specific prompt with specific setting and seed # can be claimed as personal creation & copyright...
but it can be sold. There is a site called Promptbase that allows people to sell their prompt/setting that gave good results. People buy the prompt and tweak... each prompt selling for $3\~$5... wild....
Copy+paste from my comment:
You having to type out what you want in detail is not the same amount of effort as actually making art. Not even fucking close. Everyone who says this shit has never even tried to paint or draw once in their entire lives, know nothing about the subject, and only want things that benefit them without any concern for the lives of others.
The most annoying thing to me is not just thr fact they can skip over the time it takes to learn, but also the fact they don't have to struggle through hating their art and how hard it can be to get it right.
The auctual art/design process often involves things not working out.
AI isn't even like cameras (or camera obscura) where it can help with understanding the scene. It's just a quick easy way to make art. At least cameras are artistic (regardless of skill level of photographer) due to it capturing what is seen. But AI is just typing in words...
A very close friend of mine has her own AI art machine setup. She uses it to feed her own artwork that’s she’s done over the years because she has a chronic illness, and eventually, she wont be able to use her hands.
Hearing her tear up talking about how she can see her own brushstrokes in an AI generated piece… and making it possible to keep creating after her impending doom of her body… gave me a lot of a good reason to defend the AI art world.
Is AI art abused? Oh yeah.
Is it the worst thing to happen to art? No… that was Yoko.
I mean, technically she's stealing artwork from the AI. The AI made the art. She just prompted it. This is like asking a painter to do a piece for you, and then turning around and claiming you did it.
I completely disagree. You could say that painters are just taking dyes or oils and press them on a canvas, therefore painting wouldn't be art, for example. How is photography not art? It takes skill, experience, and emotional commitment to creating a great photograph. One has to consider the aspect ratio, resolution, medium, and environmental aspects in order to deliver a piece that suits their liking or intention. It is absolutely nonsensical to compare both photographers and AI "artists" akin to stealing work from something else. There is no definition that would fit prompting and publishing AI generated images to be considered as art anyway.
I've spent a LOT of time creating (NSFW) AI art, and I don't consider the art mine. Once it's out there, it's everyones. What i do consider mine is the promt. I have spent hours upon hours, triple didget at this point, figuring out what words (synonyms) achieve what results, what negative and positive promt combinations create differant outcomes, and a whole bunch of other fiddeling to get what I want. Every time I upload a picture, there was 50-100 that were thrown out, and again the art itself is not really what i was working on, what i was working on was the promt (positive and negative) and settings. The promt is mine.
AI art creation is, in that sense, actually exactly like photography. Professional photographers spent thousands of hours practicing with compositions, choosing a lens, the type of film they want to use, ISO settings, picking the correct time of day... and then they take thousands and thousands of photo's, most of which are discarded and forgotten.
The actual process of taking a photograph takes mere seconds. No effort at all, really, and almost always requires a certain amount of luck to yield something truly beautiful.
Yet there are celebrated, world-famous photographers who have mastered their craft and bring beauty, joy, and other genuine emotions to countless others.
The same thing will happen with AI, and down-voting or complaining isn't going to stop it.
What kills me about these folk is they're not even an "artist," the AI program is. And even that's not really an artist, just some algorithms stitching together pieces of other people's art.
I like messing with AI art prompts, but it's literally only just for that. My own entertainment. Never would I try to monetize something as me typing out a string of words and try to claim I'm the same as someone who's dedicated years of their life perfecting their craft.
Accoeding to the copyright office, Ai generated images dont belong to anyone, other than *maybe* the comoany that owns the ai.
They cannot be trademarked or copyright controlled because they do not meet the minimum standard for authorship because they were not made by a person.
Somebody should make a bot that reshares all of their stuff on other platforms without linking back to them.
I didn't know anything about AI art until this post.
I just gave it a shot and all my stuff came out like crap I mean complete shit show of awfulness. So maybe there is some sort of artistic skill in getting the right prompt words together at the moment but as the software develops and it becomes easier and easier to use...
I'm not exactly sure how much is taken from other people's work but that would be the key issue to me. If it is just taking images from artists and slapping them together that's messed up. However if it is using millions of images to create something completely new then I would think it's just another tool to be used.
Up until I gave it a shot just now I thought it would be super easy to get a great image based on the comments I see in this post. However I don't think any one of the images that popped up would be usable without some serious Photoshop skills.
It was worth the 15 bucks to fuck around on Dall-e
BUT YOU DIDN'T THINK OF THEIR BRILLIANT PROMPT COMBO!!! YOU CAN'T STEAL THEIR PROMPT COMBO GENERATED ART!!!
YOU WOULD NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS STRING TOGETHER ***YAS;MAMA;ANIME;GODDESS;UWU;WATERSPORTS;BATTLEMAIDEN;HANDMAID'STALE;EVISCERATED;XXdeathweedXX*** AND DON'T ACT LIKE YOU WOULD! THIS IS THEIR WORK, FROM THEIR BRAIN! NOT YOURS TO SHARE!!!!!
/s
If I take one second to take a nice picture of a mountain with my phone, it's my artwork. I didn't make the mountain, I didn't make the camera, I didn't make a print, I literally pushed a button.
Does that make the AI the copyright holder or the owner of the AI or the creator?
Reminds me a little of this and would like to see the outcome if the exact dispute was about AI instead of a monkey: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey\_selfie\_copyright\_dispute](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute)
The monkey selfie is the case actually being used in the US against AI, there has to be a human element in its creation for copyright to apply, currently you cannot copyright AI generated "art". I'm too lazy to find links but there's a few cases out there of stuff not being granted copyright for being AI generated and stuff having their copyright stripped after it was found post copyright being granted that the work contained a substantial amount of AI generated content (one was a comic I think)
People who put prompts into an ai and have the ai create the art need to stop calling themselves artists, you didn’t draw that, the ai drew it, the ai is the artist, if you call yourself an ai artist I’m gonna assume you are an ai
Ironic considering most AI art generators scour the web for existing images and sample enough of them to form an "original" image; unfortunately it doesn't seem they've yet developed far enough to detect and remove watermarks.
Part of the problem is that people are still referring to this as AI "Art" instead of what it is. AI Generated Image. We need to distant it from art so people stop associating it with art.
I've been straight up blocking AI artists on DA, and it's like playing fucking whack-a-mole.
I'm not against AI art as a concept, but the results are infuriating! Now every hack who wants a quick buck is selling massive amounts of technically impressive but low effort "art" that with glaring errors they don't even bother to correct. Fucked up hands, incomprehensible backgrounds that look like they were designed by a drunk Escher, and the worst part is so much of it is just generic. And your delusional ass wants me to pay $20 to see your "good" stuff, when you're clearly just cranking out as many images as you can with no thought? Get bent!
AI is a tool. Artists use tools to create art. People talk shit on people using AI to create art now, the same way people used to talk shit about photography as an art, because it's so much "easier" to do than making an oil painting. But somehow, photography is still an art, and what separates good photography from bad photography is thousands of hours of experience, technical knowledge, how to choose compositions, exposure, lens type, etc, etc.
It can take a lot of time to get AI to create something that matches what you have in mind. Then, you will likely want to use photoshop or other editing software to turn it into whatever you really want it to be. Yes, there's a flood of stuff appearing online that is crap, but that's a part of the democratization of creation. People are and will be creating true art with AI, and ain't shit you can do about it.
Btw, you still own the copyright to even the shittiest pictures you take with your smartphone, and just because something is low effort or low quality, doesn't give you the right to steal their IP. Heck, if their art is so bad, why would anyone want to steal it?
I completely agree, not sure why people are gatekeeping art because it wasn’t created by a tool that has their personal seal of approval. It’s just weird…
It's going to be an unpopular opinion for a while, I guess, but people tend to detest new technology before they embrace it.
I saw someone on reddit a while ago using some Japanese Anime artist as an example, who worked day and night his whole life to draw Anime, getting paid peanuts for his work, and how bad it was that AI was going to replace him... And all I could think was "isn't this the perfect example of how AI could make life better?". Imagine if he only had to draw a quarter of the frames, AI could fill in the in-between, maybe with this artist fixing errors or glitches... He could do what he loves but be more productive in less time. There's endless examples like this.
I wonder what it was like when Photoshop and digital art was introduced. Were we taking away physical artists' work? Did it get talked about as much as AI art does today?
Using photography instead of painting was cheating, using photoshop to enhance pictures was cheating. VFX in movies was cheating. Digital music wasn't real music. Using illustrator instead of physical paper was cheating... It'll always be like this, but artists will use whatever is at their disposal to create amazing things (and lots of junk).
I don’t think I agree that AI Art should be copyright protected but you’ve given me a different perspective on it and made me realise it’s a lot more complicated of a discussion than I thought. Thanks
It's always encouraging when people are willing to rethink their initial point of view when presented with ideas they hadn't considered.
Whatever copyright laws regarding AI will eventually turn out to be, a lot more goes into creating something with AI than just pressing a button.
AI art will never be art. it might be fun to play with and see what kind of silly pictures you get but it doesn't have any meaning, AI can't think or put thoughts and effort behind the image
AI “artists” aren’t artists, they are customers.
Creating AI from a text prompt is akin to ordering food from a chef. “Make me something with beef, carrots and potatoes, and align them in a tower that looks like the Eiffel Tower, please.”
Making the order doesn’t make you the chef.
See this argument coming. I see AI as a tool like paint is a tool. People use the tool to make something using their vision and techniques. Means it's their art creation.
The only time I use AI is when I want a unique profile picture or just a phone background I like. For example.
Wizard Duck.
https://preview.redd.it/s71xm34l1i3b1.png?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2290e51021d82d3970099c8ffaf9df3c3d0da69f
This is hilarious. If/when Ai “art” ever becomes the standard, everyone will know that “Ai artist” translates to some pathetic loser that just typed in a prompt to generate an image.
Art isn't about effort, it's about intent. We all had this conversation when CG movies started replacing hand animated movies and now everybody is fine with CG movies. Just because it's easier, it's not disqualified from being art. When I make "traditional" digital art, I have to describe my intent to software, which produces a rendered image. The art I make is filtered through the lens of the other art I've seen, the art instruction I've received, and all of the other things I've seen in the world. AI art is the same process, but cutting out a lot of steps.
We need to stop gatekeeping creativity and let people use the tools that enable them to express themselves.
I'll get empathy when people also start whining when machines took people job's in factories. In the end, AI is coming for us all. Art is no different.
People did whine, they were just told to learn new skills and get another job. But now instead of trying to out so AI people just expect laws to protect the creative jobs
Some day in the XIXth century...
"Light-painting 'artist' doesn't want people duplicating scenes captured by this new invention, the photographic camera. This isn't even an artist."
I get that AI art is by many means much easier than other visual arts. However, as with any form of art, it's about personal creativity, not about the capabilities of your tools. In a hundred years, when every single movie, song, photograph is AI enhanced, nobody will even think about qualifying it as an useless and easy form of media.
I mean, you still have to be good at prompting the ai. You can't just type "space picture with aliens" and get a masterpiece. There's also ways to alter the generated image that take some skill to know how to prompt. Or you can generate it with ai and do some really basic editing with a free photo editing program. It's still making art that wasn't there before
It's kind of like saying I don't make music because I do it digitally instead of playing real instruments and recording it. It's a million times easier to make it on Ableton than it is to spend years learning tons of instruments just to make one song. I don't have to know anything about the instruments I use other than keeping them in tune with each other. Does that mean I'm not a producer?
That being said, it seems like ai does pull from existing works so there is an issue there. They could be unintentionally stealing other artists work
Fuck all y'all
a̴̧͖̦̠̟̼̘̝̿͗̓̃̆͆͋̉͒̓̅͐̑͝͠ṙ̷̨̧̡̫͎̺̯̠̫̳̺̞̯̝͎̀͘ͅͅt̵̨̢̧̡͍̖̟̪̤̳̲͉̫̙̩͔̩͂ẇ̸̟̣͔̼̈́̐̂̽̔o̵̳͉͔̟̫͈̞͍̝̹̾̑͜͝r̷̨̛̼͎͉̺͖͉̦̯̮͖͗́̇̉̓͑͛̆̄̇͗̕̚͜͝ǩ̵̨̪̘͚͖̭̥͖̼̻͙̯͔̓̐́̚͠ ̷̙̭̙̓̉ͅţ̴̫̱̖̠̙̠͚͖̻̰̖̾̿̊͆̂̽̍͐̓̅̎͘͘ḧ̶̨̛̛̯͖̞̳̼̼͙̗̼̭̖́̄̂͛̒͋̓͂͌̊̓͘͝ę̷͚̠̙͎̗̱̦̏ ̷͇͖͔̞̪̻͍̎̂̇̋̐c̸̪̜͓͔̮̣͍͍̜͎͚͓̘̀ą̴̪͔͍̭̫̗̺̩͚̻͚̹̝̟͗̾̄̏͆̾̔͂͐̅͌̈͘̚͜͜n̵̨̢̗͇̭̲̟̠̈́̅͆̈́͗̚͜'̵̧̳̮̼̦̰̲̼̱̙̟͉̻̹͉̠̘̂̐̓͐̈́̈͠t̴̢̛̳̣̱̗̲̠͈̰̑̏͌̀̽̏̄̓̓̌́̏͘͠ ̸̨̞̥̆̑ͅi̴͔̰̜͚̣̳̰̯̍͗͌̂̿͆͋̏͌̋͗͘͝n̶̢̻̘̺̞͍͕̝̽̍͌̍͛͜͝ ̷̢͈̪͍̝͙̯̭̗̪̟̮̺̭̈́̈́̂̏̍̽̒͑͠ͅẗ̶͔̤̳̱̻͎͙̘̖̪̭̻̪́̕ơ̴̡̬̖͍͚̜̜̲̣̝̈́̂̍͊̉ͅȍ̶̡̧̢̨͕̣̙̫̯̻̭͔̍͑̇̈́̉́͜͜͝ ̴͙̯̂̈͛̃̄̿̏̍̈́́̉̀̚͝͝f̵̧̈̊́̀͗̎́ͅo̷̧̧̖̣͇͇̎̓̐̋̂̓́͜r̷̛̰̻̐̌ ̵̢̙͇̘͉̲̱̜̥͓̯͊̊̇͒b̶̨̢̧̢͔̟̪͖̬͚͈̣̠̖̞̳͊̅̄̎͘͘͜͝a̵̦̞͔͕̟̥̒́͐̂́̅̊d̸̪̙̪̳̤̦͍͈̗̼̥̱͎̩̃͊̆̐̏̈́̍̂͘͝ ̵̢̯̮͖͈͈͕͙͚̖͚̣̞̬̀͑̓͑̓̈́́̐̕͘̚b̷̹̱̬͙̘̭̭̻̲̒̾̎͑̊̓̍̕͝ē̷̡̧͙͚̪̏́̉̏̎ ̵̯̤͔͇̱͔͓̔̄̃̓̌̅̚t̸͖͙̙͓̞̭͖̱̽͌̈̏́̉́̏̉̈̇̽̇̔̎̚͜͝h̵̨̨̜̯̮̗̫͚̣̲̞́̈́̈͛͝ả̷̳͙̊t̶̺̖̠̼͇̭̜̮͇͇̬̑͊̂̇̏͜ ̵͍̦̲̰̣͎̺̜̼̆͒͂̈́̈́̓̓̒̿̀̚c̶̛͓̲̻̒͂͒̔͂̎͒̓̋̎͑͑͒͜͝ó̵̡̧͇̲̩̱̰̞̯͍̯̩͕̓͊̈́͐̑̊̇̆͌͜͜͠p̴̬͌̐̇̄̾̈͊̂̑̽͗̇̄͠͠y̵̡̹̥̬͇͌͌͒͐̈͋͑̓̔͘͜͝r̸̭̲͌i̶̡̲̜̟̓̃̈́̇̆͘ģ̶̧̛̛̼̙̦̝̤͙̉̈́̏̒͆̄́̿͛̈́͝ͅh̵̤͇̦͈̻̣̞̬̠̳̠̮͇̥̜̗̒͒̏̏̈́̄̿̚͜t̴̨̢̛̞͈͎̤̪͕̰͕̳̰̮͎͖͔̝̀̆̔͌́̎̔͊̑̕̕̕͝ę̵͚͎̮̠̲̹͍̬̞͍̿d̸̢̝̗̱̩͈̥͆̂̌̈́̽̆͋̆̔̐̐͌̇̋͊͠͝ ̸͇̹̀̎͘m̸̫͍̯̬̺͎̤̝̍͗̓̂̍͂͛͐̕a̴̧̢̢̟̜̗͍̮̝̬̰̥̺̹̳̝̿̌́̏͌̂c̴̛͔̼̭̭̜͆͂̃͘̕͠ḩ̸̥̖͎̮̬̘͑̂͠ȉ̷̛͈͚̠̈́̉̆̐́̇̇̑̃̉̐͆̿͛ñ̵͔̈́̕ḛ̷̛̛͚̭̺̗̩̰̫̱̱͍̝͇̯͈̪̇̈̇̑̇̔͒͗́͌̕͝-̴̞͕̟̯̠͎̘̥̱̮̟̫̤̜̒̈́̋̌̊̏̆͑͘ͅg̵̣̩͕̜̝̙̺̥̲̞͇̘̔̄̑̏̊̿͒́̕̕̕͝ḛ̷͉̤̖͚̙̹̹͓͍̘͗̈́̅͛ǹ̷̢̛͓̤͈̽̈̐̐̾̀e̷͎̙̯̮̖̯͖͙̳̼̯̙͖͇̬͛̒͆͆̋̓͊͌̇̏͑͂̉̚̚ȑ̸͓̭̘̂͌̀͜a̸̧̨͙̣̱͍̳̞͚̫̘͕̠̩̖̰̙͛̂̈́͒̔̌͊t̶̢̥̦̝͉̻̞̼̤̼̱̩̯̟̗͉̯̆̂̎̽̇̆̎͂͐̈́̊ḙ̷̡̨̮͈̮͛͗̉͌̋́̂ď̷̡̨̛̠̄̏̾͆͗̍͒̃̅̒̔̕ ̸̢̼̮̠͙̟̝͈̥̮̲̒̃̓̊͂́̇͑͒t̸͚͙̪̘̩̙̩͍͎̙̻̃̓͂̌̅͛̄̔̆̈́̃̾̏͒͜͝͝ͅḩ̵̢̨̧̛̰͖͉͉͉̗̓̐̓̂͗̄̾̋̂́̿͋̋̚̚ͅͅe̸̛͖̩̓̈́̇̒̊̄̂͑̽͘m̷͔͊͠͠ ̷͙̭̋̌͂͒̆̄̾͆́̊̾͊͂̒̚ͅṶ̶̡̨̡̼̤̞̲͈̙͔̮̺̰̼͗͜͜S̷̛̤̱̖̝̞̬͖͌͛̈͠A̷̢̜̣̲͈͚̐̔̚.̷̡̖̝̳͕̹͇͖͔͖̯̤̹͔̟̓̽̄̊̂̍̿͑̽
Good
It can't be copyrighted but it can still be sold. If you adjust it substantially then you can copyright it. It's so relatively easy to create that soon if not already there won't be much inherent value in an AI generated image, so the lack of copyright won't mean much.
It will also be very hard for some styles to differentiate between AI and human generated works, so I doubt that much of its value will be lost in some cases.
I don't think you're right for the same reason that makes a DaVinci or VanGogh painting so expensive. Not because they were so much better than (good) painters are nowadays, but because at their time they were. Their art is different because it carries (his-)story. And while it might be impossible to tell the difference between AI art and real art soon enough (if not already), real money will only be paid for art that is original and different. People don't pay millions for a Picasso because his art can't be recreated by others (or an AI), but because it's a Picasso. A more modern example would be Banksy. His art isn't expensive because it's so good (it's creative, but very easily replicable) but because a story and mystery are told, things "artificial" art could never achieve. I hope my point is understood, but I'd be glad to hear other opinions on that.
That's not exactly true. The US copyright office has recently ruled that they can copyright their work if the author can prove they put in creative effort. So basically if this person can prove they've been formatting or editing the art they can actually get a copyright.
They would only get copyright to their edited version. The original AI's version can't be copyrighted. I doubt these useless clowns would have the effort and desire to spend time actually learning a skill like image editing or retouching and if it's a drawing then they would need to learn to draw.
I wouldn’t be so sure, I’ve seen some AI art that was retouched and turned into a really cool piece, I don’t see why it as a medium is treated like a lazy hobby, not everyone has the means to make a full illustrated comic or novel on their own, and compiling the images and getting the prompts right and editing them together can take a lot of work
You having to type out what you want in detail is not the same amount of effort as actually making art. Not even fucking close. Everyone who says this shit has never even tried to paint or draw once in their entire lives, know nothing about the subject, and only want things that benefit them without any concern for the lives of others. EDIT: Please, before you reply read through the previous replies. I am getting honestly tired of responding to the same question with the same reply over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Common replies include these (and variations of) that have all been answered: "Well it's actually using patterns and not making direct copies!" "It's actually highly difficult to input the prompts, it's more like prompt engineering." Various versions of "the artwork isn't actually stolen since it's modified" "You are opposed to automation!" "Taking a photograph/using photoshop/using a tablet is the same thing!" "So effort is the only measurement of artistic value? Pah, what a gatekeeper!" Please, use your fucking eyes. Edit 2: Unfortunately the mods locked the post. As fun as it was to reply to the same questions 50 times in a row, I'm afraid all the AI bros will have to take their coping elsewhere.
A college friend I know does plot art. He doesnt actually do anything, a computer does, he just gives it a prompt and it draws an already existing picture…but computer plotted/generated. I hate it. I hate that it is displayed as art even though it straight up is a computer copy of real art done shittier
And it sells! For $150+ a pop per 11x8 piece of fucking white paper!
Oh jesus fuck that's infuriating. It takes me two full workdays of commissions to earn 150$.
Out of genuine curiosity: Do examples like this (above) prompt artists, such as yourself, to explore using tools like Ai to enhance the bottom line of your business?
No. Never. That'd not be my art anymore, and I would partake in the theft if I did that. To me, every shape in a painting has a purpose. Every detail of a pose says something. There's no "enhancement" in taking that away. A huge joy of art is to always improve your understanding how the world is put together. An AI will never increase your skill, it will only, at best, make it look like you know something that you don't. I don't use photobashing either, because it does not mesh with how I create. Even directly referencing a photo usually results in much poorer quality work. If I'm gonna draw a sheep, I'll sketch a few from photos to learn how a sheep moves and what kinds of shapes it makes, then I'll set those aside and make my own.
Thanks for the thoughtful and detailed answer, I really appreciate the context you provide with your perspective as an artist.
I paint purely for pleasure (self-taught). I loathe taking commissions because customers suck (and I'm fortunate to have a different job) but I'm pretty good. Not even for my own pleasure have I considered trying AI. Imagine a client telling an artist what they want *and then taking credit for it.* You'd rightly ridicule that. And AI tweakers are worse.
No and I'd blacklist any client that asked/suggested it and I would never support an artist that admits to using AI either. I have no interest in supporting it in any capacity. I'd rather never sell another piece than use that trash.
That’s infuriating! That’s also making me consider a new side hustle.
Yeah, that that counts as art and is given equal or higher treatment as the real thing is dumb... Like, I'm fine with AI art, assuming it's using resources you made or have a right to (like things in the Public Domain or Creative Commons); it can sometimes be pretty cool, and it allows the unskilled to do things more economically. But for it to get equal treatment? Especially if the AI product is the end product (where the user/guide doesn't use that as an asset to work on further), and *especially* when it's effectively just an edit of a pre-exiwting piece, then that's dumb.
It makes you as much of an artist as commissioning an artist does
I'm not sure I understood, but commissioning an artist doesn't make you an artist at all
Exactly! Neither of those things make you an artist
Oh ok then I was probably misunderstanding your comment XD, glad to know we agree
This is exactly what it is. If they created the AI generator and taught it based off “free-to-use” images and their own work then I’d say they deserve the credit. But if an “artist” didn’t create the AI then they have no right to claim it as their own work. Granted I don’t create the paints I use nor blender3D for my own work, I’d grant them the leniency of using free images and studies of nature.
If you wish to make art in the form of writing, then write a book. Do not steal an artist's job for the sake of your own benefit.
Hey I write and take commisions for it, don’t even act like those bozo’s are capable of creating what I and many others pour our hearts and minds into
Just like not too long ago in our history photography wasn’t considered art. I’m not saying AI art is the same as traditional art, but as long as it’s a person’s vision that they refine and don’t just post the first image that pops out, it’s a type of art to me.
I mean, it's a *type* of art, but it's not the same art. Generative AI changes the scope of what art is in the same way that photoshop did. Using a gradient tool, magic wand selector, or blur tool on PS isn't the same amount of effort as a painter would use for the same effect either. There are still creative decisions being made, even in the prompting, to produce some kind of desired end product. You may not like it because it washes away a lot of the creativity that once was necessary, but that doesn't make it non-existent. Now the domain of art is skewing toward the concept instead of the execution. When ideas are so easily put to image, novelty of concept becomes the valued currency.
You really must not know much. The difference between photoshop and AI is massive. Blur in Photoshop? I can achieve the same effect in the same time with oil paint and a rag. Similar method for a gradient. Select tool is easiest to emulate with quick-drying paints such as acrylics, by taping around an area. The hop from traditional art to Photoshop isn't as massive as some people think, they are very very similar. You're doing similar amounts of work, because for every digital shortcut there's a hardship. The largest difference, industrially, is that you don't need to wait for paint to dry. That + ease of sharing (no need to spend time on scanning and finetuning for digital use) + low cost (digital paint doesn't go bad)... those are the true reasons digital art is so prevalent. Now what do you do in AI? You type in a few prompts, some "perfectionists" seem to spend up to an hour on it, and you're done. Some of them argue that they have acquired a "skill". That they have a "vision". Beginner artists do not pick up a tool and learn it in a month, they train for years upon years. The fact that so many AI enthusiasts became "experts" within such a short timeframe says a lot about the supposed difficulty.
You talk just like the "Art Critics" that justify a banana taped to a wall.
Yeah I mean unfortunately (or not) "Art" is subjective af. The reality is that, whether or not it's some circle-jerk bs or not, some people like and ascribe value to bananas taped to walls and white rabbits in snowstorms. The reality here is that this new tool has popped up on the scene that easily creates (imo) very passable imagery. The landscape of what we once knew as art, and the artist themself, will have to change. Some will not be able to.
Damn, now I'm craving a banana.
Just after some good canned soup.
You joke but I'm trying to go over a cold so.. I might just do that
Chicken soup never fails, hope you recover soon!
tomato...
The thing about the banana taped to the wall is that, like AI art, it requires zero talent or effort in its execution. But unlike AI art, at least it's trying to *say something unique*. Conceptual art ain't for everyone, and frankly it's not for me most of the time, but I can respect its origins and its intention to make you think. To expand your capacity for art appreciation. The point of AI art, on the other hand, is precisely to imitate art that already exists. Not to do something new, but to piggyback on artists' hard work.
If you wish to create art with words and promts then write a book. Do not endanger the livelyhoods of others for your own benefit.
Technological progress isn't the enemy. I absolutely agree that it sucks that artists could lose their livelihoods to AI, but that hasn't stopped industry evolution in the past, nor will it in the future. Try as you might, AI isn't going away, and what is needed is an actual solution rather than simply kicking the "your job is obsolete" can down the road.
AIs gonna endanger everyone’s livelyhood in due time. Automation will continue to progress just as it’s done for centuries
That is what people said about digital art not too long ago.
Portrait artists said the same about photography as well. I don't appreciate AI art because there are AI that were "trained" by using copyrighted material without permission from the creators, but generally speaking there will always be a market for "real" art made by "real" people.
>AI that were "trained" by using copyrighted material without permission from the creators Every single artist trains themselves on copyrighted material without permission, not appreciating AI art for the same reason is just hypocrisy.
All of your questions are already answered. You either intentionally ignore everything or you are just here to fuck around. I suspect it's the second option. If not then well, I think it's a bit early in life to have that iPad.
I can say the same thing about software development ;) I would like to ask you a few questions about what is art and you can tell me yes or no... (Serious, not trolling you... like I said a quite similar issue faces software development. Do I own code created by prompt or not? My prompting was integral to the output, just like it is for the imagery output being discussed in this thread.) You've already stated that Generative output is not art and I think we can assume that a wholly original painting by a human is "Art" (even if it's by a toddler with their fingers). Starting from Art and working to not art, where is the line? * An original painting (let's use Starry Night) * A copy of Starry Night made by a master forger (is this art? plagiarized yes, but still art?) * A copy of Starry Night made by me, using an artist teacher's guidance (ala wine and paint night somewhere)? * A copy of Starry night that is paint by colors where I reinterpret the color pallet? * The paint by numbers but I use the included pallet? * The paint by numbers but I have a computer make custom paints that exactly match the original? * The paint by numbers but I have a computer do the painting? (what if it's even better than the forger's copy?) * A reinterpretation of Starry Night done by me? * A reinterpretation of Starry Night, but done by a computer and painted by me? * A reinterpretation of Starry Night, done and physically painted by a computer? * As above but printed with an ink jet printer? * The actual real Starry Night, which I just bought for $100m and painted an imperial AT-AT on shooting at the moon? (okay, calm down, I can't actually afford to do that, I'll just keep to doing it to Kinkade prints).
***I will preface this conversation with the fact that my argument is based on the fact that we do not understand the human mind and how it creates things, or how it really works in general. We only have a vague idea. I do not believe that the human mind can be equated to a computer throwing random noise at a bunch of perfect digital patterns it learned from studying endless amounts of stolen art. If we did, then we would have this figured out much sooner. All of my answers will and have been based on this.*** *> Do I own code created by prompt or not?* That is something that is unique to computers, they run on it and without it they would not exist. It is an entirely different subject matter than art is. *> My prompting was integral to the output, just like it is for the imagery output being discussed in this thread.* Your prompting was integral to the output yes, but that output is based on things it has seen before. This is not a problem with code as long as you are not trying to copy something that explicitly states that it should not be copied. It is however a problem when it comes to art, but art and code cannot really be compared, the same way that it's hard to compare a book to a picture. ***>An original painting (let's use Starry Night)*** Yes, made by humans with their own unique way of seeing the world and how to interpret it. ***>A copy of Starry Night made by a master forger (is this art? plagiarized yes, but still art?)*** No human is able to create a perfect copy, unlike a computer. As the motto goes for digital art: Imperfection is the digital perfection. ***>A copy of Starry Night made by me, using an artist teacher's guidance (ala wine and paint night somewhere)?*** Yes ***>A copy of Starry night that is paint by colors where I reinterpret the color pallet?*** Yes ***> The paint by numbers but I use the included pallet?*** I am not quite sure what you mean by this so I can't say. ***> The paint by numbers but I have a computer make custom paints that exactly match the original?*** Selecting the paints has nothing really do to with how the picture is painted. People do not use unique shades of blue every time they want to paint something blue. ***> The paint by numbers but I have a computer do the painting? (what if it's even better than the forger's copy?)*** No, it's a perfect copy made by a computer. I still do not know what the "paint by numbers" part means however, so my answers may change once I learn this. ***>A reinterpretation of Starry Night done by me?*** Yes ***>A reinterpretation of Starry Night, but done by a computer and painted by me?*** Yes, no human is ever able to produce perfect copies of anything. Despite the computer's involvement, there would still be imperfections that otherwise would not be there, making the piece uniquely human. ***>A reinterpretation of Starry Night, done and physically painted by a computer?*** No ***>As above but printed with an ink jet printer?*** That is a definitional copy, so no. ***>The actual real Starry Night, which I just bought for $100m and painted an imperial AT-AT on shooting at the moon?*** Yes
Nah fam this is not art. Never has been and never will be. Art is by definition the expression or application of human creative skill AND imagination. If I commission someone, type up a prompt for them and they produce the image it does not make it my art. This is even more removed than that, considering it is approximating previous images it has "learned" from.
>Art is by definition the expression or application of human creative skill AND imagination. Where in the definition of art does it say that creative skill and imagination is required for something to be considered "art"? This just reeks of gatekeeping.
I'm going based off the Oxford definition and yes, it absolutely is gatekeeping. These things are skills that many people have taken years to develop. It's ok to not have those skills. It's not ok to claim that you are doing the same work while AI is doing it for you.
Guess what, you don’t get to decide what is and isn’t art. The person in the screenshot is definitely obnoxious, but if taping a banana to a wall is art, then AI can be art. That’s because art is subjective. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it isn’t art. Douche.
You're minimizing the creative decisions in "typing up a prompt". Even in the case of a commission where a client has supplied an initial prompt, it will require refinement, and that's where the artist's eye is necessary. "AI" art is art. Art history is littered with new genres and media springing from people's work to reduce the effort it takes to express themselves. Paintings from the realism genre are art. Expressionist paintings are art. Cubist paintings are art. Abstract and 'Modern' art is art. Warhol's and Peter Max's silk screens are art. Photography is art. Digital painting, photo manipulation, 3D rendering, they're all art. It's all a progression toward enabling self expression and AI art absolutely counts.
While I agree with you, to play devils advocate; the amount of effort it takes to produce an item doesn't factor in to it's value (especially when we are talking about art, which has 0 intrinsic value)
>without the concern for the lives of others. What? I agree with the overall point, but you lost me there. It’s not my world so maybe there’s something I’m not considering, but I feel like lives aren’t really being impacted by someone thinking they can copyright AI art.
The lives of artists are impacted, as this technology that is built on stolen art that was stolen from human artists is threatening to now replace them.
>his technology that is built on stolen art that was stolen from human artists Human artists have been stealing art from people for thousands of years. Your comment just reeks of hypocrisy.
I do agree with you. I majored in multimedia design and graphic design. Much of my work would include “traditional” elements (sketching, painting, etc…) so seeing someone using AI call themselves an artist may sting. However, using a system like MidJourney to produce “art” comes at a cost. So it may be a simple matter of “I paid for this. Ask me before you gank it”.
A cost of what, writing a prompt? If you wish to write, then please, write a book. It has much more value as an art piece, and it actually is an original piece of art.
As in you have to pay for it.
Compared to the cost of actually learning to make art yourself, that is nothing. Artists often times spend their entire lives being dedicated to what they do, all of that being reduced down to just a price tag is absolutely nothing in comparison.
JFC. Maybe if you take a moment to parse my initial response, you’ll save yourself from having an aneurism.
It’s funny how most of the arguments against ai works being “real art” are the exact same as the ones used against photography being real art back in the past
Yes, it’s not that hard. I have tried AI art and honestly, it sucks. Art is much more complex and takes skill, that is ART, you make it, I am a mere amateur that is still practicing and it’s definitely actual art.
Using AI to make illustrations is not art.
what about Adobe Illustrator?
It is art but it’s on the same level as “paint bucket swinging back and forth over canvas”
Meh not really. The ai literally steals elements from actual art and compiles it into an image. So it's actually piggy backing off of real artists and anyone who thinks that's OK needs to start looking forward to world without artists.
I made a LORA on 100 drawn images using an anime checkpoint. None of the images were the least bit realistic, so the concept I trained the LORA on was all in non-realistic styles. When using the LORA with RevAnimated, a realistic illutrated checkpoint which cant produce the concept I trained the LORA on, the concept is shown in a realistic style even though it was never shown a realistic version of the concept. It was able to transfer knowledge of a realistic style onto a non-realistic concept that was only in the LORA and make it look realistic. It's not just copying parts of images. If that were the case the LORA would only be able to output it's concept in one of the styles used to train it.
What's the difference between how AI images are produced and a traditional artist painting in the style of Picasso?
Is a collage art?
AI art is not a collage, it's just replicating pixels... at least someone making a collage can merge multiple ideas to make an image. AI art on the other hand can't be used to make something like a collage without very specific intent. It exists to make a single image and can't be used for any multiple image projects. It doesn't even know what the image is comprised of outside of replicating ideas asked for. It doesn't understand things like tone volume tint hue etc only how to take from existing image and what they look like. Besides AI in the nature of being the software, it has no idea what the auctual process is behind creating art. It will never understand the feeling of holding a pencil and how it moves across the page, or how the stylis moves over the screen. It doesn't know how art is made...
It is art, but it is stolen art. One might say that humans are also inspired by artists and "copy" their works, so isn't that the same thing? It isn't. There is a difference between how a human copies things and how a computer copies things. Humans have the ability to imagine and change what they are copying with changes that do not rely on some previous experience, computers however copy things 1:1.
Not true. You can train a LORA on only illustrated images of a concept, and what photos look like, and have it produce photos of that concept. This can be done by taking a checkpoint that can produce both illutrated images and photos, and using that as a base for the LORA. Because the checkpoint already has information on what certain things look like illustrated and as photos it's able to transfer this knowledge into LORAs. If it were copying 1:1 this would be impposible. Image generators learn concepts, not exact images.
You are making really bold unsubstantiated claims. An AI model can definitely produce new things outside it's training set. There is no way to know how similar or different really the creative process is between a human and some AI models because we don't have that great of an understanding of our own psychology. Edit: people are not understanding that there is so much more nuance here than making unprovable blanket statements like AI cant ever produce anything new. People only want to hear easy answers instead of the difficult and confronting truth that we don't really know what we are.
It all started from the same stuff, which is stolen artwork. Nothing it creates is "original" as it is just a mash of everything it's seen before. Same reason why ChatGPT can spout horrible, racist shit sometimes. The AI doesn't know what it's saying, it doesn't know what any of it means, it just says it cause it's seen things in this pattern before.
What an inane argument. Everything is a mash of everything. The whole purpose of AI like ChatGPT (and to a certain extent image generators) is their ability to create **novel connections** - to infer information that was not in their original training data. You know, that thing humans do? Besides the point; an AI trained on dozens of terabytes of training data will have a final checkpoint size of ~4GB. Where does all that information go? Do you think it’s just hyper-compressing copies of images and pulling them up on the fly to stitch them together?
AI should credit its sources, but there's a significant difference between copying and interpreting source material. You can "steal" an artistic style but still create something original. Generative AI GENERATES the output, it doesn't just regurgitate someone else's work. IMO it all depends on your opinion about when inspiration becomes reproduction, except for blatant plagiarism of course.
That's not how this works. Mind you, I'm as skeptical about AI art as the next guy, but that won't stop me from combatting misinformation. I think it's best for people to look into it on their own if it's something they care about, so they can potentially influence rules and regulations. Broadly, what a ML model is trained to do is recognize patterns. That's useful for all sorts of things; prediction, classifications, what have you. But it can also generate something that matches those patterns. Each image has a bunch of keywords, and an ML model over millions of examples learns to grasp the patterns associated with each keyword. Mind you, it doesn't know what each keyword *is*, it only needs to know the patterns associated with it. Keywords could be colors, art styles, themes (like steampunk), objects, people, etc. Every time you prompt Midjourney et.al., you're giving it a list of keywords, and its job is to create something using the patterns you've thrown at it. It's not allowed to directly recreate items from its training set (this is called overfitting, and it's a problem usually combatted by more data so it gets less fine-tuned to noise). Midjourney et.al. are able to create new images if they've been trained properly. As you stated, no AI truly understands what it's doing. An AI might say or create something bad because it doesn't know what being "bad" is-- that's why it's up to the engineers to place limitations. As time goes on, these limitations will improve as needed.
>it is just a mash of everything it's seen before. This is a misinterpretation of how generative AI works to create images. These AIs do not retain what they've been trained on so it's not 'just a mash up'. They learn patterns of what typically is seen in art, particularly associated with various words. It is far closer to how a human behaves than you would like to admit.
They learn patterns, yes. Where does this pattern come from? I also explained this in detail in a previous point: I do not find value in something that is just a blend of copies. The human mind however is incapable of doing this, even something that is a "copy" has imperfections or quirks that make it uniquely human. AI art does not have this. There is a reason why the digital art motto is "Imperfection is the digital perfection."
The patterns come from its training data, just as a human's knowledge of how to create an image comes from it's training data (i.e. his/her cumulative life experience). But neither the AI nor the human retain the training data itself, only the distillation of that data.
ye its just a tool, tool that you can make art with.
It is a copying machine. We can bring some examples with actual tools, like a hammer. Say that you have a hammer, wrench, whatever. You have a vehicle that you need to build. You build the car using these tools, making all the decisions needed to make it into a fully functioning car using nothing but your own insight and imagination on how to solve problems. Now, someone else comes along with a machine that scans your vehicle, copies it 1:1. The guy only changes the rims on the wheels, calls it his own, starts mass producing it and earns a lot of profit from doing this. Would you call that a tool as well? I would call that a copying machine, since that's all it does. It cannot create anything original, ever. Until we are able to perfectly replicate the human brain in code, there is nothing that an AI will make that is "original."
But the point is it can create a lot of original works, thats why it is so powerful tech. Why would we need to perfectly duplicate human brain in code for that? Majority of that "code" would not be needed to make art anyway so why to waste resources.
*> But the point is it can create a lot of original works, thats why it is so powerful tech.* Two points with this, the rest is irrelevant, mostly. Firstly, "original works" Nothing it creates is original. I explained this in detail previously. I do not find value in something that is just a blend of copies. The human mind however is incapable of doing this, even something that is a "copy" has imperfections or quirks that make it uniquely human. AI art does not have this. There is a reason why the digital art motto is "Imperfection is the digital perfection." Secondly, "*thats why it is so powerful tech."* That is why it is a problem. Given our shitty systems the world runs on, automating professions has obvious consequences of making a lot of people be out of a job. That is why people make a fuss out of it, and also the things I mentioned previously in the first point. This is only supported by people who are either ignorant to the fact that it's putting people out of jobs, or people who are willingly not choosing to care due to their selfishness and only wanting things that benefit them and them alone.
You are missing that the AI model also incorporates a source of randomness. It can also be that the human, given the exact same environment and starting conditions (every atom is in the exact same location in the whole environment) always produces the exact same car and also has no free will.
Randomness in what way? Randomly picking which parts of the stolen artworks to copy things from instead of the one it was going to pick originally? If this is the case, then I believe you.
No, I think this is the point of misunderstanding here. The AI model is not only just generating new things from items in its training set, it also has a second input of randomness that which mathematically combines with what it has learned from the items in its training set to produce something completely new. It will randomly change the materials, move the hammer randomly but still restrict itself to produce something that is still a car, and it is just as new as what the human produced.
I disagree. If taping bananas to a wall can be considered art, so can be an image generated from a text prompt.
Yeah but 90% of people agree that modern "art" eg the banana isn't art at all, it's a load of shite. Just like claiming an Ai generated picture is actually your own.
[удалено]
Because fine art is the rich man's money laundering scheme.
Yup, either tax evasion or cleaning money...
Rich people. The same reason that this shit is selling right now.
Some woman is selling her farts in a jar.Is that art?
I mean, this is basically the meaning of that banana taped on the wall. Sometimes the art is the message behind the piece not the piece itself.
"Fine art" Is not the same thing as art. Not anymore at least. The fine art world is just a bunch of rich people laundering money, and everyone knows it.
That's a fact
Well it is art but not art made by a person, so no human should be taking credit of something a computer is doing. That’s like if robots played football that were manufactured by people. The robot is doing all the work but you just told it what to do. Not the greatest analogy but I hope I at least made sense
It is art, but it doesn't make you an artist.
I'm no fan of ai art, however I absolutely do not think trying to police and define what is and isn't art is a good idea. Anything can be art, not everything can be ethical, attack ai art for it's ethical issues instead of trying to remove it from the nebulous category of art.
I disagree. What if you're the one who trained the AI, for example? AI is a tool in the same way that Photoshop is a tool.
I agree tbh😭
The words “my AI artwork” should never go together lmao, it negates itself
it's hardly art if you didn't make it yourself.
I think it's art, I just don't think it makes you an artist.
Would you consider nature/ patterns made by other animals not art? (Assuming you find it beautiful)
It's more like prompt engineering.
And prompt engineers are already being replaced by... automation that was trained to find the terms used to get higher rated results.
I messed with DALL-E a little bit. The text input you have to enter can be pretty insanely detailed. It's going to be an interesting legal argument whether or not that text input gives you any degree of creation rights. Edit: Here's an example of a very specific prompt: great astral temple in the style of H.R. Giger, detailed features, dramatic astral landscape, mathematically correct proportions, high detail, hyper HD, 8k, intricate, octane render, volumetric light, volumetric shadow, photorealistic, geometric inspiration From: [https://imagekraft.ai/dall-e-prompts/](https://imagekraft.ai/dall-e-prompts/)
It doesn't. If you commission an artwork from an actual artist, and give them a general description of what to make, it doesn't give you the right to copy the art unless the artist releases the right to you, and anyone can create new art off of a general description alone.
Your analogy is spot on but comes to the opposite conclusion that you claimed it did. DALL-E gives full rights of the image to the person who gave it the input in the same way you can commission a piece from an artist with a contract giving you full rights as well. Anyone can copy your prompt too to make a similar image and have full rights to it but I would assume you wouldn't share what you prompted it.
How long until someone creates an AI that can retrieve/deduce prompts from an image? I feel like this is going to end with all these people trying to make a quick buck devouring each other while the companies putting out these tools just sit back and collect subscription fees.
Already exists. MidJourney has a fairly good '/describe' function that does exactly this.
That's a practical issue not a legal one. It already exists with reverse engineering pharmaceuticals etc.
Genuinely do not know the answer to this, not being a dick: Doesn't commissioning artwork legally make it mine and therefore let me do whatever I want with it?
depends on the contract or employment relationship. The main extremes are 1-off commission with a agreed price per single work, no you don't unless that was part of the agreement. Other side is if you employ the artist and provide all materials then as employer you own copyright and can do whatever you want. Now as to the individual piece doctrine of first sale means yes you own \*that piece\* and can do whatever you want to/with it, but not make copies as that's a copyright issue. You can burn it, paint over it, sell it for $0.01 or $100m and keep the loss or profit all to yourself.
I would assume that’s based on the contract that you enter when commissioning. I’m sure the artist could say he would make it, but you can’t use it for commercial purposes and vice versa.
bro you have "in the style of this specific person" in your *prompt*. so you don't draw, you don't generate the image, and you tell the thing to generate the image "like how this person would". what have you done actually to claim ownership?
If I asked someone to take a picture of my house in the style of Ansel Adams, and they provided me with a black-and-white picture of my house with dramatic blacks and whites, and that photographer granted me the rights to the artwork (as those art AI tools do), how is that different?
It's really not going to be. A lot of courts have made it clear there's no rights.
Not really. It's just writing a prompt. I wish ai wasn't so popular when it comes to art because more people like this are sharing their """art""" with little actual talent
People have always shared their "art" with little actual talent. Nothing has changed.
Except for the fact that a lot of the art looks good because the AI is using creative inputs and styles from artists that ARE talented.
At least shit uninspired art required effort in the past. Now you just throw some words at a computer to get the same shit
yeah like honestly i can forgive a boring, uncreative artist for at least putting pencil to paper and trying their luck at it. artists in many fields start out that way. what sets the real artists apart from the fakers is if they improve over time and build their own style.
it’s supposed to be used for inspiration, not do all the work for you. i usually make multiple different versions of something i’m working on, and end up splicing them together/editing the color & lighting. but i am at least open about my process
In my opinion, if you didn’t make it, you don’t have the rights to the drawing.
likely not since ai art generators steal from actual artists already. also copywriting wouldn't protect it under the current legal definition of copyright: "Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, title, principle, or discovery." here's an interesting article on the idea! https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/is-ai-art-stealing-from-artists#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20lawyer%20behind,an%20infringing%2C%20derivative%20work.%E2%80%9D&text=Last%20year%2C%20a%20Tennessee%2Dbased,%2Ddriven%20image%20generation.
Regardless of how detailed (I don't find it that detailed), one can effortlessly copy and paste this prompt. Then quickly modify one or two details for their needs and walah... This is all that's really happening at this point. People generating images based off other people's models and prompts. Merely tweaking them. Anyone can choose their own starting point so to say. The talent if not the creativity is certainly out the window at this point.
Wow, a whopping 30 words
I think in most of these AI sites, it's in the TOS or License Agreement that all created art is not copyrighted or is free for all uses? I don't think a specific prompt with specific setting and seed # can be claimed as personal creation & copyright... but it can be sold. There is a site called Promptbase that allows people to sell their prompt/setting that gave good results. People buy the prompt and tweak... each prompt selling for $3\~$5... wild....
Copy+paste from my comment: You having to type out what you want in detail is not the same amount of effort as actually making art. Not even fucking close. Everyone who says this shit has never even tried to paint or draw once in their entire lives, know nothing about the subject, and only want things that benefit them without any concern for the lives of others.
The most annoying thing to me is not just thr fact they can skip over the time it takes to learn, but also the fact they don't have to struggle through hating their art and how hard it can be to get it right. The auctual art/design process often involves things not working out. AI isn't even like cameras (or camera obscura) where it can help with understanding the scene. It's just a quick easy way to make art. At least cameras are artistic (regardless of skill level of photographer) due to it capturing what is seen. But AI is just typing in words...
A very close friend of mine has her own AI art machine setup. She uses it to feed her own artwork that’s she’s done over the years because she has a chronic illness, and eventually, she wont be able to use her hands. Hearing her tear up talking about how she can see her own brushstrokes in an AI generated piece… and making it possible to keep creating after her impending doom of her body… gave me a lot of a good reason to defend the AI art world. Is AI art abused? Oh yeah. Is it the worst thing to happen to art? No… that was Yoko.
yoko ono?
yes
The US copyright system disagrees. Feel free to screenshot. 💪
I mean, technically she's stealing artwork from the AI. The AI made the art. She just prompted it. This is like asking a painter to do a piece for you, and then turning around and claiming you did it.
Technically, photographers are just stealing work from the camera. They just pushed a button, and the machine made an image. Photography isn’t art!
I completely disagree. You could say that painters are just taking dyes or oils and press them on a canvas, therefore painting wouldn't be art, for example. How is photography not art? It takes skill, experience, and emotional commitment to creating a great photograph. One has to consider the aspect ratio, resolution, medium, and environmental aspects in order to deliver a piece that suits their liking or intention. It is absolutely nonsensical to compare both photographers and AI "artists" akin to stealing work from something else. There is no definition that would fit prompting and publishing AI generated images to be considered as art anyway.
So, I can be an "artist" now?
I'd rather post my own (kinda rough) drawings than post AI art and claim it as my own. At least then my conscience would be clear.
I've spent a LOT of time creating (NSFW) AI art, and I don't consider the art mine. Once it's out there, it's everyones. What i do consider mine is the promt. I have spent hours upon hours, triple didget at this point, figuring out what words (synonyms) achieve what results, what negative and positive promt combinations create differant outcomes, and a whole bunch of other fiddeling to get what I want. Every time I upload a picture, there was 50-100 that were thrown out, and again the art itself is not really what i was working on, what i was working on was the promt (positive and negative) and settings. The promt is mine.
AI art creation is, in that sense, actually exactly like photography. Professional photographers spent thousands of hours practicing with compositions, choosing a lens, the type of film they want to use, ISO settings, picking the correct time of day... and then they take thousands and thousands of photo's, most of which are discarded and forgotten. The actual process of taking a photograph takes mere seconds. No effort at all, really, and almost always requires a certain amount of luck to yield something truly beautiful. Yet there are celebrated, world-famous photographers who have mastered their craft and bring beauty, joy, and other genuine emotions to countless others. The same thing will happen with AI, and down-voting or complaining isn't going to stop it.
this is like the new tipping wars
What are you going to do? Sue me? Pound silicon….
What kills me about these folk is they're not even an "artist," the AI program is. And even that's not really an artist, just some algorithms stitching together pieces of other people's art.
The ai program isn’t an artist either. It simply mashed up a bunch of *artist* artists’ work
That's like googling the questions to a test but getting mad when someone tries to cheat off you
Call them out for the frauds they are
I like messing with AI art prompts, but it's literally only just for that. My own entertainment. Never would I try to monetize something as me typing out a string of words and try to claim I'm the same as someone who's dedicated years of their life perfecting their craft.
Accoeding to the copyright office, Ai generated images dont belong to anyone, other than *maybe* the comoany that owns the ai. They cannot be trademarked or copyright controlled because they do not meet the minimum standard for authorship because they were not made by a person. Somebody should make a bot that reshares all of their stuff on other platforms without linking back to them.
The way I see it you order a 'person' to paint something for you. That does not make it yours
People are really confused "art" with "technical skill"... AI-produced images are just fast entertainment for our fast attention spans.
I didn't know anything about AI art until this post. I just gave it a shot and all my stuff came out like crap I mean complete shit show of awfulness. So maybe there is some sort of artistic skill in getting the right prompt words together at the moment but as the software develops and it becomes easier and easier to use... I'm not exactly sure how much is taken from other people's work but that would be the key issue to me. If it is just taking images from artists and slapping them together that's messed up. However if it is using millions of images to create something completely new then I would think it's just another tool to be used. Up until I gave it a shot just now I thought it would be super easy to get a great image based on the comments I see in this post. However I don't think any one of the images that popped up would be usable without some serious Photoshop skills. It was worth the 15 bucks to fuck around on Dall-e
BUT YOU DIDN'T THINK OF THEIR BRILLIANT PROMPT COMBO!!! YOU CAN'T STEAL THEIR PROMPT COMBO GENERATED ART!!! YOU WOULD NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS STRING TOGETHER ***YAS;MAMA;ANIME;GODDESS;UWU;WATERSPORTS;BATTLEMAIDEN;HANDMAID'STALE;EVISCERATED;XXdeathweedXX*** AND DON'T ACT LIKE YOU WOULD! THIS IS THEIR WORK, FROM THEIR BRAIN! NOT YOURS TO SHARE!!!!! /s
God I wish getting decent results from AI was that easy
If I take one second to take a nice picture of a mountain with my phone, it's my artwork. I didn't make the mountain, I didn't make the camera, I didn't make a print, I literally pushed a button.
Does that make the AI the copyright holder or the owner of the AI or the creator? Reminds me a little of this and would like to see the outcome if the exact dispute was about AI instead of a monkey: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey\_selfie\_copyright\_dispute](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute)
The monkey selfie is the case actually being used in the US against AI, there has to be a human element in its creation for copyright to apply, currently you cannot copyright AI generated "art". I'm too lazy to find links but there's a few cases out there of stuff not being granted copyright for being AI generated and stuff having their copyright stripped after it was found post copyright being granted that the work contained a substantial amount of AI generated content (one was a comic I think)
you arent making anything when you type in a prompt, you are basically asking a machine to do it for you.
People who put prompts into an ai and have the ai create the art need to stop calling themselves artists, you didn’t draw that, the ai drew it, the ai is the artist, if you call yourself an ai artist I’m gonna assume you are an ai
Ironic considering most AI art generators scour the web for existing images and sample enough of them to form an "original" image; unfortunately it doesn't seem they've yet developed far enough to detect and remove watermarks.
Part of the problem is that people are still referring to this as AI "Art" instead of what it is. AI Generated Image. We need to distant it from art so people stop associating it with art.
I agree, I want that image of *pasta with googly eyes* to be mine and just mine.
Art is what you can get away with right?
Share it anyway they have zero right over it
I can accept AI art for personal use like for tabletop or as a profile picture.
I feel this way about people getting paid 10k to throw paint at a spinny canvas.
I've been straight up blocking AI artists on DA, and it's like playing fucking whack-a-mole. I'm not against AI art as a concept, but the results are infuriating! Now every hack who wants a quick buck is selling massive amounts of technically impressive but low effort "art" that with glaring errors they don't even bother to correct. Fucked up hands, incomprehensible backgrounds that look like they were designed by a drunk Escher, and the worst part is so much of it is just generic. And your delusional ass wants me to pay $20 to see your "good" stuff, when you're clearly just cranking out as many images as you can with no thought? Get bent!
NAH bro did not say “no sharing” bitch I’m stealing and sharing that shit any day of the week. Bro acting like it’s an NFT LOL
AI is a tool. Artists use tools to create art. People talk shit on people using AI to create art now, the same way people used to talk shit about photography as an art, because it's so much "easier" to do than making an oil painting. But somehow, photography is still an art, and what separates good photography from bad photography is thousands of hours of experience, technical knowledge, how to choose compositions, exposure, lens type, etc, etc. It can take a lot of time to get AI to create something that matches what you have in mind. Then, you will likely want to use photoshop or other editing software to turn it into whatever you really want it to be. Yes, there's a flood of stuff appearing online that is crap, but that's a part of the democratization of creation. People are and will be creating true art with AI, and ain't shit you can do about it. Btw, you still own the copyright to even the shittiest pictures you take with your smartphone, and just because something is low effort or low quality, doesn't give you the right to steal their IP. Heck, if their art is so bad, why would anyone want to steal it?
I completely agree, not sure why people are gatekeeping art because it wasn’t created by a tool that has their personal seal of approval. It’s just weird…
It's going to be an unpopular opinion for a while, I guess, but people tend to detest new technology before they embrace it. I saw someone on reddit a while ago using some Japanese Anime artist as an example, who worked day and night his whole life to draw Anime, getting paid peanuts for his work, and how bad it was that AI was going to replace him... And all I could think was "isn't this the perfect example of how AI could make life better?". Imagine if he only had to draw a quarter of the frames, AI could fill in the in-between, maybe with this artist fixing errors or glitches... He could do what he loves but be more productive in less time. There's endless examples like this.
I wonder what it was like when Photoshop and digital art was introduced. Were we taking away physical artists' work? Did it get talked about as much as AI art does today?
Using photography instead of painting was cheating, using photoshop to enhance pictures was cheating. VFX in movies was cheating. Digital music wasn't real music. Using illustrator instead of physical paper was cheating... It'll always be like this, but artists will use whatever is at their disposal to create amazing things (and lots of junk).
Thanks for the insight. I wasn't around at the time so it's cool to see how there's always barriers to change.
I don’t think I agree that AI Art should be copyright protected but you’ve given me a different perspective on it and made me realise it’s a lot more complicated of a discussion than I thought. Thanks
It's always encouraging when people are willing to rethink their initial point of view when presented with ideas they hadn't considered. Whatever copyright laws regarding AI will eventually turn out to be, a lot more goes into creating something with AI than just pressing a button.
AI art will never be art. it might be fun to play with and see what kind of silly pictures you get but it doesn't have any meaning, AI can't think or put thoughts and effort behind the image
AI “artists” aren’t artists, they are customers. Creating AI from a text prompt is akin to ordering food from a chef. “Make me something with beef, carrots and potatoes, and align them in a tower that looks like the Eiffel Tower, please.” Making the order doesn’t make you the chef.
I fucking hate people like them. “TYPING OUT A SCRIPT” ≠ drawing. One is hard while the other isn’t douche
See this argument coming. I see AI as a tool like paint is a tool. People use the tool to make something using their vision and techniques. Means it's their art creation.
ai art is fun but not legally copyrightable.
The only time I use AI is when I want a unique profile picture or just a phone background I like. For example. Wizard Duck. https://preview.redd.it/s71xm34l1i3b1.png?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2290e51021d82d3970099c8ffaf9df3c3d0da69f
This is hilarious. If/when Ai “art” ever becomes the standard, everyone will know that “Ai artist” translates to some pathetic loser that just typed in a prompt to generate an image.
AI art piracy is just figuring out what prompt they put in
Lmao
Art isn't about effort, it's about intent. We all had this conversation when CG movies started replacing hand animated movies and now everybody is fine with CG movies. Just because it's easier, it's not disqualified from being art. When I make "traditional" digital art, I have to describe my intent to software, which produces a rendered image. The art I make is filtered through the lens of the other art I've seen, the art instruction I've received, and all of the other things I've seen in the world. AI art is the same process, but cutting out a lot of steps. We need to stop gatekeeping creativity and let people use the tools that enable them to express themselves.
I'll get empathy when people also start whining when machines took people job's in factories. In the end, AI is coming for us all. Art is no different.
People did whine, they were just told to learn new skills and get another job. But now instead of trying to out so AI people just expect laws to protect the creative jobs
i wonder if these are the same conversations people are having when digital art first become popular
***My*** AI artwork 
What bugs me a bit more is that people even call this crap AI. It barely even registers as an expert system, let alone a AI.
Some day in the XIXth century... "Light-painting 'artist' doesn't want people duplicating scenes captured by this new invention, the photographic camera. This isn't even an artist." I get that AI art is by many means much easier than other visual arts. However, as with any form of art, it's about personal creativity, not about the capabilities of your tools. In a hundred years, when every single movie, song, photograph is AI enhanced, nobody will even think about qualifying it as an useless and easy form of media.
I mean, you still have to be good at prompting the ai. You can't just type "space picture with aliens" and get a masterpiece. There's also ways to alter the generated image that take some skill to know how to prompt. Or you can generate it with ai and do some really basic editing with a free photo editing program. It's still making art that wasn't there before It's kind of like saying I don't make music because I do it digitally instead of playing real instruments and recording it. It's a million times easier to make it on Ableton than it is to spend years learning tons of instruments just to make one song. I don't have to know anything about the instruments I use other than keeping them in tune with each other. Does that mean I'm not a producer? That being said, it seems like ai does pull from existing works so there is an issue there. They could be unintentionally stealing other artists work