AI Art

[Nogsec]

why would someone who only have "art ability" of generating pictures in AI generated prompts call themselves "artists"?!

maybe their true talent is to photoshop just a watermark onto the generated art ...

i can not begin to describe how cringe that is ..! -.-

[GlaceonChireiden]

It counts as "art", yes.

Now good art, that's a different debate

[crimson]

Originalmente postado por 🍋 Lemonfed 🍋:

what I don't like is often A.I programs take arts from artist that din't even consented in having their artwork sampled into the A.I database.

by uploading your art to any platform such as artstation, twitter, or whatever, you are actively consenting to your artwork being used, that is no longer *your* art, but instead twitters image, artstations image, etc.

also theres a lot of misinformation about how ai's work, it isnt splicing other images together, or sampling other images, its simply remembering where certain features are over millions of images, and making something new with that knowledge, if i trained an ai purely on my pfp and told it to make a mountain range, it would no doubt place mountain like structures where the gun is and grass where his head is, it isnt directly stealing from my pfp, its simply using it as a guide of where to place things, like real artists do.

[Marteun]

It's looks like kinda nice

[🍋 Lemonfed 🍋]

Originalmente postado por TheCrimsonKing:

Originalmente postado por 🍋 Lemonfed 🍋:

what I don't like is often A.I programs take arts from artist that din't even consented in having their artwork sampled into the A.I database.

by uploading your art to any platform such as artstation, twitter, or whatever, you are actively consenting to your artwork being used, that is no longer *your* art, but instead twitters image, artstations image, etc.

also theres a lot of misinformation about how ai's work, it isnt splicing other images together, or sampling other images, its simply remembering where certain features are over millions of images, and making something new with that knowledge, if i trained an ai purely on my pfp and told it to make a mountain range, it would no doubt place mountain like structures where the gun is and grass where his head is, it isnt directly stealing from my pfp, its simply using it as a guide of where to place things, like real artists do.

if you upload something on twitter you only grant twitter a limited right to redistribute the contents , you don't forfeit your right on this content.

https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/tweets-protected-copyright/#:~:text=What's%20yours%20is%20yours%20you,language%2C%20other%20twitter%20users%20are


As for who owns the copyright, the key to answering a question like this is to read the site’s terms and conditions. Twitter’s Terms of Service state that as a user, “[y]ou retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. What’s yours is yours you own your Content (and your photos and videos are part of the Content),” although you also grant Twitter a license to use the content, which authorizes it “to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same.” Based on this language, other twitter users are also licensed to copy and redistribute your posts by “retweeting” them.

[Candyy]

However ,AI will not kill the human artists, unless until it makes hands, legs and feet properly which most likely will not happen unless someone rly wants to spend money and time for it, who knows

Feet may look easy to draw but has its problems too...

Hands however, is every artist nightmare... Even for AI

[crimson]

Originalmente postado por 🍋 Lemonfed 🍋:

Originalmente postado por TheCrimsonKing:

by uploading your art to any platform such as artstation, twitter, or whatever, you are actively consenting to your artwork being used, that is no longer *your* art, but instead twitters image, artstations image, etc.

also theres a lot of misinformation about how ai's work, it isnt splicing other images together, or sampling other images, its simply remembering where certain features are over millions of images, and making something new with that knowledge, if i trained an ai purely on my pfp and told it to make a mountain range, it would no doubt place mountain like structures where the gun is and grass where his head is, it isnt directly stealing from my pfp, its simply using it as a guide of where to place things, like real artists do.

if you upload something on twitter you only grant twitter a limited right to redistribute the contents , you don't forfeit your right on this content.

https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/tweets-protected-copyright/#:~:text=What's%20yours%20is%20yours%20you,language%2C%20other%20twitter%20users%20are


As for who owns the copyright, the key to answering a question like this is to read the site’s terms and conditions. Twitter’s Terms of Service state that as a user, “[y]ou retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. What’s yours is yours you own your Content (and your photos and videos are part of the Content),” although you also grant Twitter a license to use the content, which authorizes it “to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same.” Based on this language, other twitter users are also licensed to copy and redistribute your posts by “retweeting” them.

twitter has kinda put themselves into a gray zone until the ai situation calms down, especially after elon changed half the rules, and plus this was only an example of a platform, it doesnt explicitly say that it means retweeting, i read that as "if its on twitter, people can share it/do what they want with it."

[Sir Dookface McFerretballs]

Nah, not artists since they aren't actually creating the art...

I call them "Proompters". Because they prompt the machine learning program what to do.

[🍋 Lemonfed 🍋]

I'm pretty sure if someone used an A.I artwork in a commercial product and that if this artwork looked too much similar to some of the artworks it's sampled ,
the original artists would have a very high chance to win an actual lawsuit agains't this creator.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Originalmente postado por 🍋 Lemonfed 🍋:

I'm pretty sure if someone used an A.I artwork in a commercial product and that if this artwork looked too much similar to some of the artworks it's sampled ,
the original artists would have a very high chance to win an actual lawsuit agains't this creator.

That is currently being decided by courts.

[crimson]

Originalmente postado por 🍋 Lemonfed 🍋:

I'm pretty sure if someone used an A.I artwork in a commercial product and that if this artwork looked too much similar to some of the artworks it's sampled ,
the original artists would have a very high chance to win an actual lawsuit agains't this creator.

this is the issue, it doesn’t “sample” anything, it merely learns where stuff is usually placed, that’s why you will see fat blobs of black pixels at the bottom of most ai generated art, it’s not stealing watermarks, it just knows that’s where pixels usually are. there is no sample image unless u specifically give it one, only then will it sample and “copy”.

there’s a lot of things you should worry about with ai art, but art theft isn’t one of them.

also, the legality of ai art is simply “ if it isn’t made by a human it cannot be monetised” ( hyperbole )

[Ȼħⱥꞥꞥēł8753452]

They aren't artists, they are coders at best. Being an artist requires skill and deep understanding of yourself or the world around you.

AI generated art just mimics and copies what is fed into it, it's a learning algorithm it has no thoughts or feelings of any kind. It''s just a bunch of 1s and 0s.

AI generated art should be criminalized, art is for people not animals or machines.

Art is a sacred form of human expression simply put, and anything that seeks to infringe on such sacred things, is evil.

[Angel]

In design school, I used to get hate by other students for using photography. Then I got hate for using Photoshop.

It just feels like de ja vu all over again.

[𝚁̶̷𝟹̶̷𝙰̶̷𝙻̶̷]

Considering most corporate designers these days use a mixture of AI assisted and/or generated tools alongside with raw images and hand illustrations, MAYBE... My PFP is done with a mixture of rehashed AI prompts and light photo shop. It took me 20 minutes or so and I had to know what I was doing in order to get what I wanted as a final product out of softly a generated image. It just depends on how much thought and effort was put into the work in my opinion. If the outcome is well done and took an intricate process to create, that's art to me. If you are just typing out well trained commands all day and saving the handful of "professional grade" generations without any manual edits or inputs, I wouldn't say so. Maybe more or less just good with the programs algorithm. Were those who wrote on paper any less than those who wrote on stone....? One took more work, but both took an equal amount of thought.

[ṼṏẌṏḭḊ]

Does this mean that photographers aren't artists?

I mean, all they do is tweak settings in their camera and hit some buttons and then the hardware/software interprets the scene and does its best to visualise it.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Originalmente postado por ṼṏẌṏḭḊ:

Does this mean that photographers aren't artists?

I mean, all they do is tweak settings in their camera and hit some buttons and then the hardware/software interprets the scene and does its best to visualise it.

Swing and a miss.