Do you believe AI art is "stealing" artworks?

[Something Different]

I think this take is honestly a pretty flawed one but I see so many people sharing this opinion. By saying that AI is stealing art that makes it sound like the AI is just straight up copying the artwork and claiming that it made it. But this very clearly isn't the case, but it's the only case where the statement, "AI is stealing artworks," is true.

I know people are not claiming what I said before, what they are actually referring to is the AI using artworks to learn. But then where does the stealing part come into place? Stealing refers to taking a belonging away from someone without permission. When it comes to digital art though that definition doesn't quite work. So to steal digital art would be to copy it, then claim it as your own work, which we all know AI art generation doesn't do.

But that isn't my only problem with this take. My other problem is that what the AI is doing is essentially what a lot of other artists do as well. Artists will look at other artists' works, perhaps the artists like something about it, so they adopt it into their style. That is exactly what the AI does as well. The AI will take images, add it to it's knowledge database, then uses that knowledge to make better art. So to me it's kind of hypocritical of artists to say things like this because it's fine for them to do it, but not for AI to do it for some reason.

That is why I don't like this take all that much.

[agu]

No, regular artists also steal every idea they have and they call it "inspiration". They just want to do everything in their power to stop AI art from getting more popular because nobody will ever hire them when it's good enough. They say stuff like AI will never surpass human art and it has no merit because it has no qualities like "beauty" and "soul" that they aren't able to describe and wouldn't even be able to recognize. It's just a big cope as a survival mechanism.

[Basho]

as far as i know, they do draw from a pool of source material so there is that.

but we can skip the existential questions if we want and go straight to the semantics of "stealing".
that is to say, if a human painter A made a painting in the style of another existing human painter B, and did so in a likeness that will land painter A a copyright lawsuit, than i would imagine the same holds true for AI created/assisted artwork.

[Holografix]

"This thread is for people who actually don't know anything about art."
-- an AI wrote this comment

To disprove you must:
1. Demonstrate an actual understanding of art
2. Name 10 artists in the 20th centrury and their contribution to art history
3. Name 3 of your favorite contemporary artists, and why they are your favorite

*i will check back periodically to see if the AI's assertion is true.

[DarkCrystalMethod]

I haven't studied any AI art.
Are the samples retrieved at the time the art is going to be generated or is it stored in its own system?
If the ai program is allowed to reach into that private source thats logically ok, provided that it wasn't filled illegally by retrieving art elsewhere that it had no right to(unless its public domain).
If the end user requesting art generation knows this ahead of time then they're responsible for any consequences.
I do recall there was (and probably still is) a huge kerfuffle about sampling within the music industry. I'm thinking whatever decisions come of that battle may very well influence the legality of image sampling whether it be by humans or ai.

[OoOoOoooOOoOoorgle]

I think the term is mis-applied in this case.

But supposedly there is a growing issue where people will directly describe a real piece of art, in order to attempt to get the AI to replicate it. It's clearly a way around usage rights and IP laws, and using such a methodology is tantamount to unlicensed replication.

However, there is effectively no way to prove when this is happening, nor to enforce applicable laws for that matter.

I'm not sure that people realize this fully yet, but AI art is indeed an ideal way to plagiarize artwork. Just not for the reasons mentioned (and correctly disagreed with) in the OP.

[Holografix]

Originally posted by agu:

No, regular artists also steal every idea they have and they call it "inspiration". They just want to do everything in their power to stop AI art from getting more popular because nobody will ever hire them when it's good enough. They say stuff like AI will never surpass human art and it has no merit because it has no qualities like "beauty" and "soul" that they aren't able to describe and wouldn't even be able to recognize. It's just a big cope as a survival mechanism.

Originally posted by Basho:

as far as i know, they do draw from a pool of source material so there is that.

but we can skip the existential questions if we want and go straight to the semantics of "stealing".
that is to say, if a human painter A made a painting in the style of another existing human painter B, and did so in a likeness that will land painter A a copyright lawsuit, than i would imagine the same holds true for AI created/assisted artwork.

Originally posted by DarkChrystmastalMethod:

I haven't studied any AI art.
Are the samples retrieved at the time the art is going to be generated or is it stored in its own system?
If the ai program is allowed to reach into that private source thats logically ok, provided that it wasn't filled illegally by retrieving art elsewhere that it had no right to(unless its public domain).
If the end user requesting art generation knows this ahead of time then they're responsible for any consequences.
I do recall there was (and probably still is) a huge kerfuffle about sampling within the music industry. I'm thinking whatever decisions come of that battle may very well influence the legality of image sampling whether it be by humans or ai.

Originally posted by OoOoOoooOOoOoorgle:

I think the term is mis-applied in this case.

But supposedly there is a growing issue where people will directly describe a real piece of art, in order to attempt to get the AI to replicate it. It's clearly a way around usage rights and IP laws, and using such a methodology is tantamount to unlicensed replication.

However, there is effectively no way to prove when this is happening, nor to enforce applicable laws for that matter.

I'm not sure that people realize this fully yet, but AI art is indeed an ideal way to plagiarize artwork. Just not for the reasons mentioned (and correctly disagreed with) in the OP.

none of these posts are about art, but the issue of intellectual property rights.

the AI's assertion so far has proven true.

[Something Different]

Originally posted by agu:

No, regular artists also steal every idea they have and they call it "inspiration". They just want to do everything in their power to stop AI art from getting more popular because nobody will ever hire them when it's good enough. They say stuff like AI will never surpass human art and it has no merit because it has no qualities like "beauty" and "soul" that they aren't able to describe and wouldn't even be able to recognize. It's just a big cope as a survival mechanism.

ikr, when an artist does it it's called taking inspiration, but when an AI does it, it's called stealing, just funny to me lol

[Hong Kong Phooey]

Originally posted by Holografix:

"This thread is for people who actually don't know anything about art."
-- an AI wrote this comment

To disprove you must:
1. Demonstrate an actual understanding of art
2. Name 10 artists in the 20th centrury and their contribution to art history
3. Name 3 of your favorite contemporary artists, and why they are your favorite

*i will check back periodically to see if the AI's assertion is true.

1. Your demands demonstrate that you fail at your own first question.

[Something Different]

Originally posted by Basho:

as far as i know, they do draw from a pool of source material so there is that.

but we can skip the existential questions if we want and go straight to the semantics of "stealing".
that is to say, if a human painter A made a painting in the style of another existing human painter B, and did so in a likeness that will land painter A a copyright lawsuit, than i would imagine the same holds true for AI created/assisted artwork.

No matter what is behind it as long as the art the ai spits out is unique then it isn't stealing.

[Holografix]

Originally posted by Something Different:

Originally posted by agu:

No, regular artists also steal every idea they have and they call it "inspiration". They just want to do everything in their power to stop AI art from getting more popular because nobody will ever hire them when it's good enough. They say stuff like AI will never surpass human art and it has no merit because it has no qualities like "beauty" and "soul" that they aren't able to describe and wouldn't even be able to recognize. It's just a big cope as a survival mechanism.

ikr, when an artist does it it's called taking inspiration, but when an AI does it, it's called stealing, just funny to me lol

AI doesn't have inspiration. That's a human trait.

[Something Different]

Originally posted by Holografix:

"This thread is for people who actually don't know anything about art."
-- an AI wrote this comment

To disprove you must:
1. Demonstrate an actual understanding of art
2. Name 10 artists in the 20th centrury and their contribution to art history
3. Name 3 of your favorite contemporary artists, and why they are your favorite

*i will check back periodically to see if the AI's assertion is true.

What is there to understand about art, it's one of the most basic human things that has been around forever lol.

[Holografix]

Originally posted by Hong Kong Phooey:

Originally posted by Holografix:

"This thread is for people who actually don't know anything about art."
-- an AI wrote this comment

To disprove you must:
1. Demonstrate an actual understanding of art
2. Name 10 artists in the 20th centrury and their contribution to art history
3. Name 3 of your favorite contemporary artists, and why they are your favorite

*i will check back periodically to see if the AI's assertion is true.

1. Your demands demonstrate that you fail at your own first question.

This thread isn't for me. Hence, I don't need to demonstrate anything.

[Something Different]

Originally posted by DarkChrystmastalMethod:

I haven't studied any AI art.
Are the samples retrieved at the time the art is going to be generated or is it stored in its own system?
If the ai program is allowed to reach into that private source thats logically ok, provided that it wasn't filled illegally by retrieving art elsewhere that it had no right to(unless its public domain).
If the end user requesting art generation knows this ahead of time then they're responsible for any consequences.
I do recall there was (and probably still is) a huge kerfuffle about sampling within the music industry. I'm thinking whatever decisions come of that battle may very well influence the legality of image sampling whether it be by humans or ai.

I don't see why any of this matters, if the art the AI spits out is unique then it isn't stealing.

[Holografix]

Originally posted by Something Different:

Originally posted by Holografix:

"This thread is for people who actually don't know anything about art."
-- an AI wrote this comment

To disprove you must:
1. Demonstrate an actual understanding of art
2. Name 10 artists in the 20th centrury and their contribution to art history
3. Name 3 of your favorite contemporary artists, and why they are your favorite

*i will check back periodically to see if the AI's assertion is true.

What is there to understand about art, it's one of the most basic human things that has been around forever lol.

"art = one of the most basic human things that has been around forever"

No.

[Something Different]

Originally posted by OoOoOoooOOoOoorgle:

I think the term is mis-applied in this case.

But supposedly there is a growing issue where people will directly describe a real piece of art, in order to attempt to get the AI to replicate it. It's clearly a way around usage rights and IP laws, and using such a methodology is tantamount to unlicensed replication.

However, there is effectively no way to prove when this is happening, nor to enforce applicable laws for that matter.

I'm not sure that people realize this fully yet, but AI art is indeed an ideal way to plagiarize artwork. Just not for the reasons mentioned (and correctly disagreed with) in the OP.

Yeah, there is probably a much better term to use other than stealing, because stealing is not what is going on here. As for the rest of what you said, how humans use AI art, and just AI in general in the near future, is it's own beast of a thing to talk about.