Transform your photos into custom photo puzzles or shop our selection of puzzles from millions of independent artists!

Return to Main Discussion Page
Discussion Quote Icon

Discussion

Main Menu | Search Discussions

Search Discussions
 

Reply Order

Post Reply
 

Interesting article...it would be nice if they did exclude living artists, my understanding of AI is limited, but I think it can just create new works "in the style" of living artists, and not reproduce exactly their works?

 

David King Studio

1 Year Ago

Yes, they do "in the style of". You can't copyright a style.

 

Mike Savad

1 Year Ago

This ai thing is getting out of hand. I heard they even took 600,000 files from this site. From deviant art and others.

As far as I can tell they take someone else's work and apply it to a new form and then call it done. I can't see how it can create so many styles otherwise. Its annoying and ironic that the only way for this AI thing to work, is to get real artists and steal from them. Then say it will put them out of business.

And its scary that everyone is using it, and we aren't making money and they are taking it from us. When they said - we looked at 12 billion images online... Well they aren't public domain, but didn't go into where they got it either.

The only way to stop this is to prove it and have a class action lawsuit. But by the time that gets done, it would too late, all the damage would be done. I wonder if there is a way to find out if our name was used at all?


----Mike Savad

 

David King Studio

1 Year Ago

"As far as I can tell they take someone else's work and apply it to a new form and then call it done."

That's not how AI works Mike. If it was that simple they would have been doing it 20 years ago. Machine learning is very similar to how humans learn, the AI just does it extremely fast. These AI programs are not violating copyrights, a lawsuit would not accomplish anything, the law itself would have to change to account for what AI image programs do, good luck with that.

 

Peggy Collins

1 Year Ago

"And its scary that everyone is using it, and we aren't making money and they are taking it from us. When they said - we looked at 12 billion images online... Well they aren't public domain, but didn't go into where they got it either."

Actually the article says that many images came from FAA and Pinterest but that watermarked images were excluded.

 

Brian Kurtz

1 Year Ago

Mike…no successful lawsuit can be filed. Every piece these AI generators make is the very definition of “transformative”.

And transformative = fair use.

One might try to make the case that they cannot compile a database of other people’s work….but that ship has sailed. Google has already won that with Google images. They “collect” all the images on the net and put them in their own database. They even “earn money” from that database because whenever an image search is done…their ads are displayed on the results page.

I read an article years ago about that very thing and the answer was that it already went to court and Google won. If Google can compile a database of images…so can anyone else.

 

David Ilzhoefer

1 Year Ago

If you want to see some court cases about transformative use, some do involve photos.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-what-transformative.html

As far as I know not one AI generated image has been brought to court to decide infringement...... but it's a matter of time.....

 

Again, I am new at all this AI stuff....but from what I understand the AI system simple "looks" at billions of images and "learns" from them, for example, what Human hair looks like....by examining all those bits of information...kindof like when we were in school and read various text books...we weren't copying those books, but rather learning little bits of information and applying them in our lives.

I'm sure many artists have learned all sorts of different things from seeing many artworks created by others and applying bits and pieces from those works to their own artistic creations.

AI is not reproducing other peoples exact images, but creating new ones from what they have learned from others.

That being said, I have seen many people using Trademarked (?) images in new ones that look very similar to the originals, and I think that is wrong. The one I use, DALL-E, seems to have strict rules on what can and cannot be produced with their AI program, in fact they didn't let their system "learn" violent, bloody, etc....works. I got a warning when I used the word "negro" and had to change it to "African American". I was tired of it just producing white/Caucasian babies, so I thought to try "negro".

 

Mike Savad

1 Year Ago

At least one AI place was accuse of stealing a ton of work. There might be "machine learning" but in reality it learned from looking at our images.

When a person learns a new language as a baby, they pick up the accent from parents and teachers. And that's what the AI is doing too. Only its defining it per style of another artists work.

Eventually there will be so much AI work, that he AI will be stealing, it will all start looking the same no matter what the input is.


I just hope the end buying knows what they are getting in the end, and sticks with the artist and not the AI. Because this will kill the industry.


----Mike Savad

 

Jim Hughes

1 Year Ago

Apparently Getty just had a meeting with their lawyers and realized this whole "AI generated" thing is just one huge copyright lawsuit waiting to be filed:

https://gizmodo.com/getty-ai-art-dall-e-getty-images-ai-art-generators-1849563869


How will FAA respond to this? There's nothing preventing them from being flooded with this sort of stuff.

 

Mike Savad

1 Year Ago

This is how I see it happening.

Artists use it, in the style of X

artist X see's that and sees work that looks a lot like the stuff he makes, maybe even the entities are the same. Then he sues that artist. That then in turn says the AI made it and then the AI is involved. The makers would have to admit that they stole copyrighted work to "teach" their machine how to make art. And that's how it will happen.

And it seems getty would be the first in line since they sue everyone. And its easy enough to remove watermarks and fill them in.

As soon as I heard they looked at the net for pictures I knew this would end up being trouble down the line.

For now I think FAA should block all scrapers from those sites, that would be a good start.



I just wonder how well the AI would work if all images that are in copyright, were removed. I bet it wouldn't know what to make.

----Mike Savad

 

David King Studio

1 Year Ago

AI does the same thing humans do, just a heck of a lot faster. We are all influenced by the art of others and learn from it and some of that ends up in our own work. If you think a class action lawsuit is going to stop AI art programs you're dreaming. In the rare case an AI produced artwork looks too much like a particular human produced artwork there could potentially be a successful lawsuit but it will be based on current copyright law and would only apply to that particular image. Stopping AI from using images on the internet to learn from and produce new art would require new legislation, I don't see that ever happening.

 

Jim Hughes

1 Year Ago

They're hiding what's really happening behind that phrase "used to train the AI". It's actually copying, but in new ways; the software analyzes the image: shapes, objects, scenes, locations, color, dynamics, texture, probably other stuff - indexes it all by keywords, and stores that data for fast lookup. There could be lots of human "ratings" assigned as well, they're not guaranteeing it's done 100% by software.

Then in response to keywords and phrases, it "creates" mashups of multiple source images, applying filters and transformations until it's hard to discover the real sources.

It's like I read your book, took detailed notes, stored every really good idea I came across in terms of plot, description, character, then wrote a book that in spots seems amazingly like yours.

There's some really powerful and clever software here, but nothing I'd call "intelligent". Take away all the scraped source images and this "AI" couldn't draw a stick man.

 

Mike Savad

1 Year Ago

Not really though.

Like I wanted to make a steampunk city, and no matter how I worded it, the city looked the same every time. Telling me it only has a few sources for that.

I do think there will be legislation when disney characters are reimagined. And I think in the end, it may not be right now, but it in the future, they will be guilty of massive copyright laws and they will have to remove those images and that learning from those images and I don't think there will be that much left of it.

And if art sites like these, or stock sites like getty and the others refuse it because its AI, I think the idea of using it will diminish. And when AI artists are sued by real artists for using parts of their work in their art, that will start killing it as well. I just don't believe that the AI is learning anything. Blending things in sure, but learning, I don't see it because they are using our creativity. And it can only go as far as what images it has in its own database. Remove those and it has nothing.

The only thing it will really have is a really good image search that doesn't rely on keywords.


----Mike Savad

 

Mike Savad

1 Year Ago

It reminds me of Ok google. Ask it to look up a recipe, ask about your schedule and it does it. As if by magic. But if you aren't connected to the net, you can't even ask it for the time, it has no idea what you are talking about.

And its the same with this. Its not learning. Its taking and rearranging. Sure the end product is polished but its only possible because we spent years perfecting our art. I wonder how refined that work would look like if the art came from 2 year old's or people that just bought a camera.


----Mike Savad

 

Jim Hughes

1 Year Ago

The really clever part is tuning these algorithms to produce output that people "like".

 

Mike Savad

1 Year Ago

I would have been fine if they took a little camera out on a walk and took examples of what dogs looked like, trees, people etc. And then the computer could learn how to make branches, trees, leaves, texture etc. But I just don't think it makes those things as much as cuts them out well and shoves it in.

I've seen and tried a number of these AI things and was never impressed by the results. Most of them looked like a ransom note when it was done. Or it was highly figured with a painter overlay, making me thing the underlay was stolen. I tried to stump the algorithm in some of them, none of which could create the thing I wanted. This one can. And its doubtful that the computer simply became creative by looking at our art. No more than a mathematician making formulas to make better art.

A lot of this is really apparent if you ask for anime. Because every artist has their own distinct look. I couldn't test it out that long, I had no idea what I was doing. And didn't know I could only output 25 things. Otherwise I would have entered my own name in there. But I was disturbed that everyone could see my output, I like to stay private. I can't even do a search now for some reason. Or I would look for my own name to see if anything came up.


----Mike Savad

 

Just out of curiosity I asked for it to make something "in the style off" 2 highly selling artists.....what it produced looked absolutely nothing like either of their works!

 

Floyd Snyder

1 Year Ago

With the millions of artists that are much more famous and in the public domain, I can't believe the AI creators would be dumb enough to buy into what may end up being a chit storm of legal problems.

I don't blame this artist for being ticked off. They need to get in front of this with some sort of legal challenge to the current laws that were never written with the intense of defending living artists from the possibility of a computer copying the style.

 

Brian Kurtz

1 Year Ago

The software does NOT work well for trying to get it to create what you envision in your head. If that’s how you think art “should” be created - if that’s your bias - it will disappoint.

But other artists create differently. Abstract artists will often just start making marks. Then another. Then another. They create in the moment based on their feelings. Every stroke is a response to the ones that came before it.

They make a mark…then they evaluate. They mark…then evaluate. Mark…evaluate. Until they decide that it’s pleasing enough to them. At which point it is done.

So these types of artists don’t go into the process with something they intend to force the canvas to show. They “discover” what it WILL show as they go along.

AI Art is far more like this. You make a mark…I mean.. “enter a word(s)”…and evaluate. Then make a mark (write a word)…then evaluate. Add a word…evaluate. Until you are please with the result.

The processes are essentially the same. “Essentially”. At the essential level. Take an action to get something to look at…evaluate…take another action. Again and again. Till finished.

There is no significant difference. The process is the same. The tools are different.

Both the abstract painter and the AI software creator “discover” the final product along the way.

 

Mike Savad

1 Year Ago

I understand the concept, and the free trial didn't leave me with enough time to experiment so I couldn't get what I wanted anyway. But it really bothers me that I may have work that actually belongs to someone else, either in style or subject. All because the AI is stealing other people's work.

Its like if you owned a fusion restaurant, and instead of creating recipes to create both a south western texas style bbq, and crossed it some how with swedish cooking to make a new thing. They instead would take ribs from the restaurant down the street, and some swedish meatballs from up the other street, and then call it their dish. Even if its something you thought you wanted, and it was there, it was never really their creation. The only thing they did was present it in a new way.


----Mike Savad

 

Jim Hughes

1 Year Ago

I'm not worried about this stuff killing stock photography - because it's already dead, you can't make a dime. What does worry me is PODs and "art" sites getting flooded. It's going to be so easy to generate "art" in endless flavors, styles and variations - and upload it as fast as you create it. The software, and its users, will inevitably hit on some formulas that sell. And there's nothing any of us can do about it, I guess.

 

It IS art....and it's not an instant thing to create it....it takes fine tuning prompts and adding post processing if necessary.

 

Yuri Tomashevi

1 Year Ago

I think that only rich people and rich companies could afford to sue companies creating AI s/w. Moreover, such processes typically are lengthy and will probably last years. During those years, AI s/w will move fast forward. Therefore, I believe that attempts to stop using AI s/w by suing companies creating AI are futile. The train is already departed.

Show All Messages

Big Skip

This is a very popular discussion with 257 responses.   In order to help the page load faster and allow you to quickly read the most recent posts, we're only showing you the oldest 25 posts and the newest 25 posts.   Everything in the middle has been skipped.   Want to read the entire discussion?   No problem: click here.

 

What does s/w mean?

 

The Ghost

1 Year Ago

Without out mentioning any other artist which I personally do not think is good form (and against the rules)

I will note that there are many ways of creating AI art. One of which is using AI filters.

Some of which can be found as stand alone filters others which come as a standard part as image editors such as PS ...... .

Also in terms of before AI art; AI exist art existed long before FAA did.

Here is a brief history of AI art

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/artificial-intelligence-art-history-2045520

Depending on which definition of AI art you chose; take your pick with one definition 50 years and with another 150 years ago.

Also it is very important to make the distinction between AI art and AI generated art, they are different, however the second is a subset of the first.

It is interesting to note that the first time a piece of AI art failed to get a copyright from the US copyright office was over 100 years ago.

It also is interesting to note that it seems a US artist has now got her work copyrighted. You will need to read the article to understand the nuances of this.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/09/artist-receives-first-known-us-copyright-registration-for-generative-ai-art/


 

Sorry Abbie. I'm not sure if it is me you are speaking too....I thought we can mention other artists when we are complimenting them? We do so in so many other threads...but I deleted my comment....especially if somebody is going to say that AI artists are thieves! Mike we are NOT THIEVES!

 

Since the person who started this thread/topic never came back, might it be time to close this out? All it is turning out to be is repeated comments on both side.

 

Mike Savad

1 Year Ago

Of course you aren't rose. The AI is.

They used our images to "train" their images. Without the copyrighted content they took, they wouldn't have any kind of artistic image at all. It would be flat our boring. Because public domain images are usually photos and cartoon clip art.

I'm totally fine with filters, or even the engine, that said they should use their own images.

I do a lot of digital artwork, it would be SOOOO much easier if I could take other people's work and just blend it into my own stuff. But I can't. Because there are laws. The AI takes it. And it sort of indirectly makes you an accessory.

An extreme example would be like - you love eating at a steak place, you love the food, eat their every day. Then you find out they only serve rat meat. Now you didn't kill the rats, but you are an accessory to it.


But in any case, the next time I see a thread of people claiming bots are stealing work, we just have to direct them to AI scrapers, because i'm certain my views are doubled because of them. But they are totally OK, because others are finding happiness making random AI images using them. And that's the part that is blowing my mind right now. After that i'm repeating myself.


----Mike Savad

 

Mike Savad

1 Year Ago

Wouldn't it be funny if the OP is AI?


----Mike Savad

 

The Ghost

1 Year Ago

Mike not a good idea to joke about things like that!

 

Abbie Shores

1 Year Ago

If that's all you have to say in it, so be it, Mike. You've upset a lot of people with your comments so i suggest you stop commenting on here now.

 

Drew

1 Year Ago

The use of AI, not in terms of some antiquated use but in how it is being used today: one puts in words, phrases, or sentences and the AI performs the creative task of assembling images based on a data based that consists of the vast collection of internet accessible files is the focus of said usage.

Now, any individuals who can utter words into a microphone or type on a keyboard can insite an AI's function: an intelligence created by a vast group of people who created the creator of art.

If this upset existing artists then asked the question why.

If this give individuals the right to claim creative attribution then ask if this right is justified.

If individuals who use AI to create images and attribute the images to AI then they are transparent otherwise they are not transparent.

 

Jack Torcello

1 Year Ago

And if that right proves to hold true - who is responsible for upholding that right?

"For every right, a reponsibility!"

 

The Ghost

1 Year Ago

''The use of AI, not in terms of some antiquated use but in how it is being used today: one puts in words, phrases, or sentences and the AI performs the creative task of assembling images based on a data based that consists of the vast collection of internet accessible files is the focus of said usage.'


On that I disagree with you, even today what is you describe is only one of a multitude of approaches to AI, it might be the most popular but it is still just one of many.


After all oil painting has been around a long time as has egg tempera; that does mean they are not still used. Acrylic is newer, but it has not replaced them.

'If this give individuals the right to claim creative attribution then ask if this right is justified.'

On that I agree

I think a central question that the current debate has given rise to is exactly what do artists own.

It strikes me that some just might be guilty of claiming ownership of things they do not own.


'If individuals who use AI to create images and attribute the images to AI then they are transparent otherwise they are not transparent'

Not in agreement or disagreement; it is okay in sentiment but is also problematic.

There will be many that are using AI without having any clue that they are doing so (one of my reasons for disagreeing with your first statement is that you have a chosen a definition of AI that fits with your concept of transparency, which just might not be that transparent)

With propriety software it is very difficult to know what aspect of any digital artwork is AI or not.

Personally I have no problem with stating I use AI art all my work on my current account is AI. However, text prompt to image is only one of the five different methods I use. Style transfer for instance is very popular, I note my approach involves both uploading the original image and my own style and I only use aps that allow you to do so. I have always wondered why some people might object to uploading two of you own photographs and using style transfer to combine them.

I am also happy to publish my prompts; however, that is not in itself is not always that transparent: for the following reason.

There are two approaches to text prompt to image aps.

1) Just use a text prompt to generate an image

2) Use a text prompt to modify an image that you uploaded

Serious AI artists often chose the second path.

If so you would need the starting image as well, as well as maybe the starting image starting image.


Even if the AI artist uses just a text prompt they would need also tell you the ap they are using, and the version of the ap and the seed, and ...........

Or putting the prompt you use is in fact not actually not saying that much.

Often aps allow you to generate many images. The variation is nothing short of mind blowing; one prompt I used gave me a picture of a face, a field being harvested a a crowd; I still have not managed to work out what the fourth one is and probably never will.










 

Ng Kok Hwa

1 Year Ago

I think the artists are just asking the AI people not to include their artworks in their database without their consent and knowledge. They are not asking to claim any "rights" to the resultant artworks the AI generator produce.

As far as I know, an artwork is considered "intellectual property" for its creativity and is not the metal of a sculpture, the oil on a canvas or whatever medium the artwork is built from.

But the AI people need the copyrighted stuff in order to build an intelligent generator. They should also know artists are not going to be happy, but they know the law.

As to what is "right" or "not right", each decides for himself.

 

Abbie Shores

1 Year Ago

@Ng Kok Hwa Exactly how i see it also

 

Ng Kok Hwa

1 Year Ago

Thank you Abbie

 

The Ghost

1 Year Ago

Ng Kok Hwa

I understand your point and it might be worth clarifying what the dataset is.

The current database used is LAION-5B and has over 4,000,000,000 but 4,000,000,000 what exactly

''LAION datasets are simply indexes to the internet, i.e. lists of URLs to the original images together with the ALT texts found linked to those images.''

https://laion.ai/faq/

Putting it simply that is basically what you get when you use a search engine.

An example might help; if I post on artists image in the forum then I could run into copyright problems, but what if I posted a link to their work that at least at the moment seems not to be problematic (with certain provisos).

One thing I would note that if I post an image to say here it could (without my consent or permission) be indexed on a search engine, so would we object to that?

Another point I would make is that and it is an assumptions is it is very likely going to land up in the courts and may be it needs to.

It will be a very interesting case and a very hard fought one.

I note the net worth of some of the main players in the AI world have a net worth well in excess $3000 B.

Rather than quote my sources; just think Microsoft, Google and open AI.

Most would have heard of the first two, but maybe not the third.

''OpenAI was set up as a non-profit with a $1 billion pledge from a group of founders that included Tesla CEO Elon Musk. In February 2018, Musk left the OpenAI board but he continues to donate and advise the organization.''

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/08/openai-shows-off-dall-e-image-generator-after-gpt-3.html

It will be a very interesting case/set of cases. However, the outcome is far from certain. Also what is also not certain whether artists will be in a better or worse position after it?

This is a brief summary of some of the points involved.

I will end by saying that if you can clearly demonstrate that an AI images is based on a piece of your artwork then follow the standard well trodden route, issue a DMCA Notice and if the situation merits it hire a lawyer and take it to court.

That seems to me to be better than simply posting in a forum ''they are stealing our art''. A lot of the comments are not along that line but some are.


 

Drew

1 Year Ago

Ng Kok Hwa,
Inspite of all the double talk and miss direction going on in this discussion, your perspective approaches closer to the truth.
Most Artists intent when showing their art on line is for it to be seen as is. For it to be divided and re- assembled is not part of their intent.

The publishers of AI art that use such images need to be aware that the publications art not percieved as anything more that creative art not to be claimed by any individual therefore not to be copyrighted for it is the art of many, not of one. AI is the creative assembler, not the one who puts in the order.

 

Ng Kok Hwa

1 Year Ago

Thank you Drew for your comments

 

David King Studio

1 Year Ago

I'm just going to throw this in here. A guy with a YouTube channel wanted a background for his streams. He is not an artist, just has basic editing skills he uses for his channel. He used AI and some basic text prompts to create images that fit a theme that he arranged in a grid and had printed. It looks great and very appropriate for what he wanted...no artist involved.

 

And?

 

Drew

1 Year Ago

IMHO:

As film is concerned:
If the background is in the public domain, the attribution in the credits is a courtesy.

A collage assembled by a person with a creative theme has been deemed a creative work of art copyrightable.

A collage assembled by an AI given a creative theme has been deemed not copyrightable of said collage when constituent parts are not of the work of a single person.

When a person places their order consisting of a creative theme to an AI , that person is in the exact same role as a patron requesting a person to create a work of art within limits and with creative license an the AI replaces the human artist.

The AI is the artist and the one who places the order is the patron.

Even if the constituent parts is the work of the one who places the order, the roles have not changed.
The AI still is the assembler therefore the AI creates a collage only copyrightable by a person.

The AI is not a person therefore ITs product is not copyrightable.

If a person assembles a collage using AI art then the collage can be copyrightable according to the definition of a collage and the fact that the assembler is a person. At least according to the logic provided within this line of thought.

Now, if I was to produce a collage from AI art, I would claim copyright on said collage and attribute AI for transparency as a courtesy and to establish provenance.

But before that would happen, a detailed understanding of the AI terms of use must be understood. If terms of use states that when said AI's product is used in any manner that attribution is mandatory then attribution is no longer a courtesy but a perceived legal responsibility.

 

David King Studio

1 Year Ago

"And?"

I left that there for you and others to respond to.

 

Okay...so some AI is created with Artists input and some is created with non-artists input.

 

Drew

1 Year Ago

Rose, one of Modern Art Philosophy's foundational dogmas is that anything is art as long as someone claims it so. Anyone can claim to be an artist. Anyone who can speak a language understandable by an AI art assembler has claim to the creative selection of the words if the selection is original but the AI makes the collage.

Now imagine an AI that has command of a spoken language feeding original text into an AI collage assembler and evaluating the outcome to perfect an embedded goal. The two AIs could be one AI by merging subroutines. Then an AI poet, philosopher and visual artist could emerge. A polymath.

 

Jack Torcello

1 Year Ago

Selling AI Generated material at ShutterStock
will see "royalty payments" to all whose photos
were scraped!

 

Drew

1 Year Ago

Just got around to reading this article.
Very applicable to this discussion.

https://www.redsharknews.com/we-are-approaching-the-creative-singularity

 

Wim Lanclus

1 Year Ago

All I can say is that I'm an excellent driver! I put in the coordinates into my GPS and the car drives itself.
Have I mentioned I'm a piano virtuoso as well? I program my keyboard to play a Mozart tune and just sit it out.
But I did mention I'm a great mathematician right? I put in some figures into my calculator and come up with a result in no time!

Whats next? Guitar solos created by AI? Hopefully by then live performances will be a thing of the past because that would be truly embarrassing...

 

Brian Wallace

1 Year Ago

I hope you find this interesting. I viewed it and found this version of the song quite haunting. The video is as well. I admit however, I don't entirely understand quite what's going on in this particular genre'. Tell me what you think about this video?

Here is the article...
Listen to an AI sing an uncannily human rendition of 'Jolene'

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/listen-to-an-ai-sing-an-uncannily-human-rendition-of-jolene/ar-AA13FB8Y?cvid=7d523e421a51427fa9b29b9fbf2a72e2

 

Tatiana Travelways

1 Year Ago

@Wim Lanclus... Next, I'd like to know what should I put into my bank account to get the amount of money I want? :)

 

This discussion is closed.