I have seen a lot of articles and social media pushes to stop AI image creation because it can be trained to the style of a specific artist. It's constantly about how the poor artist won't be able to make mo ey because the AI can do their art for them.
I doubt this. Artists have multiple styles and are more well known for the story within their pictures. If I hired an artist who could repeat that style and do something similar then it's ok?
This makes no sense. Instead, I bet it's a big business trying to protect itself. Disney has a full department that decides on styles for art and presentations. Genie must look this way in all pictures and all artists must repeat it perfectly. Only Disney can sell products with this genie or anything close to it.
If I had AI make Genie doing something and then printed that out, there is very little Disney could do to stop it. This is the music industry vs Napster all over again.
Kudos for using a genie as an example, because this genie is most definitely out of the bottle.
AI producing similar, but legally distinct, works finesses copywrite law as written. You don't get to yell 'theft' when the digitally produced work is distinct from what it's based on.
AI is absolutely standing on the shoulders of giants-- who are all human artists, but much like there are now chess programs that are stronger at the game than any human, AI art can't be stopped. Art is forever altered by this development, and crying 'theft' doesn't make that any less so.
Adapt or die.
In the same way that Gaben said "Piracy is a service issue" AI art is similar. Instead of using AI art as a tool to improve their technical prowess, they would just decry it as theft, same as piracy.
Agreed. We will see a bunch of services that make money from this and no one will be bothered.
Copyright should just die. It is a cancerous growth of what it was envisioned for, and it is the cancer that lives, not the original host.
And if that isn't the case its
All those Os resemble a specific mouse's ears. Bend over and pay us a gazillion $ for this copyright theft.
I think IP certainly should die. It's one thing to give authors some extra incentive for creative works, and another to have this whole lawyer-inspired government-enforced virtual property system that acts like a form of corporate welfare. I'd be ok with going back to the original concept as enshrined in the US Constitution.
So nothing about Intellectual Property, Moral Copyright, "anti-piracy", protecting giant corporations, or strengthening the US economy. (though I supposed there was an implication that having those protections would make us more competitive)
Usually legally distinct, but not always. I've seen examples where image AIs have included watermarks from whole sections of source image and code bots that include functions verbatim from copyrighted code.
The larger the model the better the results are, but also the more is memorized instead of interpolated.
When they get up to trillion parameter models you'll be able to describe some obscure picture you saw on the internet and it'll recreate it perfectly.
I just saw a funny example of that the other day.
The person who posted it pointed out it's "The one time it creates legible text."
Here's another one. Still can't do hands but we've got watermarks down to a science.
I'm morbidly curious what will happen when people start injecting enough AI generated images into the sample pool that you start seeing the AI version of inbred genetic defects.
More like, you no longer churn out soulless dogshit that your art director or client loves for some reason, now you polish the genie's soulless dogshit because it's cheaper and no one likes good or skillful artwork anyway - as that falls out of vogue, across all illustration we will see a long generation of shit art with hands tacked onto it - no one cares about a fucked up eye or a weird torso, so long as it vaguely looks like a Great Value!™ Sakimichan everyone loves it even if it is a bastardization of the good, the bad, and the ugly. Even with the old masters to train on it still looks like dogshit 90%~ of the time. Might get better, but I'd curb your enthusiasm.
Bastardization sample and begets bastardization output as the world become uglier, which will be because nobody actually cares. It's almost what we deserve.
But you know what? I'll humor you. Charging you up the nose to sample my work IS adapting, if not creating an adjacent industry for suing people with an equal and opposite AI that detects used artwork.
Do it, if you can. The supply of easily accessible sample imagery vastly exceeds demand, and AI-generation only makes that problem worse. (Just don't post on Deviant Art, or any other hosting platform that can be bought.) Your task is essentially Sisyphean, but godspeed.
Do it. Seriously. That might be the only answer to the threat you're facing if you're making whole-ass art in an AI-image-as-basis market. Expect all people profiting from AI art to leverage their income flows to stop you.
That or turn to streaming, and build a community of people paying more for your performance as artist, rather than the image-as-product.
Either way the threat to artists remains existential, and I stand by 'adapt or die.'
If you are an artist, you have my sympathy-- a reckoning is at hand, and this brave new world will be the poorer for it.
It has the potential to be, but I imagine Sisyphus is quite happy with himself. All those wonderful pools of sample collection will become like a frog-nail on the slip n' slide since legal cowardice is part of running a site. Deviantart proved that to some extent.
Handful of the most in-demand doing this is enough to knock the programming socks off half this rhetoric.
It already exists as far as I am aware, back in 2014~ artists would get struck down by pulling images off google for photobashing. Even the most minute portion of a cloud with a royalty on it could screw you over if you were mainstream. Many of the higher folk went on to do their own photography and sold their image collections on gumroad - invigorating both ends.
Though I would rather see AI starve, because if you get to wave around some bastardization knowledgeably sampled from my work and say "fuck artists lol! just take the blackpill :) There's nothing you can do lmao! Thanks for the 10+ years of samples ROFL! FOr FREEEEEEEEEEEEEE~~" - (like I see everywhere to the point where the agenda sticks out because nobody gives enough of a shit about artists this much to blackpill and concernpost about them) then by what right do you not expect to get slapped upside the head if it is possible if not probable? Should I instead offer you my wife? Should I hang my head and gwumpus? uwu
I think I'd rather play as dirty as everyone else.
Why on earth would I not then retort "pay up, tranny"?
Why would I not make this difficult for you, knowing that this not only guarantees that I lose my craft and way of life, with the promise of an aesthetically lacking culture abound, but also imposes the exact nepotistic troon stranglehold that turned my industry into an adult daycare onto what might have been the last bastion of artistic meritocracy? Why would I not be rallying right along with everyone thinking the exact same thing?
this is cottage industry vs industrialization
if a machine can make it more cheaply and efficiently it will be used to do so
And the industry doesn't need any factory to make it. Big organizations can't make money off of it, because they're not needed.
Yeah. And at the same time, there will always be a niche market for oldschool, man-made art. This stuff happened a bunch of time before - for example, when quartz watches appeared in the 1980s and then got ubiquitous in the 90s, it almost looked like mechanical watches would just disappear, but the market still exists today, because even though a 20 dollar quartz Casio or Timex will keep time just as well as a $10k Rolex (and way better than a $200 Seiko 5), people still want the Rawlecks, or Omega, or Patek Philippe. Or even the Seiko. It's just cool.
The niche AI art will displace is the "furry porn commissions" one, because why pay someone a thousand bucks for drawing your extremely specific deranged fetish when you can just have a computer generate a fresh image 10 times a day? And That's A Good Thing.
I mean with how artists have "YCH" nowadays its industrialization vs BIGGER industrialization.
Nah I think this will definitely hurt the premier artists on Artstation and pixiv who have been cashing in on the mobile game boom. Previously you needed to be quite talented to do "realism+" pictures like this (https://twitter.com/ttguweiz/status/880074447826190337), but AI can bash together something fairly high quality like this (https://www.artstation.com/artwork/LezZy5) which just needs to be tweaked before publishing.
The high end artists can conceivably increase their output by using AI to automate a significant portion of the drawing process, but it doesn't require as much skill to edit an AI picture, so less talented artists will now be able to compete. Supply will increase while demand likely remains the same. Some studios/devs might stop contracting for work and just do photoshop in-house.
Maybe AI pictures can't be edited to equal the quality of premium illustrations, but their standard is high enough that most people won't be willing to pay for premium.
Those are difficult for normal artists.
AI art iterates but does not innovate.
The artists that would most likely suffer from it are those who make repetitive work featuring similar looking characters, drawn at similar poses and angles.
So if someone went to town on NottyTiffy's gallery they could probably train it very well to draw cheese cake of her character. Since all they do is same thing over and over, AI is a deathly threat to them.
If you were to go to something like JollyJack however, the AI would have much harder time making heads and tails out of his work.
Personally, I couldn't care less because SD can only do single images. I'll grab my pitchforks when it can do 360 degree camera circling videos of touhou cat walks.
Shameless self-promotion.
What people appreciate about art and human artists are their unique innovations. A program can recreate a scene in the style of Monet, but it's not a Monet. From a commercialization point of view it doesn't matter, but real art will continue to be created by artists and patronized by those who appreciate art.
Personally I can't stand most artists, if they're not making generic degenerate smut, they're making pretentious crap and huffing their own farts all the while.
I think it's about time they got knocked down a few pegs, and if AI can do that, then I like AI.
As I understand it, there are three types of intellectual property. Patents protect inventions and processes, so that's not relevant. Copyright protects particular works, so that's not it. That leaves trademark.
The origin of trademark was craftsmen using a symbol to mark their products. The legal protection came when less skilled artisans used another's trademark, tricking customers into buying an inferior product and hurting the superior craftman's reputation.
Trademark infringement would probably apply if you, for example, had AI create an original image of the Aladdin genie and sold a t-shirt with it. People recognize him as a Disney character and would likely assume it's a Disney product (though fair use may apply).
Regarding AI, the question is whether Disney can trademark a style. For example, say I train AI on Disney images, then ask for a princess. It provides a drawing of a princess that looks like a Disney artist could have drawn it, but isn't actually a Disney character. Could this be trademark infringement? I would say no, citing Anastasia as evidence.
Seems to me like the AI image debate was, like everything else, quickly coded into a strict red team vs blue team binary (red team in favor, blue team hysterically against) and the fact that we got Stable Diffusion, then the NovelAI leak, then the absolutely incredible Anything v3 model on top of that is proof that God still loves us and wants us to be happy.
True
Part of their argument that does hold up that it is theft is that those who are feeding the AI with data to pull from are not paying for the rights to their art to be used commercially. Which many of these ai companies are now valued ridiculously high by taking data that may not be open sourced. Just because an artist posts a picture on the internet does not mean anyone can legally make prints of it and sell it, or use it in their software without first purchasing the rights to it.
So the AI's input data isn't royaltied...
How many "human" artists pay for a billion pictures of hands they see in every frame of every movie they watch, every painting they see, every likeness payment for remembering how someone looks for a reference?
People on the internet think it's some sort of secret club instead of a public space in computer format, and that is the cause of so many misunderstandings.
If you want your art to be kept safe and secure, don't release it on a website where a fucking child can right click and save it to their SSD within ten seconds.
Heck, don't release it on computer format because, ya know, snipping tool exists in any case.
If you leave something in the middle of the street and the next day it's no longer there, its not 100% your fault, but its certainly PARTLY your fault.
Right click save as but just looking at it isn’t wrong. Demanding that you can just use someone’s work for your own profit is. You can right click save as the Nike logo. Good luck selling t shirts with it on it.
That's more a problem if big companies existing and abusing lawyers, more than it's a problem of copyright 'theft'.
"Oh no, someone put a picture of Rei Ayanami on a shirt and sold a few copies, stop the presses!"
Every day major companies steal more ideas than any individual ever could, yet I don't see articles and retards ranting about them day in day out.
AI is just exposing how retarded everything already is, not adding more to the pile.
It'll be the same as Google Books though. They won't put ads on the download page for the model and the courts will say it's not for profit, completely ignoring any indirect profit even from hosting it let alone using it, so it's 100% totally honest fair use.
And just skip the pages that mention how many of the silicon valley investors are part of the mob.
It’s not fair use though you can’t take someone’s artwork, integrate it into your software regardless if it faces the end user or not, and then use it for profit. It’s no different than putting a pop song in your YouTube video. Sure the end product may be the video, but you don’t have a right to use the song without permission, which is usually granted in exchange for a sum of money and a very strict contract being signed.
You shouldn't be able to, but that's exactly what Google did with their book scanning and the courts said "but Google are the good guys so it's ok this time".
I mean, if I was working on something right now, if I published to Youtube it wouldn't be eligible for monetization because I don't have enough subscribers. Youtube says certain content is against guidelines for monetization - essentially - if you get an id claim or a warning that its ineligible. Yet the ads still run on the video. You're not getting the money on your own original work but Jimmy Fallon and the media mafia can post all sorts of "violent content" that might be "sensitive for viewers" and they split the ad revenue. You don't have 1000 subscribers? Youtube still runs ads and makes money off of your intellectual property, but you don't get a cut. So your hard work doesn't earn shit. Even if you gain monetization...you still make a pittance on it.
45 percent for fucking hosting.
Open source is now infiltrated by woke everywhere sadly.
And stop the wokies from fucking with the licensing.
The woke are just cover for policies to destroy competition
Elon made Dall-E. Hilarious.