AI generated art

[kuraiken]

Ok. Look at it this way then for what arrogance you're displaying.

(1)You ultimately making an argument that AI Image generation undermines and devalues non-AI artist's work. Pointing out things like copy right and (2)implying that regulation very that is very aggressive and restrictive must be done (which defeats the purpose of AI in my eyes). You say this as if from a moral high ground. But here's why regardless of you being right or wrong I don't respect your mostly (incorrect) opinions.

As I said you preach about the evils of AI and those whom use it, yet here you are on a pirate site, one in which you can download games illegally. Games that are on their own often "controversial" not to mention those with subjects like rape, incest, bestiality, loli, NTR etc. Where is your bleeding heart for the work that goes into making these games? Games that people like us happily download without compensation?

Your responses, right or wrong of fact are laden with vitriol and rudeness wrapped up in hypocrisy.

(1)
AI Art does devalue the work of non-AI artists unless a legal framework is created. I've already proven that, and you've failed to disprove it.

But if you don't agree, feel free to disprove:
An AI artist buys up $1000 dollar worth of unreal art assets (3D weapon models of all kinds of guns), makes it an AI asset base and trains an AI on it. Then he sells the AI generated weapon models via the unreal engine marketplace in packs.
What do you think people will buy: the expensive $50-100 custom weapon models, or the $5 dollar AI generated weapon pack?

Q1: If the majority now buys the AI generated weapons because they're good enough and a lot cheaper, the original artist, whose work the generated asset packs are based on will not make that money. Do you think they'll continue creating weapons when that will not earn them money and they have rent to pay?

Q2: (A)The AI generator user earns most of the money since most people buy his much cheaper packs. He did not produce anything, just let the AI run its routine & select which result to go with. Creating the assets took a couple days.
(B) The original artist on whose work the generated models are based off only gets a fraction of the money, while he worked on the models for months and had to previously spend possible years training & honing his skills?
Do you think that the effort/benefit ratio is fairly distributed?

(2)
You're arguing that my main argument is moralistic. It isn't. The above argument I've given is moralistic, because I believe there is a moral argument to be made.
But the reason why it will be regulated that I've made is not moralistic. It's realistic.

Just as with filesharing, or with online images, companies will not accept a world where you can profit off their back, and they will use their money to encourage legislation that protects their interests.

Do you remember when people just took images from google, used them in their artwork or in their projects? Because how's anyone going to notice that someone else made that image.
Do you remember when companies noticed that?

Suddenly we have legislation for it and people developed reverse image searches so you can literally see if someone else already made that images or something resembling it. When's the last time you tried to use someone elses image in a piece of work and risk getting sued?

History has proven, time and time again, that when someone creates a technological avenue that allows people to "steal" the work of companies and make money with their work, they react. Quickly.

My original argument isn't "people should regulate" (though as shown in (1) that is a valid argument) but that whether you want it or not, companies will not stand idly by while you profit off them. They never have, they certainly won't now.

Expecting companies to close their eyes and not ensure that the legislation will suit their needs is historically naive.

 

[Deleted member 5954819]

Let's say as a human, I go to her instagram account, and look everyday at her picture and start drawing my own style based on what I see on her instagram... If I do that regularly. After a while, If I'm good at drawing (which I'm not) the results will be my originals but you'll certainly catch marikyuun's work in my drawings... Here she complaints because she didn't allow... Do I need her authorization to go on her instagram account ? Let's try ...
Answer : No -

You must be registered to see the links

Could someone easily make similar drawings ? Let's try ...
Answer : Yes - 1 min in paint and I'm already close View attachment 2577307
Will she say that I used her stuff without content ? Probably not because she's not affraid of my own vision of her art.
(I already know how you'll react to my pro artist drawing )
It's not like her drawings or her style is that much original. I've seen many similar drawings everywhere on internet
but she only complain because she see how easy the AI can use her stuff to do new stuff.
But someone (a pro artist) watching her instagram a couple of times is really capable of doing what she does.
And if she doesn't want her stuff to be used. Don't make a public instagram account...


When she created this, did she ask Nintendo's consent ? Yet everybody can spot patterns and characters copied from another artist ... What ? But why you only want to put the burden on AI ?
View attachment 2577335




Copyright gives the owner the exclusive right to create

You must be registered to see the links

. The works here are clearly derivative so they are unlawful without permission or a fair use exemption.

So it's more "do what I say but not what I do"...
They are really pathetic human beings....

,,Copying another artist's drawing without their permission may be considered copyright infringement and could lead to legal issues. If you are using the drawing for personal use only, and not sharing or selling it in any way, it may not be an issue. However, if you plan to use the drawing in any public way, you should seek permission from the artist or consider creating your own original work. Copying can also be a valuable learning tool for artists, especially when studying techniques or styles. If you do choose to copy another artist's drawing, it is important to give them credit and not claim the work as your own. In general, it is best to strive for originality in your artwork and to respect the rights of other artists."

 

[VegitoHlove]

(1)
AI Art does devalue the work of non-AI artists unless a legal framework is created. I've already proven that, and you've failed to disprove it.

But if you don't agree, feel free to disprove:
An AI artist buys up $1000 dollar worth of unreal art assets (3D weapon models of all kinds of guns), makes it an AI asset base and trains an AI on it. Then he sells the AI generated weapon models via the unreal engine marketplace in packs.
What do you think people will buy: the expensive $50-100 custom weapon models, or the $5 dollar AI generated weapon pack?

Q1: If the majority now buys the AI generated weapons because they're good enough and a lot cheaper, the original artist, whose work the generated asset packs are based on will not make that money. Do you think they'll continue creating weapons when that will not earn them money and they have rent to pay?

Q2: (A)The AI generator user earns most of the money since most people buy his much cheaper packs. He did not produce anything, just let the AI run its routine & select which result to go with. Creating the assets took a couple days.
(B) The original artist on whose work the generated models are based off only gets a fraction of the money, while he worked on the models for months and had to previously spend possible years training & honing his skills?
Do you think that the effort/benefit ratio is fairly distributed?

(2)
You're arguing that my main argument is moralistic. It isn't. The above argument I've given is moralistic, because I believe there is a moral argument to be made.
But the reason why it will be regulated that I've made is not moralistic. It's realistic.

Just as with filesharing, or with online images, companies will not accept a world where you can profit off their back, and they will use their money to encourage legislation that protects their interests.

Do you remember when people just took images from google, used them in their artwork or in their projects? Because how's anyone going to notice that someone else made that image.
Do you remember when companies noticed that?

Suddenly we have legislation for it and people developed reverse image searches so you can literally see if someone else already made that images or something resembling it. When's the last time you tried to use someone elses image in a piece of work and risk getting sued?

History has proven, time and time again, that when someone creates a technological avenue that allows people to "steal" the work of companies and make money with their work, they react. Quickly.

My original argument isn't "people should regulate" (though as shown in (1) that is a valid argument) but that whether you want it or not, companies will not stand idly by while you profit off them. They never have, they certainly won't now.

Expecting companies to close their eyes and not ensure that the legislation will suit their needs is historically naive.

Look at the end of the day, this is just a back and forth. I don't care. As far as I am concerned you're wrong. I also noticed you conveniently side-stepped your hypocrisy in being a pirate (I don't for a second believe you've paid in anyway for the games here you've downloaded).

Anyway I'm done with this circular back and forth. Ciao.

 

[Hardstyle Gaming]

(1)
AI Art does devalue the work of non-AI artists unless a legal framework is created. I've already proven that, and you've failed to disprove it.

But if you don't agree, feel free to disprove:
An AI artist buys up $1000 dollar worth of unreal art assets (3D weapon models of all kinds of guns), makes it an AI asset base and trains an AI on it. Then he sells the AI generated weapon models via the unreal engine marketplace in packs.
What do you think people will buy: the expensive $50-100 custom weapon models, or the $5 dollar AI generated weapon pack?

Q1: If the majority now buys the AI generated weapons because they're good enough and a lot cheaper, the original artist, whose work the generated asset packs are based on will not make that money. Do you think they'll continue creating weapons when that will not earn them money and they have rent to pay?

Q2: (A)The AI generator user earns most of the money since most people buy his much cheaper packs. He did not produce anything, just let the AI run its routine & select which result to go with. Creating the assets took a couple days.
(B) The original artist on whose work the generated models are based off only gets a fraction of the money, while he worked on the models for months and had to previously spend possible years training & honing his skills?
Do you think that the effort/benefit ratio is fairly distributed?

(2)
You're arguing that my main argument is moralistic. It isn't. The above argument I've given is moralistic, because I believe there is a moral argument to be made.
But the reason why it will be regulated that I've made is not moralistic. It's realistic.

Just as with filesharing, or with online images, companies will not accept a world where you can profit off their back, and they will use their money to encourage legislation that protects their interests.

Do you remember when people just took images from google, used them in their artwork or in their projects? Because how's anyone going to notice that someone else made that image.
Do you remember when companies noticed that?

Suddenly we have legislation for it and people developed reverse image searches so you can literally see if someone else already made that images or something resembling it. When's the last time you tried to use someone elses image in a piece of work and risk getting sued?

History has proven, time and time again, that when someone creates a technological avenue that allows people to "steal" the work of companies and make money with their work, they react. Quickly.

My original argument isn't "people should regulate" (though as shown in (1) that is a valid argument) but that whether you want it or not, companies will not stand idly by while you profit off them. They never have, they certainly won't now.

Expecting companies to close their eyes and not ensure that the legislation will suit their needs is historically naive.

Q1: If the majority of farmers now buy the tractors because they're good enough and a lot cheaper, the farm worker, whose work the tractors are based on will not make that money. Do you think they'll continue working on the farm when that will not earn them money and they have rent to pay?

No

Q2: (A)The tractor using farmer earns most of the money since most people buy his much cheaper crops. He did not produce anything, just let the tractor run its routine & select which fertilizer to go with. Creating harvesting the crops took a couple days.
(B) The original farm worker on whose work the tractor models are based off doesnt get any of the money, while he worked on the farm for months and had to previously spend possible years training & honing his skills?
Do you think that the effort/benefit ratio is fairly distributed?

Not my problem. Luddite

 

[kuraiken]

Look at the end of the day, this is just a back and forth. I don't care. As far as I am concerned you're wrong. I also noticed you conveniently side-stepped your hypocrisy in being a pirate (I don't for a second believe you've paid in anyway for the games here you've downloaded).

Anyway I'm done with this circular back and forth. Ciao.

I didn't sidestep it, I ignored it because it was too stupid to even deserve a reply.
But if you absolutely must have one, I'll indulge you:

As I said you preach about the evils of AI and those whom use it, yet here you are on a pirate site, one in which you can download games illegally. Games that are on their own often "controversial" not to mention those with subjects like rape, incest, bestiality, loli, NTR etc. Where is your bleeding heart for the work that goes into making these games? Games that people like us happily download without compensation?

Your responses, right or wrong of fact are laden with vitriol and rudeness wrapped up in hypocrisy.

Your argument boils down to: "You are on F95 where some things happen that aren't legal or are questionable, thus you are the same as someone that deliberately uses other people's works to make money off them."

1. This is a free & open forum. You can discuss all kinds of topics, search for team members for projects in the recruitment forum or even download games provided by the creators. Being a member of F95 does not mean you're downloading games that haven't been made publicly available by the author.

2. Even if someone where to download a game illegally, it would be for personal & private use only. They are not reselling the game to make money off of it.

3. If your argument was to hold any water, you'd have to prove that I (a) am downloading video games illegally (b) for commercial purposes and am (c) redistributing them for monetary gain.
Anything else is a false equivalence that tries to construe being a member of a forum as being a financial exploiter of people.

Anyway I'm done with this circular back and forth. Ciao.

Fare thee well, I notice you chose to leave when I made a very clear parapgraph based argument. Whatever could that mean?

Q1: If the majority of farmers now buy the tractors because they're good enough and a lot cheaper, the farm worker, whose work the tractors are based on will not make that money. Do you think they'll continue working on the farm when that will not earn them money and they have rent to pay?

No

Q2: (A)The tractor using farmer earns most of the money since most people buy his much cheaper crops. He did not produce anything, just let the tractor run its routine & select which fertilizer to go with. Creating harvesting the crops took a couple days.
(B) The original farm worker on whose work the tractor models are based off doesnt get any of the money, while he worked on the farm for months and had to previously spend possible years training & honing his skills?
Do you think that the effort/benefit ratio is fairly distributed?

Not my problem. Luddite

Hello my intrepid friend!

Q1: Video Games are not tractors. Nor are art assets tractors. Tractors are tractors. Tractors also do not harvest crops by themselves. They are driven. By farmers.
I have no idea what you're trying to tell me with this, but I'm sure this sounded a lot more reasonable in your head.

Q2: We're still talking about AI art. Not farmers and tractors.

Can you maybe explain why you felt it so pressingly necessary to ignore the actual example based on AI art and a real world scenario and instead try to talk about tractors and farmers instead...when you could make whatever point you're making on the example of AI art I've presented?

Reminder:
An artist created weapon models to sell on a engine marketplace. An AI program guy used them to generate versions based off of them and put the artist out of work by underselling with low-ball prices, thereby harvesting the crops sown by the artist (I'm phrasing this deliberately this way in the hopes your love for tractors & farmers helps aid you in the understanding) for himself.

Edit: Actually, I'll help you out even more my tractor-loving friend:

If a farmer, instead of planting his own field, just drives his tractor over the field of his neighboring farmer, harvesting that farmers crops and drives away with it, is that stealing or not?
(And no, this doesn't directly apply to AI art, because laundering AI art is not stealing. But then again, you're the one with the tractor fetish. There's a reason why I made the case on AI art laundering on an AI art laundering case, and not on tractors and fields.)

 

[Hardstyle Gaming]

I didn't sidestep it, I ignored it because it was too stupid to even deserve a reply.
But if you absolutely must have one, I'll indulge you:


Your argument boils down to: "You are on F95 where some things happen that aren't legal or are questionable, thus you are the same as someone that deliberately uses other people's works to make money off them."

1. This is a free & open forum. You can discuss all kinds of topics, search for team members for projects in the recruitment forum or even download games provided by the creators. Being a member of F95 does not mean you're downloading games that haven't been made publicly available by the author.

2. Even if someone where to download a game illegally, it would be for personal & private use only. They are not reselling the game to make money off of it.

3. If your argument was to hold any water, you'd have to prove that I (a) am downloading video games illegally (b) for commercial purposes and am (c) redistributing them for monetary gain.
Anything else is a false equivalence that tries to construe being a member of a forum as being a financial exploiter of people.


Fare thee well, I notice you chose to leave when I made a very clear parapgraph based argument. Whatever could that mean?



Hello my intrepid friend!

Q1: Video Games are not tractors. Nor are art assets tractors. Tractors are tractors. Tractors also do not harvest crops by themselves. They are driven. By farmers.
I have no idea what you're trying to tell me with this, but I'm sure this sounded a lot more reasonable in your head.

Q2: We're still talking about AI art. Not farmers and tractors.

Can you maybe explain why you felt it so pressingly necessary to ignore the actual example based on AI art and a real world scenario and instead try to talk about tractors and farmers instead...when you could make whatever point you're making on the example of AI art I've presented?

Reminder:
An artist created weapon models to sell on a engine marketplace. An AI program guy used them to generate versions based off of them and put the artist out of work by underselling with low-ball prices, thereby harvesting the crops sown by the artist (I'm phrasing this deliberately this way in the hopes your love for tractors & farmers helps aid you in the understanding) for himself.

Edit: Actually, I'll help you out even more my tractor-loving friend:

If a farmer, instead of planting his own field, just drives his tractor over the field of his neighboring farmer, harvesting that farmers crops and drives away with it, is that stealing or not?
(And no, this doesn't directly apply to AI art, because laundering AI art is not stealing. But then again, you're the one with the tractor fetish. There's a reason why I made the case on AI art laundering on an AI art laundering case, and not on tractors and fields.)

Its an anology. People generally use them to avoid typing walls of text. You dont seem to have a problem with that though.

Farming someone elses land is stealing. Observing someone elses farming techniques, copying and automating that is fair play.

 

[kuraiken]

Its an anology. People generally use them to avoid typing walls of text. You dont seem to have a problem with that though.

Farming someone elses land is stealing. Observing someone elses farming techniques, copying and automating that is fair play.

It's a flawed analogy, though. There is a difference between a technique used to produce a good and techniques used to produce art. In this case, it's not even a technique to produce a good, but designs to create a machine to help you.

This becomes painfully obvious if we translate this back into AI art:
Do you believe that someone has the right to simply take the code that is used to train AI art from the coders?
'Cause that's the case you're talking about. (The AI process being the tractor, the machine allowing you to do what you cannot do yourself.)

It falls apart further when you look at actual history.
The farmer doesn't just look at the other farmer doing the farming and bang, can do it too. In fact, they couldn't replicate what one farmer did with a tractor because they couldn't invent a tractor on their own after seeing it.

Now, granted, they could maybe sneak into the other farmer's house and steal the blueprints, or sneak onto his grounds and study the tractor in detail. Both are illegal, though.

In fact - this may come as a surprise to you - but if you studied a tractor and rebuild it based on those studies, you'd get sued.
Tractors, as it so happens, have their designs protected. You'll have to come up with your own way of designing & building a tractor. If you just steal the blueprint, you'll end up in prison.

There's a reason why farmers drive John Deere and others instead of everyone building their own tractor.


So...how did I know that your analogy is so flawed at just a glance, you may wonder?

It's because there's a reason you chose to invent your own analogy instead of making the case on the actual example I gave you.

An example, that, as it happens, remains entirely ignored by you - as if you couldn't make your case in it. (Whereas I can make my case in your example, flawed as it may be)
Gotta love logic.

 

[Hardstyle Gaming]

It's a flawed analogy, though. There is a difference between a technique used to produce a good and techniques used to produce art. In this case, it's not even a technique to produce a good, but designs to create a machine to help you.

This becomes painfully obvious if we translate this back into AI art:
Do you believe that someone has the right to simply take the code that is used to train AI art from the coders?
'Cause that's the case you're talking about. (The AI process being the tractor, the machine allowing you to do what you cannot do yourself.)

It falls apart further when you look at actual history.
The farmer doesn't just look at the other farmer doing the farming and bang, can do it too. In fact, they couldn't replicate what one farmer did with a tractor because they couldn't invent a tractor on their own after seeing it.

Now, granted, they could maybe sneak into the other farmer's house and steal the blueprints, or sneak onto his grounds and study the tractor in detail. Both are illegal, though.

In fact - this may come as a surprise to you - but if you studied a tractor and rebuild it based on those studies, you'd get sued.
Tractors, as it so happens, have their designs protected. You'll have to come up with your own way of designing & building a tractor. If you just steal the blueprint, you'll end up in prison.

There's a reason why farmers drive John Deere and others instead of everyone building their own tractor.


So...how did I know that your analogy is so flawed at just a glance, you may wonder?

It's because there's a reason you chose to invent your own analogy instead of making the case on the actual example I gave you.

An example, that, as it happens, remains entirely ignored by you - as if you couldn't make your case in it. (Whereas I can make my case in your example, flawed as it may be)
Gotta love logic.

Its not copying the code though. Its looking at the code and learning from it. And every company will do that, whatever information is out there can be learned from. Whoever puts information out that has NO RIGHTS in regards to my learning from it.

 

[kuraiken]

Its not copying the code though. Its looking at the code and learning from it. And every company will do that, whatever information is out there can be learned from. Whoever puts information out that has NO RIGHTS in regards to my learning from it.

Ah, so we finally leave the tractors behind? Good good, I don't begrudge you your tractors but the topic is something different, after all.

Now your argument is a bit threadbare and vague, more like just an opinion shouted in the void...
But no matter! We'll pretend you made a fully valid argument.
The one you could've done from the start and you didn't have to veil behind any analogy:

(We'll pretend this is your argument.)

If an artist learns techniques of another artist through observing them, and then uses the knowledge gained through them in their own work, isn't this the same as an AI learning from artists and then using this to create an artwork?

Wow, not a bad argument my friend. It's actually aimed at the topic we're speaking about, and it actually encompasses the logic you're following - the comparison between the process of an artist learning & applying this knowledge and a machine learning & applying this knowledge. Kudos to you!

The answer's still no though.

That's because there are fundamental differences between those two things.

1. The AI is not you.
This is pretty obvious. But it also means that you, the person benefitting from the product, selling it, making money, etc. is not the person that did the learning. You didn't do the work. You didn't learn a thing. So why would you get to do anything with work you didn't do?
You didn't study anything, you didn't process techniques or gain insights, you didn't apply them craftily or creatively in new ways, you didn't even produce the result. The AI did - not you the guy making the money.
An artist does work. They study the techniques of artists, often for years. They have to come up with ways to apply the insights gained - often in new ways that create new techniques. And then they have to skillfully apply them with the craft they honed over years in many and many hours of work. Their labor, their fruits.
Your labor...does not yield fruits.

2. Studying & observing is a skill.
Every artist knows that. You can look at a painting and see what's there, but you don't understand why. Or how the effect was created. To what purpose.
Artists spend a lot of time trying to hone their perception, to understand the relationship between things.
When an artist learns new skills, it is their work, too. The result of a lifetime of honing their perception and looking for meaning and understanding - from composition to technical skill.
You...don't do any of that. A generator does - in some fashion - do that for you. But neither you nor the generator are actually really learning anything.
If either of you is asked: Why did you draw it this way?
The artist can answer.
You and the AI? Answer only in silence.

3. Learning & improving is a process that involves creativity.
The artist is not merely exploring someone elses work, but is also attempting to improve through a confrontation with the question of what art is and how it works. An AI does not. There is no foundation of "self-experience", of the AI learning to draw on its own. It merely siphons off of the work of others, it does not mingle it with its own inventions & practices. The AI cannot do what hasn't been done before, because it does not know how.
An artist, on the other hand, always looks for the creative application of old techniques in new ways to create something fresh and new.

4. Art uses human existance as basis.
The lived reality. A human draws on their own experience and uses it as the lens that materializes their work. Their art is based on their own interpretation of that experience. An AI does not base any of its work on their own interpretation of their existence. An AI does not start drawing and then chooses to study & learn from other people's work. It only takes patterns from other people's work because it has nothing to start with. They simply create a distorted reflection of other people's interpretation of their existence through the shallow copy they create. Not their own.
Thus every artist, in their work, even if technically similar to someone elses, incorporates themselves as a quality to the work.
An AI cannot incorporate itself in the work. It does not know how. It can only mimic others.

5. A human's art is independent in its existence.
Brush, canvas, photoshop. Whatever. They can sit down and do art. You can't. And neither can the AI.
If there was no basis that the AI can train on, then there's nothing you or the AI could do.
In fact, if all artists would stop doing art tomorrow, and all we have is AI art being generated, then art would stagnate. There would be no new inventions, no new styles or techniques, nothing new creative being done. Because neither you nor the AI is doing something creative, nor are you drawing on your skills. You're siphoning off others work. And if they stop working? All you can do is repeat the stuff you've stolen. You can't make anything new of your own.
An artists art exists because the artist exists and wishes to do art.
Your AI art exists because other people make art, which makes up for your inability to do so.

Conclusion:
Studying the art of others over thousands of hours and incorporating them partially in your own or drawing on it
for inspiration in experimenting & inventing new combinations is not the same as pressing the button on
a generator.
What staggering surprise! Who would've thought?!

I hope that shows you a few of the small differences between an artist learning & applying the learned art in new art, and an AI art "learning" how to mimic other people's art.

 

[Hardstyle Gaming]

Ah, so we finally leave the tractors behind? Good good, I don't begrudge you your tractors but the topic is something different, after all.

Now your argument is a bit threadbare and vague, more like just an opinion shouted in the void...
But no matter! We'll pretend you made a fully valid argument.
The one you could've done from the start and you didn't have to veil behind any analogy:

(We'll pretend this is your argument.)


Wow, not a bad argument my friend. It's actually aimed at the topic we're speaking about, and it actually encompasses the logic you're following - the comparison between the process of an artist learning & applying this knowledge and a machine learning & applying this knowledge. Kudos to you!

The answer's still no though.

That's because there are fundamental differences between those two things.

1. The AI is not you.
This is pretty obvious. But it also means that you, the person benefitting from the product, selling it, making money, etc. is not the person that did the learning. You didn't do the work. You didn't learn a thing. So why would you get to do anything with work you didn't do?
You didn't study anything, you didn't process techniques or gain insights, you didn't apply them craftily or creatively in new ways, you didn't even produce the result. The AI did - not you the guy making the money.
An artist does work. They study the techniques of artists, often for years. They have to come up with ways to apply the insights gained - often in new ways that create new techniques. And then they have to skillfully apply them with the craft they honed over years in many and many hours of work. Their labor, their fruits.
Your labor...does not yield fruits.

2. Studying & observing is a skill.
Every artist knows that. You can look at a painting and see what's there, but you don't understand why. Or how the effect was created. To what purpose.
Artists spend a lot of time trying to hone their perception, to understand the relationship between things.
When an artist learns new skills, it is their work, too. The result of a lifetime of honing their perception and looking for meaning and understanding - from composition to technical skill.
You...don't do any of that. A generator does - in some fashion - do that for you. But neither you nor the generator are actually really learning anything.
If either of you is asked: Why did you draw it this way?
The artist can answer.
You and the AI? Answer only in silence.

3. Learning & improving is a process that involves creativity.
The artist is not merely exploring someone elses work, but is also attempting to improve through a confrontation with the question of what art is and how it works. An AI does not. There is no foundation of "self-experience", of the AI learning to draw on its own. It merely siphons off of the work of others, it does not mingle it with its own inventions & practices. The AI cannot do what hasn't been done before, because it does not know how.
An artist, on the other hand, always looks for the creative application of old techniques in new ways to create something fresh and new.

4. Art uses human existance as basis.
The lived reality. A human draws on their own experience and uses it as the lens that materializes their work. Their art is based on their own interpretation of that experience. An AI does not base any of its work on their own interpretation of their existence. An AI does not start drawing and then chooses to study & learn from other people's work. It only takes patterns from other people's work because it has nothing to start with. They simply create a distorted reflection of other people's interpretation of their existence through the shallow copy they create. Not their own.
Thus every artist, in their work, even if technically similar to someone elses, incorporates themselves as a quality to the work.
An AI cannot incorporate itself in the work. It does not know how. It can only mimic others.

5. A human's art is independent in its existence.
Brush, canvas, photoshop. Whatever. They can sit down and do art. You can't. And neither can the AI.
If there was no basis that the AI can train on, then there's nothing you or the AI could do.
In fact, if all artists would stop doing art tomorrow, and all we have is AI art being generated, then art would stagnate. There would be no new inventions, no new styles or techniques, nothing new creative being done. Because neither you nor the AI is doing something creative, nor are you drawing on your skills. You're siphoning off others work. And if they stop working? All you can do is repeat the stuff you've stolen. You can't make anything new of your own.
An artists art exists because the artist exists and wishes to do art.
Your AI art exists because other people make art, which makes up for your inability to do so.

Conclusion:
Studying the art of others over thousands of hours and incorporating them partially in your own or drawing on it
for inspiration in experimenting & inventing new combinations is not the same as pressing the button on
a generator.
What staggering surprise! Who would've thought?!

I hope that shows you a few of the small differences between an artist learning & applying the learned art in new art, and an AI art "learning" how to mimic other people's art.

No. There is no difference between a person learning and a machine learning. Laws cannot be constructed that would make such a distinction. Tools are tools. Laws only deal with humans. It would also be unenforceable as you would have to prove a person created something or a machine created something. Also you couldn't define anything concretely. Using stable diffusion and writing down your thoughts on a piece of paper are the same thing in principle.

Copyright infringement exists on a case by case basis. And anyone can learn from any information they access, but they cant rip off or steal from others. My way is clean, makes sense, and is consistent with the actual world. Your way is just luddite artist cope, it couldnt be enforced, and its stupid.

 

[shabadu]

Is AI art still morally wrong if it came from an artist who trained their own model on their own art? I.e. there's been no theft

 

[kuraiken]

No. There is no difference between a person learning and a machine learning. Laws cannot be constructed that would make such a distinction. Tools are tools. Laws only deal with humans. It would also be unenforceable as you would have to prove a person created something or a machine created something. Also you couldn't define anything concretely. Using stable diffusion and writing down your thoughts on a piece of paper are the same thing in principle.

Copyright infringement exists on a case by case basis. And anyone can learn from any information they access, but they cant rip off or steal from others. My way is clean, makes sense, and is consistent with the actual world. Your way is just luddite artist cope, it couldnt be enforced, and its stupid.

You didn't refute a single point I made. Instead you took points I already refuted earlier? What kind of a plan is that?

Laws cannot be constructed that would make such a distinction.

Yes they can. In fact, they not only can, but will have to, because unless they find a way, AI art cannot be copyright protected.
That means that there is no situation where you can use it without giving free leave to someone else just using your work.
Companies won't like not being able to use AI art due to no copyright protection. So they'll want to have that. Thus a legal way has to be found.

Copied:


Of course laws can be made around what processes are used to create something and how they're to be used responsible and legally. What do you think all the regulations are?

And the idea of "laws existing only between people" is actually self-destructive for you.
From the point of view of a law that only respects people, it would ask:
How much work did person x do and what right should they hold of their work as a result?
And then they'd look at you and ask the same question.
And you're like "I didn't do anything but press this button but the AI did..."
They don't care what they AI did. They care about what you did.
And you? Just pressed a button.
Set and Match.

It would also be unenforceable as you would have to prove a person created something or a machine created something.

Are you, in a forum where literally everyone can tell AI art by sight, literally claiming people wouldn't be able to tell someone created something via AI art?

That's like saying: No one will ever discover that I took these images from someone else from the internet. It's not like someone will create some algorithm that can reverse search images...wait?!

Yeah. Your argument literally is: AI art is so amazing and no one will ever be able to tell I secretly did it...except for all the people that can spot it by eye and everyone who'll use an AI art generation detector AI that analyzes the structure of an image for AI generation.

Using stable diffusion and writing down your thoughts on a piece of paper are the same thing in principle.

Please for the mother of god and all that is holy in the world, stop trying to use comparisons or analogies.
It's just...not your thing.

Copyright infringement exists on a case by case basis. And anyone can learn from any information they access, but they cant rip off or steal from others. My way is clean, makes sense, and is consistent with the actual world. Your way is just luddite artist cope, it couldnt be enforced, and its stupid.

That awfully reads like: the water should be so muddled, all the artists I rip off should have a hard way to find out I did it?

That's...not exactly a very good or reasonable or world consistent "way", as you put it.
And your "way" ignores reality and the thing called companies, who will want to put a stop to people using their assets in AI asset generation.

Copied:

My way is clean, makes sense, and is consistent with the actual world. Your way is just luddite artist cope, it couldnt be enforced, and its stupid.

You just sound angry because I'm confronting you with simple counter arguments you cannot refute. You just keep angrily saying how I must be wrong, you must be right, and then you go and try to do the whole name calling in the hopes I'll start that stuff to.
But I won't.
You're my best friend.
My evening amusement.

Is AI art still morally wrong if it came from an artist who trained their own model on their own art? I.e. there's been no theft

Nope.
In fact, that's one of the ways I see it likely to be implemented. Artists doing partial patterns, having the AI trained on them, then repeat them. Like using stamps in photoshop, except intelligently.

It's probable that we'll see stuff like auto gradients, color corrections, light & shadow overlays, color highlights, as part of new tools for artists.
Production wise there will probably be ways for artists to use key images to generate in-between animation frames for their images, making animation easier, or using AI processes to generate changes of poses based on existing images. (Transferring clothing from character A to B, slightly turning a character, changing the character pose & recalculating how the clothing would hang, etc. etc.)

There's probably a lot of exciting tools in the future. It might get intregrated into existing software like photoshop - or find its way into entirely new programs.

The only thing that's morally wrong is if you're literally not putting in any real work yourself and you're just clicking a button while benefitting of other people's work.

 

[XcentY]

,,Copying another artist's drawing without their permission may be considered copyright infringement and could lead to legal issues. If you are using the drawing for personal use only, and not sharing or selling it in any way, it may not be an issue. However, if you plan to use the drawing in any public way, you should seek permission from the artist or consider creating your own original work. Copying can also be a valuable learning tool for artists, especially when studying techniques or styles. If you do choose to copy another artist's drawing, it is important to give them credit and not claim the work as your own. In general, it is best to strive for originality in your artwork and to respect the rights of other artists."

I totally agree. You're clearly a master in copy/paste rules you believe are enough to rule the case out... And as I sourced an article about this in another post in this topic which clearly shows that the reality for all of you is "nobody knows how it would be ruled in court"

The same goes for her own drawings of mario, wario, peach and nintendo's characters...

So please, the anti-AI people who always claims they know for sure that it's "copying", "stealing" or whatever you can come up with...
LET THE JUSTICE DECIDE and once you have jurisprudence on AI then you can come and tell us you were right... but actually, this is not the case...
Her drawing of nintendo character is as problematic as the AI trained with her drawings.

 

[Hardstyle Gaming]

You didn't refute a single point I made. Instead you took points I already refuted earlier? What kind of a plan is that?


Yes they can. In fact, they not only can, but will have to, because unless they find a way, AI art cannot be copyright protected.
That means that there is no situation where you can use it without giving free leave to someone else just using your work.
Companies won't like not being able to use AI art due to no copyright protection. So they'll want to have that. Thus a legal way has to be found.

Copied:
View attachment 2578313

Of course laws can be made around what processes are used to create something and how they're to be used responsible and legally. What do you think all the regulations are?

And the idea of "laws existing only between people" is actually self-destructive for you.
From the point of view of a law that only respects people, it would ask:
How much work did person x do and what right should they hold of their work as a result?
And then they'd look at you and ask the same question.
And you're like "I didn't do anything but press this button but the AI did..."
They don't care what they AI did. They care about what you did.
And you? Just pressed a button.
Set and Match.


Are you, in a forum where literally everyone can tell AI art by sight, literally claiming people wouldn't be able to tell someone created something via AI art?

That's like saying: No one will ever discover that I took these images from someone else from the internet. It's not like someone will create some algorithm that can reverse search images...wait?!

Yeah. Your argument literally is: AI art is so amazing and no one will ever be able to tell I secretly did it...except for all the people that can spot it by eye and everyone who'll use an AI art generation detector AI that analyzes the structure of an image for AI generation.


Please for the mother of god and all that is holy in the world, stop trying to use comparisons or analogies.
It's just...not your thing.


That awfully reads like: the water should be so muddled, all the artists I rip off should have a hard way to find out I did it?

That's...not exactly a very good or reasonable or world consistent "way", as you put it.
And your "way" ignores reality and the thing called companies, who will want to put a stop to people using their assets in AI asset generation.

Copied:
View attachment 2578327

You just sound angry because I'm confronting you with simple counter arguments you cannot refute. You just keep angrily saying how I must be wrong, you must be right, and then you go and try to do the whole name calling in the hopes I'll start that stuff to.
But I won't.
You're my best friend.
My evening amusement.



Nope.
In fact, that's one of the ways I see it likely to be implemented. Artists doing partial patterns, having the AI trained on them, then repeat them. Like using stamps in photoshop, except intelligently.

It's probable that we'll see stuff like auto gradients, color corrections, light & shadow overlays, color highlights, as part of new tools for artists.
Production wise there will probably be ways for artists to use key images to generate in-between animation frames for their images, making animation easier, or using AI processes to generate changes of poses based on existing images. (Transferring clothing from character A to B, slightly turning a character, changing the character pose & recalculating how the clothing would hang, etc. etc.)

There's probably a lot of exciting tools in the future. It might get intregrated into existing software like photoshop - or find its way into entirely new programs.

The only thing that's morally wrong is if you're literally not putting in any real work yourself and you're just clicking a button while benefitting of other people's work.

oh yes very sensible instead of using existing copyright laws lets do a bunch of insane shit because of your feelings.

>I can tell

doesnt hold up in a court. You cant PROVE how someone made their art. Period

 

[Meaning Less]

Is AI art still morally wrong if it came from an artist who trained their own model on their own art? I.e. there's been no theft

Honestly I don't care about morality, so these last few pages of discussion are irrelevant to me.

I just care about originality and consistency, which is something the AI still can't do even if you trained it with your own artwork. Afterall it will just be making random variations of the content in was trained with.

The moment an artist starts pumping random images from an AI, even if it was originally all his artwork, that's the moment that it isn't his work anymore.

Now sure if they just use AI as a tool to cut some rough corners then polish things manually without sacrificing their original vision, maybe we could be getting somewhere.

Her drawing of nintendo character is as problematic as the AI trained with her drawings.

Her art looks nothing like nintendo characters... You sound like those people that say "every anime character looks the same to me".

 

[XcentY]

Her art looks nothing like nintendo characters... You sound like those people that say "every anime character looks the same to me".

You're clearly blind.... If it looks nothing like nintendo characters then why do I recognize them ?

Here China's autobot compared to Disney's Cars : (China lost the case and the company had to pay for copyright infringment)


I already told that "derivative" works of copyrighted material is the owner rights...

"
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to pre-
pare, or to authorize someone else to create, an adaptation of
that work. The owner of a copyright is generally the author
or someone who has obtained the exclusive rights from the
author. In any case where a copyrighted work is used without
the permission of the copyright owner, copyright protection
will not extend to any part of the work in which such mate-
rial has been used unlawfully. The unauthorized adaptation
of a work may constitute copyright infringement.
"

Here is the source :

You must be registered to see the links

So if you don't see that it's a derivative of copyrighted characters owned by Nintendo... We won't be able to discuss.

Also I think that this forum is still trying to define the "right" on case by case scenarios between human copyrighted materials and their usages while none of us is "THE JUSTICE"... And it seems that some have a propensity to be more agressive and condemning toward AI's work than toward human's work...
So when she copies or derivate copyrighted material, it's OK, it looks nothing like nintendo character.
But when the AI copies or derivate her material, it's not OK however when I look at what AI was doing with her artwork, I can also come with a stupid comment and say "AI's art looks nothing like her work"... This is clearly opinion and not a justice's decision

Let's be honest... And stop doing case by case ruling... We are not the justice and we don't know how the justice would rule the case.
So it's better for her to bring the case to the court than whinning on youtube if she wants to clearly sue the person she believe stole and copied her material through AI learning.


If you know how many times in my life I believed I was in my rights when suing my landlord... Just like all of you I believed that "rules" and "laws" were enough to decide the case but then when you see how a case is ruled by the justice, you'll see that the "rule" or the "law" is not as sharp as you believe
Even the "rule" or "law" itself on copyright says " may be considered copyright infringement " ... If you don't see that it means that only the court will decide if the "may be" can be translated to "is copyright infringement" or "isn't copyright infringement"...
So stop blaming AI on case by case, or in general to say that AI is stealing, copying, ... and breaks the rules of copyright... Sue them and see how the court rule your case.

It's pointless to discuss further now or we will just exchange our opinions and even be agressive toward each others... It only build frustrations cause none of us will have the upper hand

 

[kuraiken]

oh yes very sensible instead of using existing copyright laws lets do a bunch of insane shit because of your feelings.

Not even sure what I'm supposed to reply to that vitriol?
Like, I get you're angry, but you're not even making an argument or even engaging any of my points.
You literally cannot refute a single one of now over two dozen points I've made and all you have is "vague-mumbo-jumbo" followed by an aggressive commentary.

>I can tell

doesnt hold up in a court. You cant PROVE how someone made their art. Period

Are you for real?

That's literally not how civil courts work. Civil courts don't do "in dubio pro reo".
It depends on the weight of evidence.

So the accuser will come along and say:
1. Look, here's all the assets they've made. Metadata indicates this was not created in any normal computer software, it lacks any of the metadata they software would assign. It does however contain metadata created by an AI generator.
2. Here's my artworks. Notice all these similarities. They're in my style. Here's all the particular ways I've done this.
Here's my drawing books showcasing how I developed that style, gradually built it up, and how I invented it. Here's things I tried but decided against. Here's how it evolved further.

And then they'll turn to you and ask:
Did you do all these images yourself?
- And you're like "Uuuuh, I did them myself, yes."
Can you show me any of the concept designs?
- "I threw them away."
Early sketches?
- "Dog ate them."
Any progression in your artistic career?
- "I don't like keeping past artwork that I'm not selling."
So you've got nothing to prove how you built up that style? Alright. Can you show us the photoshop files in which you created these images with all their layers?
- "Uuuuh, nope. Deleted them too."
So there is nothing, nothing at all, in your history as artist, your sketches, concept art or designs, nothing in your artworks and not even any of the materials any artist has as a part of their workflow that you can use to provide ANY evidence that this work wasn't copied from this guy via an AI generator?

And that's when everyone does the facepalm. Because no one would believe you. And in civil court, unlike criminal courts, it matters who's side is more believeable.

 

[shabadu]

Nope.
In fact, that's one of the ways I see it likely to be implemented. Artists doing partial patterns, having the AI trained on them, then repeat them. Like using stamps in photoshop, except intelligently.

That's pretty much how I see it playing out too, in a sort of best-case scenario. Custom-tuned AI programs that assist in various pipelines, typically focusing on the more mundane and tedious aspects like, as you say, inbetweens or small tweaks.

The moment an artist starts pumping random images from an AI, even if it was originally all his artwork, that's the moment that it isn't his work anymore.

Yeah, I think with how things have played out so far, strict output from a generative model will remain un-copyrightable. There needs to be some level of human involvement, but how much is a question that will probably be answered in court long before any actual legislation gets passed. In the US, at least.

 

[Meaning Less]

You're clearly blind.... If it looks nothing like nintendo characters then why do I recognize them ?

Because you probably don't browse enough art to even notice the differences in artstyle, especially if your goto example is "nintendo".

Not to mention, nintendo hires many different artists to make different artwork for each project and promotional material of theirs, nintendo isn't the "artist".

We are not the justice and we don't know how the justice would rule it out.

Again I don't care about morality, I just care about what can do the job without looking like you created a game with stolen assets (inconsistent artwork all around that makes it look like you are playing different games every time a new character shows up or changes position).

Which unfortunetely is what we get from AI right now, tag me again once it stops being that.

 

[XcentY]

Because you probably don't browse enough art to even notice the differences in artstyle, especially if your goto example is "nintendo".

Not to mention, nintendo hires many different artists to make different artwork for each project and promotional material of theirs, nintendo isn't the "artist".

Again I don't care about morality, I just care about what can do the job without looking like you created a game with stolen assets (inconsistent artwork all around that makes it look like you are playing different games every time a new character shows up or changes position).

Which unfortunetely is what we get from AI right now, tag me again once it stops being that.

Ok. I don't browse enough but you browse and you know ... YOU ARE THE EXPERT

Sophism all around the place !!!

OK
Thanks oh my lord JUSTICE Meaning Less...
You ruled all the cases for us

She derivate Nintendo's work but it's ok...It's because it's my fault I didn't browse the internet to see that no... it's not wario, it's not mario, it's not peach, it's not donkey kong... It must be originals then....

I stop here... You're just stubborn and I'm fed up with the 2 speeds ruling based on your sole opinion
You're just stupid and I'll only wait for justice to decide cause here, I will only build frustrations with people who believe the world is shapped around their opinionS and whom even uses sophisms to win an argument.