AI generated art

5.00 star(s) 1 Vote

Meaning Less

Engaged Member
Sep 13, 2016
3,540
7,078
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 was talking about her artwork style not the characters... Just because she drew one image with nintendo character doesn't mean she copied the lines from other EXISTING images... If she did, then it wouldn't be her artwork anymore.

Like the previous image of bart simpson you posted, you clearly copied that from the first google result...
1682644668748.png
It isn't your creation, even if you drew the lines yourself.
 

XcentY

Member
Jul 15, 2017
122
102
I was talking about her artwork style not the characters... Just because she drew one image with nintendo character doesn't mean she copied the lines from other EXISTING images...

If she did, then it wouldn't be her artwork anymore.

Like your previous image of bart simpson you posted, you clearly copied that from the first google result...
View attachment 2578459
It isn't your creation, even if you drew the lines yourself.
Come on her drawing is sharing a lot of the style you find in the originals. And not only that but she uses brand protected material.Nintendo's characters are protected. And if you think that you were smart by saying that nintendo wasn't the artist... Of course, it's a company... Disney sued China for their version "Autobots" who looks similar to "Cars"... But Disney is not the artist...
The owner of the copyright is Nintendo not the artist that made the characters for them.
 

Deleted member 5954819

Beyond Tomorrow
Game Developer
Mar 31, 2023
81
211
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.
No, I'm not a "master". I'm an ordinary person who, unlike you, can read information about the things I'm interested in, not like you, who come here and post everything that pops into your stupid head. You present everything you've been writing here for several days as facts, while I have not seen any evidence or any source of information for your claims. You ran away from the discussion four times because someone gave you an argument that you couldn't answer. I have written about five official statements that apply to the use of publicly available AI, and it is very easy to find them. They serve to give the average user at least some insight into what he can and cannot do. What did you do? You rejected everything and adjusted it in your head as it suited you.

PS: I'll put my hand in the fire for the fact that when you try to open a web browser, it takes you at least 5 minutes to figure out how to do it, but above all, you pretend to be some kind of lawyer or artist. You are a clown, nothing else. Just a clown, but luckily you're on the internet, so you can be here anonymously, whoever you want to be, and create different biographies in front of people who don't know you.

Good luck, Mr. Lawyer, artist, or whatever you consider yourself to be :KEK:
 

XcentY

Member
Jul 15, 2017
122
102
No, I'm not a "master". I'm an ordinary person who, unlike you, can read information about the things I'm interested in, not like you, who come here and post everything that pops into your stupid head. You present everything you've been writing here for several days as facts, while I have not seen any evidence or any source of information for your claims. You ran away from the discussion four times because someone gave you an argument that you couldn't answer. I have written about five official statements that apply to the use of publicly available AI, and it is very easy to find them. They serve to give the average user at least some insight into what he can and cannot do. What did you do? You rejected everything and adjusted it in your head as it suited you.

PS: I'll put my hand in the fire for the fact that when you try to open a web browser, it takes you at least 5 minutes to figure out how to do it, but above all, you pretend to be some kind of lawyer or artist. You are a clown, nothing else. Just a clown, but luckily you're on the internet, so you can be here anonymously, whoever you want to be, and create different biographies in front of people who don't know you.

Good luck, Mr. Lawyer, artist, or whatever you consider yourself to be :KEK:
Come on. Read me again then... I sourced a lot of my posts... And I don't pretend to be the lawyer. But I know for a fact that you can come up with as many quotes as you want, you're not the RULER !!! only Justice so shut up :D And case closed with all your pathetic sophisms about how I browse !!!
And I don't run away. I just stop a discussion when I see there is no point to discuss further... When you just answer like "not like you, who come here and post everything that pops into your stupid head."... What's the point to continue the discussion ? You ruled me out so what's the deal ? Continue to give you my arguments as you already ruled them out"... Maybe my stupid head is not good enough for your master brain ?
Because all of you are trying to say that AI is copying "styles", "lines", ... Why not even "pixels" and you just dismiss any counter-argument... What's the point to continue discussing with stubborn people which are not even backed by any kind of justice's decision on AI cases ?

"I have written about five official statements that apply to the use of publicly available AI" ??? Official statements ? where ? can you quote them cause I don't find them on this topic
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 5954819

Beyond Tomorrow
Game Developer
Mar 31, 2023
81
211
Come on. Read me again then... I sourced a lot of my posts... And I don't pretend to be the lawyer. But I know for a fact that you can come up with as many quotes as you want, you're not the RULER !!! only Justice so shut up :D And case closed with all your pathetic sophisms about how I browse !!!
And I don't run away. I just stop a discussion when I see there is no point to discuss further...
Because all of you are trying to say that AI is copying "styles", "lines", ... Why not even "pixels" and you just dismiss any counter-argument... What's the point to continue discussing with stubborn people which are not even backed by any kind of justice's decision on AI cases ?
1. Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs): GANs are a type of deep learning model that can generate realistic images by learning from a large dataset of images. The model consists of two parts - a generator and a discriminator. The generator creates fake images, and the discriminator tries to distinguish between the fake images and real images from the dataset. Over time, the generator gets better at creating realistic images that can fool the discriminator.

2. Variational Autoencoders (VAEs): VAEs are another type of deep learning model that can generate images. They work by learning a compressed representation of an input image, called a latent vector. This latent vector can then be used to generate new images that are similar to the input image.

3. Style Transfer: Style transfer is a technique that involves applying the style of one image to another image. AI algorithms can use this technique to create new images that have a specific style or look. For example, a model can be trained to apply the style of Vincent van Gogh's paintings to any input image.

4. Neural Style Transfer: Neural style transfer is similar to style transfer, but it uses neural networks to apply the style of one image to another image. This technique can create images that have a unique and artistic look.

Are you going to continue to claim that everything people have written to you here is a lie? "Style transfer" or "neural style transfer" is not copying, is it? Didn't you claim a few minutes ago that AI does not copy style or lines under any circumstances? You are dumb af. Everyone around you is an idiot; only you understand everything

Your arguments just ended here. And if someone else will continue to waste time with you, I'm really surprised
 

XcentY

Member
Jul 15, 2017
122
102
1. Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs): GANs are a type of deep learning model that can generate realistic images by learning from a large dataset of images. The model consists of two parts - a generator and a discriminator. The generator creates fake images, and the discriminator tries to distinguish between the fake images and real images from the dataset. Over time, the generator gets better at creating realistic images that can fool the discriminator.

2. Variational Autoencoders (VAEs): VAEs are another type of deep learning model that can generate images. They work by learning a compressed representation of an input image, called a latent vector. This latent vector can then be used to generate new images that are similar to the input image.

3. Style Transfer: Style transfer is a technique that involves applying the style of one image to another image. AI algorithms can use this technique to create new images that have a specific style or look. For example, a model can be trained to apply the style of Vincent van Gogh's paintings to any input image.

4. Neural Style Transfer: Neural style transfer is similar to style transfer, but it uses neural networks to apply the style of one image to another image. This technique can create images that have a unique and artistic look.

Are you going to continue to claim that everything people have written to you here is a lie? "Style transfer" or "neural style transfer" is not copying, is it? Didn't you claim a few minutes ago that AI does not copy style or lines under any circumstances? You are dumb af. Everyone around you is an idiot; only you understand everything
Ok so it's definitively not something you posted before on this topic. I searched it and no... You didn't post these "official statements" before on this topic... I call that more "definitions"... and there are 4 not 5 also... So sorry but your previous argument to rule me out was wrong.

Maybe you're stupid and dumb because I didn't say that AI isn't copying styles...
I can even quote myself

What you don't understand is that it does copy as much as an artist copy...
AI is capable of producing images never seen and never produced before.
It does it by activating neurons which stored memories of what it had seen before.
And no I don't think everyone around is an idiot, but I consider that when an opinion is raised as "LAW" or "FACT" to win an argument while it is only an opinion then it can be considered as idiotic and it certainly doesn't allow the other to continue the discussion as it closes any door to discuss further. Or when you begin to try winning an argument by saying that it's because I don't browse enough on internet ... It's a sophism and it's totally idiotic. You can't rule out a case to say "it's copyright infringment" while it hasn't be decided by court. You may have an opinion on the matter but to say by example that the artist MaryKyuun didn't copy Nintendo's stuff but AI copied her stuff... Come on... I can admit all opinions but not when you rule out something only because it's a human creation and condemn when it's an AI creation , it's just wrong in my opinion. And not only that but when he adds that's it's original and not nintendo's characters because I didn't browse enough on internet to spot drawing style difference... That's idiotic... It's like saying I don't see the difference between the original mario and MaryKyuun's version of the character. If you imply I'm that stupid, then we should stop discussing cause I'm dealing with pompuous geniuses here who believe they hold the sacred word... Nintendo's characters are copyrighted and only Nintendo can allow someone to create a derivative of their characters.... So if you draw a mario and publish it... You can be sued by Nintendo even if you claim that it's your own drawing style !!! But I though I was talking with intelligent beings... Maybe I should respond more clearly adding all evidences (which I did for the nintendo's characters but yet it wasn't enoughj) cause what's evidence for me seems to be not so evident for you !!! And you can continue with your "smileys", it adds to the discussion... Your point of view is only a point of view... The definition you gave (just now and not elsewhere in this topic) are well known (I work with AI a lot so I know this stuff and I didn't reject them like you are trying to say) but it doesn't rule out AI's creation as "copyright infringment"... For this to happen, you would have to go to court !!!


And so, here you're just trying to piss me off with sophisms and smileys... And I'm the one running out of arguments ??? When I ask you to quote your 5 "official statements" that you claimed to have posted before, you can't. So you come up with 4 definitions about AI algorithms... When you say that I rejected these 5 "official statements" it was then totally wrong. And when you say that I run away from discussions, I'm still here on this topic and I can justify all my inputs and even quotes them when you try to challenge me !!! If you want I can even quote all the reactions you and some others gave me which are totally out of discussion... Like when I say I programmed a Delaunay triangulator... (It was just a personal experience). and get an answer to mock me on this... Come on... Are you adults discussing a matter or just childs trying to win an argument with mockery, sophisms and all kinds of rhetoric stupidity ?
 
Last edited:

DuniX

Well-Known Member
Dec 20, 2016
1,152
756
What I'm talking about is exactly that. Just as photoshop will mark itself down in the metadata of your image, the AI generator will have to mark down it's product & version, as well as the utilized AI asset library and the parameters used for creation.
That's one way to make this trackable. If there is no verified origin tag, no hash that allows a verification check with a licensed libraray & generator, than it's going to be considered laundered AI art.
You do realize Watermarks are on the Image for a reason on sites the sell images.
You are on Piracy site with Pirated assets, you would think you would know how assets are actually pirated.

If you think companies are going to allow a wild west where you can launder someone elses work (including theirs) through AI generators and run off with the money, you have no idea how the world works.
This doesn't even matter since you don't have the Supercomputer to run it.
Even if you were the Data they are talking about is on the level of Zettabytes or whatever.
A lone asset that you "launder" amounts to nothing in comparison.
Nothing was technically stolen, but revenue was lost.
That was blatant Copyright Violations. It was Against the Fucking Law.
Legislation will come.
Even if legislation will come, it is not what you think it is.
The AI Companies themselves could be argued are the violators, not the users.
Just with software piracy and music sharing, or video streaming & cinema movie recording, the companies will step on the things that threaten their income.
That unenforceable for fuck's sake.
At the end of the day there is just a bunch of pixels and vertexes.
And the formats for that are already standardized so we will know exactly what those pixels and vertexes are.

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?
There is no need for that the AI generators themselves will provide that service themselves to make as many models as you like just like they do now with images. The $1000 dollar asset packs will go the way of the dinosaur as the value will tend to Zero.

Even if that was not available and you somehow had a Supercomputer, " $1000 dollar worth of unreal art assets" would not be enough Data to train the model with. The AIs are not fucking magic. It takes immense amount of Data to get the results you see nowadays, which why we are seeing things now after we have reached a certain threshold.

And even if you could somehow do that with only that data, those assets that you Bought is your Private Property you Own that you can use for whatever you want Including Training the AI Model.
That is not illegal, there might be a special exception in the future but its' not there yet.
And even if it were it is not enforceable as it's not any different to what a human can create.

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.
Which is why AI is argued that it holds No Copyright.

That means Everyone can Use It, which is Not the fucking Same as Nobody can Use It.
You and the AI? Answer only in silence.
That depends on the Prompt and the Needs of your Project in terms of Art Assets.
Just because you use AI Generated Art does not mean you have no creative project you work on. Even if it is just the "Prompt Engineering" meme.
For fuck's sake AI CG tag on This very Site is used for making new Adults Games.
 
Last edited:

kuraiken

Member
Dec 5, 2017
358
885
You do realize Watermarks are on the Image for a reason on sites the sell images.
You are on Piracy site with Pirated assets, you would think you would know how assets are actually pirated.
Watermarks exist so people can show preview images of their images and discourage using them due to the watermark.
Some watermarks can, however, be removed - for instance with AI technology.
Nor is every image that is copyright-protected watermarked. Why is that?
Because it's sometimes not feasable.

What you fundamentally, despite your bold fonts, do not understand, is that there is a difference between people
a.) not using your images because they are watermarked
and
b.) people using your images and you having to go through costly legal procedures to enforce your rights.

You didn't get any smarter in the last couple days. Why on earth did you think you'd now manage a logical thought?
Watermarks exists so people won't use the images without the artist having to first fight costly court battles.

This doesn't even matter since you don't have the Supercomputer to run it.
Even if you were the Data they are talking about is on the level of Zettabytes or whatever.
A lone asset that you "launder" amounts to nothing in comparison.
No one is talking about "lone assets".
That's just you making things up to stand in place of my arguments, because - unsurprisingly - refuting them is too much of a challenge to your intellect.

That was blatant Copyright Violations. It was Against the Fucking Law.
It was, because it was made to be:


When those things popped up, people started making laws for them.
AI is popping up now, people will make laws for it.

Copyright Violations became copyright violations when people made the act that wasn't a copyright violation a copyright violation.
That's how laws work. We make them up as we go.
Welcome to reality.

Even if legislation will come, it is not what you think it is.
The AI Companies themselves could be argued are the violators, not the users.
Yeah. Totally.
I know why you think that. Because your brain goes "but manga, but anime".
People are watching and reading them, they aren't selling them.

You're talking about making money of other people's work.
When you're in a civil court and you're like: "well, that's the fault of those companies"
And the judge is gonna be like: "You knew they used AI art they had no right to, yes?"
"Nope sir! Never heard of that! Wouldn't ever lie to you?"
Judge: "Then why did you google for that piece of art to be in the style of X."
...

Yeah, the argument, "It was all the AI companies, they're to blame for me making my money off laundered art," isn't going to get you far.

That unenforceable for fuck's sake.
At the end of the day there is just a bunch of pixels and vertexes.
And the formats for that are already standardized so we will know exactly what those pixels and vertexes are.
I have to literally screenshot and repost that part, because that argument is so unbelieveably stupid I cannot comprehend how you even conceived of it.

1682688846931.png

Your defense is that AI art cannot be enforced like anything else because it's just pixels and vertexes?
What are images? What are models? They're all just pixels and vertexes.
Oh yes - and the metadata. That you keep forgetting about. The one imbedded IN those things giving people information ABOUT the thing itself.
AI art is as enforcable as the laws regarding software piracy, music sharing, streaming, using someone elses images, videos, models, animations, etc.

Just because you don't know about the metadata does not mean the metadata does not know about you.

There is no need for that the AI generators themselves will provide that service themselves to make as many models as you like just like they do now with images. The $1000 dollar asset packs will go the way of the dinosaur as the value will tend to Zero.
AI generators eventually won't be allowed to provide the service of "laundering things for you so you can use the laundered result" and not be held liable.
And guess where those AI generators will have to get the source of all the stuff they copy from.
There's no Harry Potter that'll just magic up new things to copy from. They'll take it from artists.
At that point, that's illegal. They're selling a service they can only offer because it's based on someone elses assets.

So they're going to be sued - and then their paperwork will be investigated. The customers they had, who ordered what and when.
And then you'll get the first letters informing you that you're going to have to pay X for every one of Y assets you made with stuff you had no right to use.

Even if that was not available and you somehow had a Supercomputer, " $1000 dollar worth of unreal art assets" would not be enough Data to train the model with. The AIs are not fucking magic. It takes immense amount of Data to get the results you see nowadays, which why we are seeing things now after we have reached a certain threshold.
Nope. Can work with as little as 30 images. And AI art training will get better and better, allowing more and more efficient training.

Playform is the only AI platform that lets you train your own AI with as few as 30 images.


Your argument is literally: tech won't improve to allow more efficient training and "I hope to god that there's not already a way to train an AI with just 30 images".

And in both cases, you're wrong. Again.
Which - may I take that moment to point this out - is stunning, since so far, you've been wrong every single time.
It's like you like being wrong and getting humiliated for it.
This isn't a fetish for you, is it?
'Cause I'm not consenting. Hands out of your pants.

And even if you could somehow do that with only that data, those assets that you Bought is your Private Property you Own that you can use for whatever you want Including Training the AI Model.
That is not illegal, there might be a special exception in the future but its' not there yet.
And even if it were it is not enforceable as it's not any different to what a human can create.
:LOL: :ROFLMAO:
I just pointed out you somehow always get everything exactly wrong and you give me another slam dunk straight away.

No, you dummy. Just because you pay for something does not mean you own it.
There are ToS for these assets that tell you what you have the right to use them for, because what you obtain, what you buy, is a "license to use them in the manner described in the license agreement". You don't own them. You don't have the copyright either.

A common part of all asset agreements is that you're not allowed to use the asset itself commercially in any way where the value is derived entirely of the original asset. So for instance you can't just resell them.

So no. They are not your private property. You do not own them. And you cannot use them for whatever you want, you can only use them for what the license agreement allows you to do.

Whether generating AI assets of it and putting the original product out of comission by undercutting it on its own market is something a court is going to decide. And I've got a feeling that common sense is going to win out.
No, you cannot just launder stuff, resell it on the market, and make tons of money with something that was primarily someone elses work.

You: *surprised pikachu face*

Which is why AI is argued that it holds No Copyright.

That means Everyone can Use It, which is Not the fucking Same as Nobody can Use It.
That section belongs to 5 arguments that concern themselves with the question of:
"Why is it different when an AI program 'trains' on other people's art from when an artist studies other people's art."

Of those 5 arguments you've picked out one. To agree with me.
Why are you doing this to yourself?

The stove is hot. Stop putting your hand on it.

(Oh, and since you'll otherwise cry that I didn't adress it:)
That means Everyone can Use It, which is Not the fucking Same as Nobody can Use It.
That's a statement that does not relate to the section you were quoting, but is a different topic alltogether, where you muddle (as you are prone to) multiple different things together.

When something is not copyright protected, everyone can use it.
That is correct. Congratulations. You've managed to make a true claim about something no one was disputing because we were talking about something entirely different the context of which has eluded you once again.

What you've thrown into this mix, and are completely ignoring, are the following topics:
1. Copyright stripping - Can you remove copyright from original copyright protected assets to "liberate" them from their creators rights and make them free to use for everyone.
2. The uselessless of the reusable asset - Most companies want memorable, specific assets, that allow them to create a unique brand & appearance so it imprints on the customers mind. I know we've talked about this already. You've forgotten about it. Oh, no, I'm so surprised!
Let's make an example close to home: Let's say you make a visual eroge novel, with your "uniquely" generated characters. And you spend a lot of time on really hammering down a great story (doubtful in your case, but maybe a good writer falls from the heavens and takes mercy on your soul. Writing Jesus Incoming!).
And all of a sudden, countless people make derivative works with your assets. They just take the images out of your game, cobble together some trash version themselves, and sell it off on a market place.
In no time, the market is full of games that - at a glance - look just like yours. They're all cheaper. People who bought your game now buy theirs - based on the similarity. People who bought theirs...won't buy yours. Because after seeing those images and connecting them mentally to the trash game, they can't unlink that in their mind and play yours.

And that's how copyright-unprotected assets that become brand representation for your product can be devalued through reuse. Companies know this. And have zero interest in it. As do most independent studios.

So yeah, that one sentence - while not wrong - had nothing to do with what we were talking about and was born out of absolute ignorance of the greater context it was situated in.


That depends on the Prompt and the Needs of your Project in terms of Art Assets.
Just because you use AI Generated Art does not mean you have no creative project you work on. Even if it is just the "Prompt Engineering" meme.
You're once again ignoring the context this was posted in.
The context was:
"Why is it different when an AI program 'trains' on other people's art from when an artist studies other people's art."
One wonders why you deliberately removed most of what you were quoting. Probably just an accident.
Here, let me help you:
1682687636861.png

It doesn't discuss "the greater whole of AI art asset creation". It discusses why there is a difference between a human learning art and why there is a difference between an AI being "trained" on art.

We're not discussing whether there is any creativity of skill in composing a laundered AI art asset in a greater work. We're discussing why the processes of learning are fundamentally different and you cannot say: "Oh, isn't training the AI on art just like a human learning art."

Because it isn't. That's what those 5 points are made about.
And no, writing a prompt for an AI engine is not creative work or whatever, just like googeling something isn't a from of literature.

For fuck's sake AI CG tag on This very Site is used for making new Adults Games.
Okay. Dude. Please. :cry:
You've gotta stop this self-humiliation.
It's funny once or twice, but you keep doing it. You just keep doing it. Like the stove is hot, it's glowing red, but you just keep putting your hands on it.

You are literally arguing: "I can't be wrong about AI art because there's an AI CG tag on this website."

How did you even think that was an argument you could make?
I cannot even fathom how your mind works.

This website assigned AI CG tags to threads because people requested it be added in order for people to know which works contain AI art and which don't - because a ton of people want to avoid AI art games.

-> AI CG's exist.
-> People want to know whether a game has them to let that inform their decision and allow them to use that tag in filtering it in or out in the search function.
-> That's why this forum has the AI CG tag.

It is not a statement on your ideas about AI art.
It doesn't say anything about any evaluation of the creativity of a game that uses AI art.
It doesn't make a statement on whether AI art being trained is the same as an artist learning (which, remember, is the very context in which the phrase you're quoting is situated that you keep forgetting about and I keep reminding you about, because you keep taking snippets of text and then just invent a meaning for it and argue against the thing you imagine I meant rather than what I actually wrote.)

It is simply a tag, added to the website, for the convenience of its users. That's all. No large biblical meaning in your quest of riding against the giants of legislation that threateningly stand upon a distant hill, oddly looking like windmills.

Get off your horse, give Sancho Panza your lance.

And for god's sake, keep your paws off the hot stove.
 
Last edited:

XcentY

Member
Jul 15, 2017
122
102
Ok here I come back to MariKyuun's work which was one of the post made for us to believe that her work was stolen without her consent and how terrible human beings and pathetic they can be...

I already shown with her drawing of Mario, Wario, ... that she's not as fair as she seems to be... And she could be sued by nintendo if it was their intend so we would know if her "fanart" is legit and her "own"

Then some replied that I know nothing, it's orignial artwork, it's her own drawing style and so on...

And even that

I was talking about her artwork style not the characters... Just because she drew one image with nintendo character doesn't mean she copied the lines from other EXISTING images... If she did, then it wouldn't be her artwork anymore.
So because she did one image of nintendo's character doesn't mean she copied the lines from other EXISTING images.

So I did more digging on her work. Not that much cause I came accross another one very fast (just one click and I already had a new character) but I'm sure if I analyse all her work I'll find even more.
So Take this other example of her work : "Cardcaptor Sakura"

It's again another character she doesn't own the rights on...

You may say, it's original style, she didn't copy all the lines, and so on... but yet that's not how copyright works... read further and you'll know... (I'm not the court so I'm not able to rule the case but you can't rule the case either and as I told before even for cases against my landlord I believe I was right, I found out that the judge had another perception)

And so I started first to take her drawing of Cardcaptor Sakura and let AI find me similar images.
The first site that pop up is deviantart.com which is a relatively well known website.
I found many drawings of cardcaptor sakura... So the question came... so can you draw "cardcaptor sakura" in your own style without fearing copyright infringment ?
That would be logical after seeing so many drawings but I didn't stop there.
So I digged another way... And I wanted to find if there was a copyright licence which allow people to draw "cardcaptor sakura" character as licenced material. I didn't find any licence. There was one "sharealike" licence on a fanart website which would allow creators to draw fanart but under this licence, it implies that what you take freely, you also distribute your work freely. But yet there was no "cardcaptor sakura" work there to give a licence on. I would have liked it cause it would have meant that MariKyuun was just trying to copyright a work which was given under a "sharealike" licence... But here it's not the case.
However "cardcaptor sakura" character is still copyrighted by its owner... And it's not because a drawing with your own style of that character makes it legit to believe that your material is not infringing copyright. (drawing style is a part of the deal for sure but to claim it as legit only because of the drawing style is just an opinion... )
But then how to know if you violate copyright or not ?
And the concept of "fair use" came up... The same "fair use" which can allow AI creator to creates pictures...
And would that gives MariKyuun all the credits of her art and make her art "copyrightable" as originals (or let's say "fair use" of copyrighted material) ?
Only if she's sued, will we know...
And the same goes for the AI which, she claims, has stolen her work, only if she sue them, will we know...

And why ? because of "fair use", I just told you !!!
And so as many can claim..."it's fanart", "it's fair", "it's not stolen because it's her own drawing style", "she didn't copy all the lines", ... First the same would count for AI and second It's not like that that the court would rule the case...

I'll give a very good article which I came accross which explain really good...
Who made this article :
Linda Joy Kattwinkel. Linda Joy is an attorney, painter and former graphic artist/illustrator. She practices intellectual property law, arts law and mediation for artists in San Francisco.


But here I summarize for you
Myth #2: My own artistic expression makes it fair use
I often hear artists assert that their derivative character art is not infringing because they have drawn the characters themselves (as opposed to digital or mechanical copying), or have reinterpreted them in different media. Many derivative character artworks involve highly skilled artistic expression by the derivative artist: they depict the famous characters in a new way through their own artistic style, and may include lots of new artwork along with the character, such as dressing them in new costumes or showing them in different settings or situations. This alone does not qualify as fair use.



The ruling of copyright infringment for derivatives under the concept of fair use is a complex analyse of four factors :
(1) The purpose and character of your use of the derivative work. This factor looks at two things: how your work incorporates the original work, and how your derivative work is used. Editorial works that comment on the original work, or are “transformative” (more about this below) weigh in favor of fair use. Commercial/for profit use weighs against fair use; educational, editorial and noncommercial uses weight in favor of fair use.
(2) The nature of the original copyrighted work. If the original work is fictional, that weighs against fair use; if it is more fact-based, that weighs in favor of fair use.
(3) The amount and substantiality of the portion of the original work you’ve incorporated into your derivative work. Using more than necessary weighs against fair use; using only as much of the original as you need to accomplish your purpose weighs in favor of fair use.
(4) The effect of the use of derivative works like yours upon the potential market for the copyrighted work. If your type of use competes with the economic market (or the potential economic market) for the original, that weighs against fair use. If your work criticizes the original, however, any negative economic effect that criticism might have does not count against fair use.

To make it even more complicated, these four factors are not necessarily weighed equally. In certain circumstances, some of them will be more important than others. In cases involving unauthorized derivative character art, factors 2 and 3 nearly always weigh against fair use, because fictional characters receive strong protection (Factor 2), and derivative character art needs to depict a lot of the original art in order to be recognized as referencing the particular character (Factor 3). Courts will focus on factors 1 and 4 as the most important considerations to determine if your derivative character art is fair use. Derivative character art often fails the test. (And MariKyuun is well selling her derivative work of a fictionnal character... but yet I'm not the JUSTICE but my opinion is that she would fail if she was sued)


Like I said before in other posts and I will say it again because it is still not evident for you when I see the answers I can get here. Let me say it again : "Only the JUSTICE can decide"

When you see that "fair use" is not only "Her own drawing style"...
And when you see that MariKyuun is selling her derivative of copyrighted materials : (Lineart, full-res, timelapse video, postcard and glitter sticker will be sent out early January if you pledge to my Ko-fi until the 31st) which would weighs against fair use.
And when you see that Cardcaptor Sakura is a fictionnal character. It would also weighs against fair use.
And when you see how she incorporated the character with all the accessories (the same dress code, the accessories like the magic wand, ...) would weighs against fair use... And so on (Yeah here I just gave argument against her but hey she's the one whinning about her material stolen while she doesn't sue them so it's just "fair" (not the same fair as copyright) to pinch her a bit)
But the full analysis of the four factor is very complicated and only the JUSTICE can rule this kind of case, we can just give opinion. (I gave mine against her) So yeah she thinks that someone stole her work but then she has to sue them if she believes they infringe her "what she believes" own copyrighted work and she will see if their purpose, their usage, the effect of their work as a competitor to her work, the amount of original work incorporated, if they use it for profit, and so on... is "fair use" in the justice's eyes. And the same go for her work... We will only know if she infringe copyright if the owner of the original sue her...

The rest is just our opinions on the matter but I already said it numerous times on this topic but yet what seems evident for me is not evident for you when I see how you can reply sometimes just to run around a plate with the same argument about the lines copied by a human are OK because it's original style but when it's AI it's stealing... That's totally not up to you to decide. Your opinion is as valid as any other opinion so stop raising these as facts.


PS : For the one that wants... you can come up with your sophism that I just post what comes to my mind... (Yeah clearly I do but it's a sophism)... Read this content again where I did exactly that ; explaining what came to my mind, what inspired me (hey your remember inspiration ???) to search valid content and articles (not like your opinions raised as FACTS) and try to come up with something valid instead of AD HOMINEM arguments. For the one that wants... you can come up with your sophism that I'm an idiot who didn't browse enough to see the different drawing styles. (No sorry, I browse enough and I can recognize different drawing styles but it's a sophism)... Read my posts again and come with arguments on the subject before trying to attack me AD PERSONAM. So thanks for the reading my fellow pompuous geniuses and now I unwatch this topic... I raised all my arguments and you can believe what you want about me... I don't care... It's not the purpose of this topic anyway and you're just trolling when you do so
 
Last edited:
  • Red Heart
Reactions: DuniX

DuniX

Well-Known Member
Dec 20, 2016
1,152
756
Oh yes - and the metadata. That you keep forgetting about. The one imbedded IN those things giving people information ABOUT the thing itself.
You do realize Watermarks are on the Image for a reason on sites the sell images.
At the end of the day there is just a bunch of pixels and vertexes.
That unenforceable for fuck's sake.
You are so close to get it, and yet so far far away.

Judge: "Then why did you google for that piece of art to be in the style of X."
You cannot copyright a fucking style, if you could all art and human artists as we know it would be doomed.
Which is why I see this legal panic could well be a Trojan Horse that destroy independent artists.
Let's put it this way Disney isn't going to fear "styles" being copyrighted because Disney will Own All The Styles.
It's giving the artists the rope to hang themselves with.

Your argument is literally: tech won't improve to allow more efficient training and "I hope to god that there's not already a way to train an AI with just 30 images".
It can't, the mode either is already trained and that is the more important bit since that would give results with or without your input.
Or it would give garbage results that don't have the quality to work as assets.
There are ToS for these assets that tell you what you have the right to use them for, because what you obtain, what you buy, is a "license to use them in the manner described in the license agreement". You don't own them. You don't have the copyright either.
The ToS is a License for the "Copies".
If you license a picture to put on your site other viewers can see it thus creating copies.
If you buy an asset for use of a game again you need a license because that asset is packaged with the game.

You can throw the ToS into trash as the Copy-Right Law as it currently stands the training of the AI models have nothing to do with the creation of "Copies".

This might change but it's not there yet.

So they're going to be sued - and then their paperwork will be investigated. The customers they had, who ordered what and when.
And then you'll get the first letters informing you that you're going to have to pay X for every one of Y assets you made with stuff you had no right to use.
Even by some miracle they have no privacy on the users and have full logs with all the prompts they use.
Just because you have the prompt does not mean you will have the result, that is what AI Generation is all about, there are Infinite Possible Results.

In other words it's not enforceable. If you can't link to the user then all you got is the pixels and vertexes that are indistinguishable to what humans can make.

As of right now Pandora's Box is already opened, the only way to stop it is to shut down all the supercomputers and ban it completely.

It doesn't discuss "the greater whole of AI art asset creation". It discusses why there is a difference between a human learning art and why there is a difference between an AI being "trained" on art.
There isn't.

Humans are Trained when they are Born with 24/7 High Resolution Video Feed for your entire lifetime. That is the initial training model otherwise you would not be able to recognize things at all.
Yes they can use some discretion to specialize.
And it's not much of a skill since your "taste" is formed randomly by your curiosity and things you stumbled upon.
It's not really fair to say you are directed and skilled when that arisen out of the things you have seen that you are denying access to the AI models to have.

AI Models do not have the lifetime video feed, they are trained directly with photographs and artwork so that's why they skip a step and can directly do art.
Yes the AI just happen to "stumble" upon every art that humans have created and can thus create any style humans created, what a "coincidence".

The fact that they are so generic and universal is the last thing that is going to keep human artists alive.
They contain everything, they do not have the random path a human lived through.
They are the God Eternal, not the Human Individuals that Live.

You are literally arguing: "I can't be wrong about AI art because there's an AI CG tag on this website."
It means they use AI CG for creative projects made by humans called "games".
That is far from "creative silence".
 
Last edited:

gaogao

Newbie
Aug 3, 2017
17
26
Ok, I fail to understand to point of debating about copyright with AI. Sure, I can agree that AI generates "art" and does not own the "art." However, artists can also make art but also do not "own" their work.

Exhibit A - Taylor Swift, an extremely big pop icon who does not own the first 6 albums that rocket launched her career. Yes, she wrote, sang, and performed on television with her own face and voice. However, she does not own the right to how and where those works are published, displayed, and sold.
If art is meant to be seen and witnessed, which one here is the owner, the person who creates it, or the person who publishes it? Regardless of your definition of "ownership," Taylor Swift did not make money and become famous because of her talents. She became rich and an icon because the publisher allowed her work to be displayed. Here is an where she is legally NOT ALLOWED TO SING THE SONGS SHE WROTE.

Exhibit B - Gigi Hadid - a supermodel who many people want a photo of. A paparazzi took a photo of the model without her permission. Hadid then posted on her Twitter then later sued by the paparazzi for using "his" image. The court was in favor of the model, not because of her "charm" and "originality" nor because her privacy was violated. It was because the paparazzi to file a copyright registration for the image that he was unpermitted to take and sued the model over.
What does this say about copyright and ownership? If anything, it's that they aren't defined by effort, and evidently not even by the creators' own faces.

Copyright is not about authors and artists - it is about publishers and bureaucracies. AI is neither a publisher, a bureaucracy, nor a human; so what is it doing here in this discussion? If you want to discuss its morality and philosophy then I yield. Legally? No. Artists' works have long been stolen before the conception of AI, before the Beatles, and before Jesus Christ. Sure AI can make the problem worse, but as of right now, it is only a tiny newborn head on a giant Hydra. It's not the main enemy artists should worry about. Then again, why do F95zoners even worry about artists?

I'm not saying there is nothing to be done about it. Taylor Swift actually made a in the legal battle and gave all singers better odds against the exploitation of their own creations. I am saying that it is not an AI problem. It is a LEGAL problem that artists themselves need to work together on how to move forward with AI.


As of right now Pandora's Box is already opened, the only way to stop it is to shut down all the supercomputers and ban it completely.
That's not how Pandora's Box works. Once it is opened, the content of the box is released permanently and there's nothing you can do about it. AI has been released into the world. Even if you destroy it, people still know that it is possible and will demand and recreate it.

There are and as well. There are AIs for chemists and biologists who have helped them to make progress in medicine and the . These AI are not here to replace those jobs for geniuses and Havard graduated. In the same way, a calculator and camera do not replace mathematicians and painters. They are evolutionary tools that elevate those professions to higher grounds. If there were any replacements, they would be those who work with the revolutionary tools and those who reject them. In the future, lawyers and doctors will be replaced, not by AI, but by lawyers and doctors who work WITH AI. Artists need to learn that.

If evolution is about adaptation and natural selection. AI has brought an environment for evolution, artists can accept that fact, adapt, and evolve with it. Or they can reject it and wonder how creative art had continued to exist for millenniums but not them.
 
Last edited:

kuraiken

Member
Dec 5, 2017
358
885
You are so close to get it, and yet so far far away.
I see, your new technique is posting quotes in random fashion without presenting an argument.

After all, how can anyone debunk an argument, when you don't even make it!
By pointing out you're not making one. :FacePalm:

You cannot copyright a fucking style, if you could all art and human artists as we know it would be doomed.
Which is why I see this legal panic could well be a Trojan Horse that destroy independent artists.
Let's put it this way Disney isn't going to fear "styles" being copyrighted because Disney will Own All The Styles.
It's giving the artists the rope to hang themselves with.
Ah, once again the attempt to misquote something in the desperate hope I forget the argument I made and you can maybe, maybe not get humiliated for once?

Not happening.
The section you're quoting from:
1682782118418.png
The argument isn't "styles are copyright protected", the argument is:
If you use a prompt for an AI to create something in the style of X, the only way for an AI to be able to do this is if the know that style.
Therefor, in order for the AI to know of that artist, it must have material of that artist in its database.
You writing that prompt is an admission that you were aware you're working off the work of others, therefor the company that you're trying to hide behind and blame for the copyright theft cannot shield you.

You knowingly gave a prompt that admitted you knew that they were drawing on unlicensed art assets.

And again, your embarassing attempt to reframe the quote & invent a new context failed.

It can't, the mode either is already trained and that is the more important bit since that would give results with or without your input.
Or it would give garbage results that don't have the quality to work as assets.
And your evidence for that claim is...

...the sound of wind whistling through trees...

Oh. :cry:

The ToS is a License for the "Copies".
If you license a picture to put on your site other viewers can see it thus creating copies.
If you buy an asset for use of a game again you need a license because that asset is packaged with the game.

You can throw the ToS into trash as the Copy-Right Law as it currently stands the training of the AI models have nothing to do with the creation of "Copies".

This might change but it's not there yet.
:FacePalm::FacePalm::FacePalm:

Oh, you mean to tell me that new technologies appearing may not immediately fall exactly under existing laws and may need subsequent legislation?
Why I wonder what we were talking about for the last few pages!
My my, whatever was the topic! I may have forgotten that just like-

No I didn't.
The entire point I made, throughout the last pages - in case you didn't pay attention - is that because there is no clear cut legislation on AI generation right now that legislation will come that adjusts to that.
As to the extent current laws are applicable to AI generation is something currently not known by anyone and will in fact only be found out once the first AI copyright claims are filed and the first court process begin - which will likely be near the end of this or next year.

So congratulations on repeating the essence of what I was telling you over the last few pages and still not understanding the implications or extent.

It must be so fun to be you.
Every day you are continually surprised by all the new things you already learned yesterday.
I envy that. I bet you've been playing the same video game for the last 10 years and are still looking forward to playing it for the first time tomorrow.

Even by some miracle they have no privacy on the users and have full logs with all the prompts they use.
Just because you have the prompt does not mean you will have the result, that is what AI Generation is all about, there are Infinite Possible Results.

In other words it's not enforceable. If you can't link to the user then all you got is the pixels and vertexes that are indistinguishable to what humans can make.

As of right now Pandora's Box is already opened, the only way to stop it is to shut down all the supercomputers and ban it completely.
Ah. I see.
So, there's this thing called the internet. And when you go on any webpage, that webpage access is not just linked to the webpage - it is also stored at the service provider that hosts the website.
So if the police suspects that you may have knowingly utilized an AI generator using stolen art assets in order to generate things to sell for your financial gain, they can issue a request at the service provider for IP records. They can compare those IP records with the IPs your internet connection had at that exact moment in time, they can track down how often someone from your computer logged into a site in order to use their services. Further, they can track the data transmissions & sizes that happened between you and the webpage, thus getting an idea of whether you generated something (and thus received something) or not.

How do I know this? Because that's exactly what police are currently doing when you use a torrent to illegally download movies or games from the internet. They put a plant into the stream, track the IP connections, then filter it out.

Furthermore, some of the AI generation services that exist are services you have to subscribe to. (Like the one this forum recommends)
That creates a payment history that can be used to track down that you did, in fact, subscribe to a service that was using art assets you knew they didn't have the rights to use.

Welcome to the internet baby. First day? Lots of surprises are waiting for you!

There isn't.

Humans are Trained when they are Born with 24/7 High Resolution Video Feed for your entire lifetime. That is the initial training model otherwise you would not be able to recognize things at all.
Yes they can use some discretion to specialize.
And it's not much of a skill since your "taste" is formed randomly by your curiosity and things you stumbled upon.
It's not really fair to say you are directed and skilled when that arisen out of the things you have seen that you are denying access to the AI models to have.

AI Models do not have the lifetime video feed, they are trained directly with photographs and artwork so that's why they skip a step and can directly do art.
Yes the AI just happen to "stumble" upon every art that humans have created and can thus create any style humans created, what a "coincidence".

The fact that they are so generic and universal is the last thing that is going to keep human artists alive.
They contain everything, they do not have the random path a human lived through.
They are the God Eternal, not the Human Individuals that Live.
Ah, I see, you've already forgotten my 5 points and think you can just choose to ignore them and make up some "God Eternal" mumbo jumbo.
Perhaps you should reread them again, and understand the difference between siphoning off people's artwork and creatively engaging with artwork.

Here it is, once again, the all-time favorite you keep forgetting about: (You should pay particular attention to 2-5, each of which directly addresses the nonsense the nonsense you wrote above. How did I manage to disprove your nonsense in the past? Well, I'm either some kind of supergenius, or you still haven't really figured out this "reading thing".)

---
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.)

Hardstyle Gaming said:


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! (y)

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.

It means they use AI CG for creative projects made by humans called "games".
That is far from "creative silence".
But we weren't arguing for the creative process of whether making a game was creative.

We were arguing about whether an AI has any "creative" element in the process of being trained on other people's art, because that's part of the human learning experience.
Yes, you once again - for the 10th time, completely forgot what we were talking about and threw arguments into the void.

No, stealing assets from other people or their games and then putting them into your game does not say anything about the creative process in which you obtained those assets.

Putting things into a game that you stole is not the same as a person drawing the things that you stole to put into your game.
:WeSmart:
Just because you put stolen things into a game does not mean that's a creative enough act that you can just completely ignore the copyright protection of the original art assets.
:WeSmart::WeSmart::WeSmart:

That sort of stuff gets you lawsuits:



You keep dancing around the same fundamental problem.
You want to be able to use other people's work for your own benefit without paying them, so you can use art you cannot make yourself.
You desperately want it to be somehow right and always possible to click a button and get nifty free stuff without putting in the work.

And you desperately keep trying to find some reason, some explanation, that some magical in-between intermediary that delivers to you the things you can't do yourself, absolves you from knowingly drawing on the work of others.

Because you know, absolutely and for a fact, that none of these generators could produce anything if they didn't draw on other people's work.

That's your personal failing manifesting itself. I'm not an artist either. I can't draw worth shit.
Know what I do? Hire artists.

I don't invent some bullshit mumbo jumbo of a magical powerful eternal god that gives me images that are made up of stolen work of others that somehow makes it right.
 
Last edited:
  • Angry
Reactions: DuniX

DuniX

Well-Known Member
Dec 20, 2016
1,152
756
Therefor, in order for the AI to know of that artist, it must have material of that artist in its database.
If the style is not protected then anyone can recreate it, that means nothing is stopping the AI Companies to hire a "traitor artist" whose only job is to copy and clone styles to feed the machine.
Then there would be no question of permission and extortion from the original artist might have ideas for.
You can't prove that didn't happen, if you want to make this thread into a Court of Law and you the Judge then you have to handle the Defense properly.
No I think you are Evil so it doesn't stand as a defense. Less feelings, more actual Law.

There are some art like characters that can be copyright violation even if a human artist would draw it, in which case that is up to the user's discretion as the one who selects what is being generated.

So, there's this thing called the internet. And when you go on any webpage, that webpage access is not just linked to the webpage - it is also stored at the service provider that hosts the website.
Just because you access it doesn't mean anything.
Sure if you got the FBI on your ass you might have a problem.
But there is such a thing as privacy, security and encryption, no one but the site owner and you should know what prompts you are using and what data you are transferring that should be encrypted.
If the site keeps that of a history log on your account with all the prompts you use then yes they might compel them to release that.
Furthermore, some of the AI generation services that exist are services you have to subscribe to. (Like the one this forum recommends)
That creates a payment history that can be used to track down that you did, in fact, subscribe to a service that was using art assets you knew they didn't have the rights to use.
You subscribed to a new tech that is a trendy nowadays, that means you must be a criminal!
Prove that you didn't do any criminal activity! What a wonderful logic we have here.
And your evidence for that claim is...

...the sound of wind whistling through trees...

Oh. :cry:
If that were the case then everyone could do it with their own hardware setups, there would no need for a debate since everyone could do it in their backyard and they would be Completely Invisible so they can launder as much as assets as they want like you said and there would be nothing to stop them anyway.

It's precisely because you need the supercomputers that that is not the case.

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.
There is such a thing as Quantity becoming its own Quality.
Sure you can focus and analyze to find the patterns and relationship between things.
But the AI can also find all that through the incomprehensible amount of Data, it would not be able to recreate it at all otherwise.
"The Truth" that "Profundatity" already exist independent of any artist, it may take Skill for the artist but you either have that or you don't. This why I say AI is akin to God because that would be the case if it had it.
For you to tell it to do something and for the AI to achive doing just that means it already understand and has a representation of that thing, otherwise all you would get is just garbage or spazz out.
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.
There is nothing stopping you through the Prompt to pursue whatever you want to pursue. It's true that you are dependent on the AI capability so you might not achive it but That is not the Question now is it?
Why do you want that?
Nothing to do with Skill, skills is merely the "means" to achive it.
The way AIs work is like directly transferring and refining a image in your mind to a digital image. That is different from "drawing" yes. If humans had a neural brain interface then they could do that the same as how the AIs now work.
The AI Image is different from Your Image you have in mind but that is up to tweaking the Prompt and trying again until you get close to that.
It's true that you do not have as much Direct Control as a real artist would have, but that presupposes the artists have enugh Skill to create a image on that level and most are far from being on that level.

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.
The AI does not have an Intention, that is correct.
But the human behind the Prompt does have an Intention, if that Intention is realized and to what extent that is up to luck.
Which is the true limitation as the human loses the Control to realize their ideal that they might have achieved through the proper work and learning the skill.
4. Art uses human existance as basis.
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.
That's true, but so is the human behind the Prompt.
Like I said the AI is God, it contains all things, it cannot have the specific human experience by itself as it is an amalgamation of all human experience.
And sure if human artists didn't even have that they would really go completely extinct. Prompt or no prompt.

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.
Humans are essentially Conquerors, there is always the Unknown that threaten the Status Quo and we have gotten to this state by using any tools and any means we find to thrive. There is always a new uncharted land waiting to be discovered. At first it was computers, then programming and software, then the internet and now it's AIs.
Artists are not any different.
If AIs is all it takes to stop artists then Art would have already been long Dead.
The introduction to AI into Chess did not destroy the game, humans adapted and learned new strategies with the help of AIs.

There option is to either join them and use the AI to improve their work, differentiate themselves or die off.
Sooner or later it's going to be naturally part of their workflow, even with AI art there is no reason to hire a non-artist to do the job of an artist, artists still give the much needed control and flexibility to edit some things through their skill and elevate things beyond just the generic AI result.

This is pretty much the future sooner or later, even if they legally stumble now and the FBI is out for my ass for using illlegal AI CG it would still be inevitable.
The AI will eventually be Trained one way or another and then it will be over, Pandora's Box will be opened.
You think you are going to stop Adobe Firefly from happening?

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?!
Those 1-5 arguments have nothing to do with Legality of Users using AI Art for their projects.

We were arguing about whether an AI has any "creative" element in the process of being trained on other people's art, because that's part of the human learning experience.
If AI has no creative element then what is the problem then? Artists should not have any complains since the results are not "creative".
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So creativity is subjective.

You are arguing that AIs are somehow stealing "creativity" form artists, if that is the argument then that does makes the AI creative in fact since it presents stolen creativity which is still creativity.
Again it goes back to "style", you cannot copyright style just as much you can't copyright "creativity".
 
Last edited:

kuraiken

Member
Dec 5, 2017
358
885
If the style is not protected then anyone can recreate it, that means nothing is stopping the AI Companies to hire a "traitor artist" whose only job is to copy and clone styles to feed the machine.
Then there would be no question of permission and extortion from the original artist might have ideas for.
You can't prove that didn't happen, if you want to make this thread into a Court of Law and you the Judge then you have to handle the Defense properly.
No I think you are Evil so it doesn't stand as a defense. Less feelings, more actual Law.

There are some art like characters that can be copyright violation even if a human artist would draw it, in which case that is up to the user's discretion as the one who selects what is being generated.
An AI program is not a hired artist, since an AI program is not an artist.
I know you have difficulties with this, but we've established that in the 5 points you still can't understand.

False Equivalence.

Just because you access it doesn't mean anything.
Sure if you got the FBI on your ass you might have a problem.
But there is such a thing as privacy, security and encryption, no one but the site owner and you should know what prompts you are using and what data you are transferring that should be encrypted.
If the site keeps that of a history log on your account with all the prompts you use then yes they might compel them to release that.

You subscribed to a new tech that is a trendy nowadays, that means you must be a criminal!
Prove that you didn't do any criminal activity! What a wonderful logic we have here.
Just because you hired a hitman doesn't mean you killed anyone.

If you hire the service of a company that you know is not operating in the legal area and violates artists rights, then you, indeed, are violating someone's rights or planning to. Knowingly.
In case you didn't know this - but the law doesn't just apply to people who commit a violation. It also applies in certain cases to people who you can prove planned to violate someone's rights.

If you purchased a service that allows you to obtain laundered AI art and you have laundered AI art in your game? Even worse.

Throwing that art into a laundry machine does not clear it of the original intent it is used with - and that is to present the labor of someone else as your own.

If that were the case then everyone could do it with their own hardware setups, there would no need for a debate since everyone could do it in their backyard and they would be Completely Invisible so they can launder as much as assets as they want like you said and there would be nothing to stop them anyway.

It's precisely because you need the supercomputers that that is not the case.
So you're a.) admitting that someone cannot simply do so invisibly and thus disprove all your points of "magic magic let me get away with it"
and b.) clearly ignoring the original argument.

Why am I not surprised?

The original argument, that you are referring to, was not the argument we're discussing in the paragraph above.
It was the argument, at the example of the weapon packs thrown into the generator, that people can buy someone's assets, then launder them through an AI routine, then use the results based on someone elses work to put the original person that did the actual work out of work by stealing their labor.

You claimed this was not possible since you need supergiant computer to do so.
I proved that you can run a small asset base through a generator yourself with a website as example that exists and allows exactly that.

You then cried "foul", that website uses a pretrained AI - without any evidence to back it up.

Now you're trying to use a fragment of that conversation to prove that you should get away with copyright theft if it's difficult to prove, and you make the argument it should be impossible to prove, but now make the argument that - actually, it's not impossible to prove, because supercomputers.

It's like you have the brain of an amoeba.

Here, let me show you just how utterly you fail:
Even if we assume that every AI that you can run on your custom asset base is pretrained, it does not change the original argument I once again had to remind you of.

People can use AI software to launder a custom asset list and turn it into assets they resell, without having done any of the work and drawing purely on the work of others.

There is such a thing as Quantity becoming its own Quality.
Sure you can focus and analyze to find the patterns and relationship between things.
But the AI can also find all that through the incomprehensible amount of Data, it would not be able to recreate it at all otherwise.
"The Truth" that "Profundatity" already exist independent of any artist, it may take Skill for the artist but you either have that or you don't. This why I say AI is akin to God because that would be the case if it had it.
For you to tell it to do something and for the AI to achive doing just that means it already understand and has a representation of that thing, otherwise all you would get is just garbage or spazz out.
No, an AI is not a god that's supposed to help you steal things.

Just like a photocopy machine is not a god with eidetic memory that steals things for you.
Just as a burned DVD is not a god that helps you legally transport stolen goods.
Just like a Copy-Paste process is not a digital magic dance of bits and bytes to miraculously hand you whatever it is you wanted to take from someone else.

There is nothing stopping you through the Prompt to pursue whatever you want to pursue. It's true that you are dependent on the AI capability so you might not achive it but That is not the Question now is it?
Why do you want that?
Nothing to do with Skill, skills is merely the "means" to achive it.
The way AIs work is like directly transferring and refining a image in your mind to a digital image. That is different from "drawing" yes. If humans had a neural brain interface then they could do that the same as how the AIs now work.
The AI Image is different from Your Image you have in mind but that is up to tweaking the Prompt and trying again until you get close to that.
It's true that you do not have as much Direct Control as a real artist would have, but that presupposes the artists have enugh Skill to create a image on that level and most are far from being on that level.
You cannot pursue anything the AI has not been fed with, and we're talking, once again, not about a creative process that draws on AI but the difference in the processes of training and learning and how they're not the same.

I'm sorry but do I really have to explain to you ever time what we're talking about?

The AI does not have an Intention, that is correct.
But the human behind the Prompt does have an Intention, if that Intention is realized and to what extent that is up to luck.
Which is the true limitation as the human loses the Control to realize their ideal that they might have achieved through the proper work and learning the skill.
See above. The human is not involved. We're talking about the AI process of training vs the human process of learning.

This has nothing to do with the human pressing a button or writing a prompt, because those are things that happen with a trained AI and is not part of the process of training.

It's really difficult for you to understand what we're even talking about isn't it? If I don't remind you every couple of sentences in what context we're in, you just keep forgetting it.

That's true, but so is the human behind the Prompt.
Like I said the AI is God, it contains all things, it cannot have the specific human experience by itself as it is an amalgamation of all human experience.
And sure if human artists didn't even have that they would really go completely extinct. Prompt or no prompt.
Okay. I think you're just pretending to be that stupid. No one's really that impossibly dumb, but you're very good at acting it.

See above. Humans not involved in AI training.

Humans are essentially Conquerors, there is always the Unknown that threaten the Status Quo and we have gotten to this state by using any tools and any means we find to thrive. There is always a new uncharted land waiting to be discovered. At first it was computers, then programming and software, then the internet and now it's AIs.
Artists are not any different.
If AIs is all it takes to stop artists then Art would have already been long Dead.
The introduction to AI into Chess did not destroy the game, humans adapted and learned new strategies with the help of AIs.

There option is to either join them and use the AI to improve their work, differentiate themselves or die off.
Sooner or later it's going to be naturally part of their workflow, even with AI art there is no reason to hire a non-artist to do the job of an artist, artists still give the much needed control and flexibility to edit some things through their skill and elevate things beyond just the generic AI result.

This is pretty much the future sooner or later, even if they legally stumble now and the FBI is out for my ass for using illlegal AI CG it would still be inevitable.
The AI will eventually be Trained one way or another and then it will be over, Pandora's Box will be opened.
You think you are going to stop Adobe Firefly from happening?
Anything that starts with "Humans are Conquerors" pathos mumbo jumbo is not worth my time.
I don't care for your spiritual interpretation of what you believe should justify copyright theft.

Those 1-5 arguments have nothing to do with Legality of Users using AI Art for their projects.
Because?
Argument?

1. They directly pertain not to the legality, they pertain to the difference between humans and AI in learning and training.
2. Indirectly, they very much do. Because the crux, that you keep ignoring, is that a computer processes as intermediary does not justify theft of someone elses labor.

This is very hard for you to grasp, I know. But it does not matter what process you put between a work of art and your theft of it, whether it's a "Save Image As" command line, a photo copying of images, or any other digital process.
What the law seeks to protect is the labor of the original artist.

Prepare yourself to have your mind blown:

The reason copyright exists is not because the things look different! It's because the law seeks to protect the work done by the original creator, the labor they did.

None of your digital excuses, of whatever laundry machine you wish to use, changes that the intention of the law is the preservation of the work of the original artist and that that artist's creative labor cannot be ursurped and profited of by someone else, that did not do any of the work.

(And before you get into: but maybe the laws doesn't say that now! That's why I said it'll be adjusted - no matter how much you want to believe that laws never change and always stay the same and don't adapt to new emerging technologies.
The fact that it intent to protect the original creative labor will not change. Thus the wording and paragraphs will be adapted to AI art)

If AI has no creative element then what is the problem then? Artists should not have any complains since the results are not "creative".
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So creativity is subjective.

You are arguing that AIs are somehow stealing "creativity" form artists, if that is the argument then that does makes the AI creative in fact since it presents stolen creativity which is still creativity.
Again it goes back to "style", you cannot copyright style just as much you can't copyright "creativity".
Please google "creative" before you argue it's subjective.

The process we're talking about is the ability to - with your own mind - come up with a new way of using something.

I can look at the way a character's lines are drawn and say: What if I do them all in looping snorkles with dancing pandas inside?
No one, in human history, has done that before. I am the first who came up with that.
The AI cannot do the simple thing I just did - without someone first feeding someone elses invention into it.
That is the difference of creativity.

I can imagine new things and make them be. The AI cannot.
 
Last edited:
  • Angry
Reactions: DuniX

DuniX

Well-Known Member
Dec 20, 2016
1,152
756
I know you have difficulties with this, but we've established that in the 5 points you still can't understand.
What you don't understand is your 5 points amount to exactly jack shit as I have demonstrated.

You then cried "foul", that website uses a pretrained AI - without any evidence to back it up.
If you have the Trained Model then you don't need the rip the small assets, there is no need for laundering.
The AI can generate whatever you want, that's what "Trained" means.
You either have a trained model or you don't, you can't train a model with whatever assets you think you are "laundering".

1. They directly pertain not to the legality, they pertain to the difference between humans and AI in learning and training.
2. Indirectly, they very much do. Because the crux, that you keep ignoring, is that a computer processes as intermediary does not justify theft of someone elses labor.
Your argument is simply you want it to be different just because you want to deny it to the AI and make anyone who use it Evil.
You want two sets of Standards one for humans and one for AIs.

Your argument simply falls apart if we simple give the AI a pair of eyes.
You need eyes to learn art, simple as that, what you want is to remove the eyes from the AI.

If the AI had a similar 24/7 Video Feed just like humans have there would be no debate about them stealing art.

What if I do them all in looping snorkles with dancing pandas inside?
No one, in human history, has done that before. I am the first who came up with that.
I am sure you could achive that with a Prompt and some editing.
In which case by your own argument Human + AI can achive together something never before done.

(And before you get into: but maybe the laws doesn't say that now! That's why I said it'll be adjusted - no matter how much you want to believe that laws never change and always stay the same and don't adapt to new emerging technologies.
The fact that it intent to protect the original creative labor will not change. Thus the wording and paragraphs will be adapted to AI art)
That's just your wishful thinking that you think you can stop it.
And I am much more of a pessimist then you are.

Look at the Music Industry, Record Labels own pretty much all the copyright for music. Corporation owning copyright is not anything new, they pay you so they own you.
The copyright law changed when the Music Industry Lobby got involved.

Now AI is new Tool that everyone is salivating to use because it makes human labour even more cheap and efficient.
You would really have to be braindead to think change will be on your side.

Let me make a prophecy, AIs are going to be fast tracked and get free pass for pretty much everything since that's what those with "Interests" that run the real show want it to be.
 
Last edited:

kuraiken

Member
Dec 5, 2017
358
885
What you don't understand is your 5 points amount to exactly jack shit as I have demonstrated.
You've demonstrated you didn't even know what we were talking about.
You proved and admitted yourself, that an AI, without any human element cannot ever learn anything like a human.

Therefor, an AI being trained on art is not the same as a human who studied art.

Therefor, pretending the AI is a human artist because space magic is like saying "a photocopy machine does wonderous things like a human artist" in order to defend copying other peoples artwork.

If you have the Trained Model then you don't need the rip the small assets, there is no need for laundering.
The AI can generate whatever you want, that's what "Trained" means.
You either have a trained model or you don't, you can't train a model with whatever assets you think you are "laundering".
There is no such thing as a magically omnipotent trained model.

If you want to copy weapon 3D assets, you cannot do so without 3D assets.
If you want songs based on music type X, you need to enter music type X first.

And if you want something in a specific fashion, you need to specify the specific fashion.

You have so little idea of how an AI works, you invent it to be the god of your religion that justifies theft.
It's not, it's a tool.

Your argument is simply you want it to be different just because you want to deny it to the AI and make anyone who use it Evil.
You want two sets of Standards one for humans and one for AIs.

Your argument simply falls apart if we simple give the AI a pair of eyes.
You need eyes to learn art, simple as that, what you want is to remove the eyes from the AI.

If the AI had a similar 24/7 Video Feed just like humans have there would be no debate about them stealing art.
No, the difference is not the eyes, you dummy. It's the fact that humans have a brain, capeable of emotion and creative thought that invents new things instead
of repeating only existing things.

I am sure you could achive that with a Prompt and some editing.
In which case by your own argument Human + AI can achive together something never before done.
Oh wow, an AI can achieve things that a human can do when a human helps it do it.
:FacePalm:

Do you even read what you write?

That's just your wishful thinking that you think you can stop it.
And I am much more of a pessimist then you are.
It's got nothing to do with pessimism. In fact, pessimism would be to believe that AI will be forbidden entirely.

Copyright can be enacted in a wide variety of ways, including banning people from taking videos and photographs (both which would constitute a new creation) of things when you manage to register them as trademarks.

Things like the way something looks in reality can be protected:


Look at the Music Industry, Record Labels own pretty much all the copyright for music. Corporation owning copyright is not anything new, they pay you so they own you.
The copyright law changed when the Music Industry Lobby got involved.

Now AI is new Tool that everyone is salivating to use because it makes human labour even more cheap and efficient.
You would really have to be braindead to think change will be on your side.

Let me make a prophecy, AIs are going to be fast tracked and get free pass for pretty much everything since that's what those with "Interests" that run the real show want it to be.
Yeah, that prophecy is probably going to run into a wall in the next two years.


What you're not really understanding is the fundamental disagreement we have on AI usage in art.

I want AI to be an aid to artists - a way to shorten workload, detect errors & fix them, to make artists more flexible and productive.
A multiplier, that takes work the artist has done and allows him, with the help of software to be more efficient, productive and flexible.

An artist draws a character in a room, with lighting coming through the window.
The artist wants the same scene, but at night with moonlight as well.
He lets the AI detect the lighting, ensures it's correctly selected, picks a lighting pattern variant ("Cold Moonlight") and has the AI generate the same image but with the artist's lighting morphed into a new one.
The artist did work and used the AI to multiply it.

An artist draws two images, one of a cowboy with a pistol in the holster, one with the pistol drawn out of the holster.
The Artist selects both images and tells the AI to generate the in-between images and the AI uses the artists images to create the in-between animation images.
The artist did work and used the AI to multiply it.

You want to use the AI as an intermediary to allow you to steal someone elses work.
To press a generate button and get a result that you did nothing for but write down your wish and then adjust a slider or two and click a button.
You didn't do any work. You didn't multiply anything. You took the work of others as your own.

You want the act of operating a tool you use to steal things be the same as doing all of the work.
It's not a tool for you to multiply work, to add or improve what you do. You want it to be a cheatcode to steal from others what you cannot do yourself.

You want results you can make money off, without doing any of the work.
That's the difference.
 

DuniX

Well-Known Member
Dec 20, 2016
1,152
756
You proved and admitted yourself, that an AI, without any human element cannot ever learn anything like a human.

Therefor, an AI being trained on art is not the same as a human who studied art.

Therefor, pretending the AI is a human artist because space magic is like saying "a photocopy machine does wonderous things like a human artist" in order to defend copying other peoples artwork.
You are speaking with Bold Confidence and Authority but that does not make you Correct, you may have bamboozled your average person but that's about it.
Your "Opinion" is just how you Rationalized Things for "Yourself", it is not The Law, it is not The Truth.
I poked enough holes in it to show it is not as solid as you pretend it to be.

And no that does not make me correct either, the truth is nobody knows since no one understands the full situation and reprecursitions, it is just speculation on my part but so is yours.

If you want to copy weapon 3D assets, you cannot do so without 3D assets.
Yes but that is not just a few 3D assets you get from unreal store, we are talking about tens of thousands, there is not just "laundering" of a few here.

Furthermore "weapon" is just as category we invented, what the model needs is topological data and texture and material data.
Good topology could apply to many objects not just weapons, that is what is really "learnt".
No, the difference is not the eyes, you dummy. It's the fact that humans have a brain, capeable of emotion and creative thought that invents new things instead
of repeating only existing things.
Then show me an artists that can draw that is blind.
Show me how they can create new drawings and styles while blind.
Oh wow, an AI can achieve things that a human can do when a human helps it do it.
Then what's your problem? Creativity has been achieved, case closed.
The Human completes the half that the AI lacks and that forms a "whole creative artist" together.
What a great Love Story indeed.
In fact, pessimism would be to believe that AI will be forbidden entirely.
How optimistic for the human artists.
Copyright can be enacted in a wide variety of ways, including banning people from taking videos and photographs (both which would constitute a new creation) of things when you manage to register them as trademarks.

Things like the way something looks in reality can be protected:
Yes some things are protected but that is for human art also.
And usually it is done on behalf of the Corporations so I am not seeing how that is an argument for your side.
If you draw Mickey Mouse then Disney is going to sue your ass.

The Artist selects both images and tells the AI to generate the in-between images and the AI uses the artists images to create the in-between animation images.
If the AI can do that then it is "trained", if it's trained then it has already "learned" and by your logic have already stolen work.
An AI is not an Algorithmic Tool, an AI necessitates Data and Training.
In your case it requires analyzing the motion of animations and physics as well the recognition of objects and characters and how they are affected by those properties. With that training you can generate entier videos not just a bunch of images.

And it's curious that you chose "Animation" as your example, is that the only thing the artist is going to do? What about selecting some parts of the image and generating something in it? Are you sure that is not going to happen when there is already videos on Adobe Firefly of artists doing exactly that? Curious it is like you are speaking bullshit without batting an eye.

You want to use the AI as an intermediary to allow you to steal someone elses work.
The AI will be trained one way or another, there is no stealing involved as even if it takes billions of dollars they will acquire the data they need one way or another.
In fact if they go to EA, Ubisoft, Activision and ask for all the data they are likely to give them. Your Unreal and Unity Store Assets are not needed.
To press a generate button and get a result that you did nothing for but write down your wish and then adjust a slider or two and click a button.
We already established that Human + AI = Love, I mean they are already creative together.
 
Last edited:

kuraiken

Member
Dec 5, 2017
358
885
You are speaking with Bold Confidence and Authority but that does not make you Correct, you may have bamboozled your average person but that's about it.
Your "Opinion" is just how you Rationalized Things for "Yourself", it is not The Law, it is not The Truth.
I poked enough holes in it to show it is not as solid as you pretend it to be.

And no that does not make me correct either, the truth is nobody knows since no one understands the full situation and reprecursitions, it is just speculation on my part but so is yours.
You didn't poke a single hole in it, you confirmed every one of my points, and then pretended we were talking about a different topic.

We weren't.
We were talking about how a human studying & learning art is different from an AI being trained in art and you yourself agreed and confirmed it.
In the example of creativity, you had to bring in a.) a human and b.) look at what's done with the art afterwards, not the process of learning itself.

The reason you think you poked holes in it is because you keep forgetting what we're talking about and then you make arguments that directly prove my point, but because you've forgotten the argument, you pretend you poking holes in your own original argument somehow makes you right. :FacePalm:

Yes but that is not just a few 3D assets you get from unreal store, we are talking about tens of thousands, there is not just "laundering" of a few here.

Furthermore "weapon" is just as category we invented, what the model needs is topological data and texture and material data.
Good topology could apply to many objects not just weapons, that is what is really "learnt".
Now your argument has literally become: If you steal enough, it should be legal, because you're stealing so much!

Then show me an artists that can draw that is blind.
Show me how they can create new drawings and styles while blind.
Oh god, you make it so easy. How are you still breathing?



Then what's your problem? Creativity has been achieved, case closed.
The Human completes the half that the AI lacks and that forms a "whole creative artist" together.
What a great Love Story indeed.
How are you so stupid?

You've once again forgotten the topic. It's like memory and thinking are foreign concepts to you.

How optimistic for the human artists.

Yes some things are protected but that is for human art also.
And usually it is done on behalf of the Corporations so I am not seeing how that is an argument for your side.
If you draw Mickey Mouse then Disney is going to sue your ass.
Your argument was that "well, things can't be enforced, and you can't forbid people from using stuff, that's not how the world works!"

Well, turns out, the world works that way. Trademarks for instance allow companies to forbid any useage of the trademarked art, including anything that would fall into fair use or even would be part of a transformative art.
Taking a video or a photo produces a product that is considered "art". Yet creating a new art product by taking a picture or video of the Hollywood sign is illegal - even though you're not copying the original art.

Usage of art, in any way, can be forbidden. As the video proves.

If the AI can do that then it is "trained", if it's trained then it has already "learned" and by your logic have already stolen work.
An AI is not an Algorithmic Tool, an AI necessitates Data and Training.
In your case it requires analyzing the motion of animations and physics as well the recognition of objects and characters and how they are affected by those properties. With that training you can generate entier videos not just a bunch of images.
:FacePalm::FacePalm::FacePalm::FacePalm::FacePalm::FacePalm::FacePalm::FacePalm::FacePalm::FacePalm::FacePalm::FacePalm::FacePalm::FacePalm::FacePalm::FacePalm::FacePalm::FacePalm::FacePalm::FacePalm::FacePalm::FacePalm::FacePalm:

Yes, because the only thing an AI can be trained on is stolen art.

It's not like pattern recognition could be done through custom created patterns that are fed into the machine as base.
It's not like AI companies could buy art asset libraries and obtain the copyright or the license to train them for artists.
It's not like the AI could be trained on 3D simulations of light, form & space.
It's not like an AI could be fed with images taken from the real world to learn & understand the relationship between shapes and light EXACTLY AS HUMAN ARTISTS DO.

You know why those things never occured to you? Because all you can think about is stealing other people's art.

And it's curious that you chose "Animation" as your example, is that the only thing the artist is going to do? What about selecting some parts of the image and generating something in it? Are you sure that is not going to happen when there is already videos on Adobe Firefly of artists doing exactly that? Curious it is like you are speaking bullshit without batting an eye.
I gave you two examples of what could be done, one was animation-wise, not all examples in existence.

But at this point, even that degree of stupidity does not surprise me.
The AI will be trained one way or another, there is no stealing involved as even if it takes billions of dollars they will acquire the data they need one way or another.
In fact if they go to EA, Ubisoft, Activision and ask for all the data they are likely to give them. Your Unreal and Unity Store Assets are not needed.

We already established that Human + AI = Love, I mean they are already creative together.
At this point, I see no further reason to argue with you.

Here's what you do:

1. You argue you should be allowed to steal stuff because so much stuff is getting stolen.
- I say that's more stealing, not less.
2. You say stealing is actually not stealing, because an AI is like an artist you hire that studied art and does the work for you except you don't pay him.
- I point out that an AI is, in fact, not an artist and cannot engage in any creativity without the human and does not learn like a human. That what you're doing when you press the generate button is not you hiring an artist but is no different that cloning an image in photoshop, or clicking "Save Image as...". You're operating a tool to steal other people's work, not multiplying any work you did.
3. You forget the previous argument and point out that actually there is creativity when a human becomes involved, which is the dumbest argument in the history of humanity, because ANY human can be creative with anything they steal. The question was never whether humans can do creative things with stuff they steal, but whether an AI being trained is comparible to a human studying art - which it isn't, because the training process of an AI does not feature the transformative elements that the studying process of a human involved, such as creativity.
- At this point I have to, for the 10 000s time show you exactly what we were talking about, because you once again forgot what we were talking about and either pretend to be stupid, or you - and that would surprise me because it shouldn't be humanly possible - are that stupid.
4(1). At this point you point out that actually, it's entirely different, because the AI steals so much that it should be legal.
- I repeat my answer to 1.
5(2). Stealing is not stealing, because an AI being trained is just like a human. Are humans not allowed to study?
- I repeat my answer to 2.
6(3). You forget the last argument and pretend we were talking about whether people can do creative things with things they stole, rather than the process in which the stolen asset was obtained.
- I repeat my answer to 3.
6(4)(1). You once again come back full circle with the idea: actually, if I just steal enough stuff, maybe it's no longer stealing, lol?

You say it's morally okay to steal other people's art, because it's not stealing.
- I prove that is, and does damage, and that the laws we live in intend to protect from that abuse.
You say it should be morally okay, because it's so useful!
- I point out all the ways it can be useful in without you stealing work from people, legal avenues that people could follow.
You say that even if it's morally wrong and alternatives exist, it's not illegal.
- I show that even though it's not directly legislated, that it will require some cases to actually be concluded, as it happens with emerging technology, and that there will likely be legislation in some form to protect the rights of artists and companies because that's always how things have happened, because those people want to make money and not have their stuff stolen.
You argue that even if it could maybe become illegal, it's not enforcable! You can just get away with it.
- I provide evidence that a.) that's not the case, b.) technologies evolve and things like reverse-image search pop up that allow things to be traced back to elements, and that c.) some images can currently be visually identified to the artist the style was taken from, and d.) metadata exists that allows tracking of how your assets were created.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand...
...you start back at how it's actually all morally okay, because it's not stealing, it's a new god! An eternal something something. Humanity and AI, loving each other, conquering the stars. That can't be stealing!

And the cycle starts from the beginning.

You are literally doing the naraccist prayer.

That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.


I think this final summary shows in great detail what you're doing. It's disingenious arguments where your primary element is either playing or being stupid and forgetting what we're talking about so you can start the entire discussion from the already debunked points.

I've made my case.
You don't have to believe me. And you don't have to convince me either, because I'm not the guy who makes laws, and I'm not the police that's going to do anything about you stealing other peoples art.

At this point, it's clear I can't convince you, but I do hope someone else will think more about how AI can be used as a work multiplier that allows new and improved work process, rather than just as a washing machine for stolen art.

As for you: do what you want, I'm not your mommy and I'm not your daddy. You're free to make every mistake you want to make.
If you spend 2 years working on a VN with stolen assets only to find the laws change and your game is no longer be allowed to publish, that's your problem.
And if you copy the style of certain well-known NSFW artists and they decide they had enough and sue you, that's also your problem.
Not mine.

Finally, I will read what you write in response to this - as courtesy. But I won't reply to it.
I've shown you why in this last section: the bad faith approach with which you keep moving in the same argument loop by just pretending to not hear arguments you don't like and forgetting what we were even talking about so you can cycle back to the start.

There just isn't any worth in me continuing this discussion, and I've grown tired of pointing out how unfathomably stupid or ignorant your points are. You can interpret that as you will, but I'm just no longer willing to spend any time on you.
 
Last edited:

DuniX

Well-Known Member
Dec 20, 2016
1,152
756
How are you so stupid?

You've once again forgotten the topic. It's like memory and thinking are foreign concepts to you.
And you call me stupid, the specific context for that point was this:
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.
Since the Human can use their own Experience and tweak the Prompt and their discretion so together it could be argued it fulfills that, you can make something new together. Aka Human + AI = Love.

Yes, because the only thing an AI can be trained on is stolen art.
Well yes, that's why things will be inevitable, even without the stolen art the AIs will still be trained.
It's not like pattern recognition could be done through custom created patterns that are fed into the machine as base.
That's an Algorithm not an AI.
It's not like AI companies could buy art asset libraries and obtain the copyright or the license to train them for artists.
Again I am not disagreeing with that.
It's not like an AI could be fed with images taken from the real world to learn & understand the relationship between shapes and light EXACTLY AS HUMAN ARTISTS DO.
Careful if you give them a pair of eyes they might steal things again, what if an AI happens to be browsing the internet, oh the horror!

You know why those things never occured to you? Because all you can think about is stealing other people's art.
How the fuck am I stealing art when I do not have a supercomputer to train the model?
That's something I said is impossible.

I gave you two examples of what could be done, one was animation-wise, not all examples in existence.
Then why is that not stealing art by your logic?
You use the Tool so you must be stealing!
If that's not the case then why the flying fuck you call me stealing?

1. You argue you should be allowed to steal stuff because so much stuff is getting stolen.
- I say that's more stealing, not less.
If the model is Trained which lets say is done legally for the sake of argument.
Then you don't need to steal anything since the AI can generate for you whatever you want.
It's your own "myth" that you can "launder" assets somehow.
The model is either trained or not trained.

2. You say stealing is actually not stealing, because an AI is like an artist you hire that studied art and does the work for you except you don't pay him.
- I point out that an AI is, in fact, not an artist and cannot engage in any creativity without the human and does not learn like a human. That what you're doing when you press the generate button is not you hiring an artist but is no different that cloning an image in photoshop, or clicking "Save Image as...". You're operating a tool to steal other people's work, not multiplying any work you did.
You want two sets of Standards, one for humans and one for AIs. It does not matter the rationalization for that, just that you want two standards. That's perfectly fine, we can have two.

But if both humans and AIs followed the same Standard then all your points would be moot and your arguments would all collapse in on themselves.

You argue that even if it could maybe become illegal, it's not enforcable! You can just get away with it.
- I provide evidence that a.) that's not the case, b.) technologies evolve and things like reverse-image search pop up that allow things to be traced back to elements, and that c.) some images can currently be visually identified to the artist the style was taken from, and d.) metadata exists that allows tracking of how your assets were created.
It's not enforceable because it's not distinguishable between what humans create, and we have already established Human + AI = Love to give it that extra step.
If I take a screenshot there is no metadata on the image.
If I copy paste the mesh vertexes, again no metadata.
In the first place there is no need for that since Formats are already Standardized and you know exactly what is in them, there is no DRM.
What Does exist is the Watermark, which is the reason why they are used, which you failed to figure out.
What can also be used is secret codes baked in to the pixels which is still a kind of watermark.

The problem with that which there is a Real Reason I made that point is if you cannot differentiate the two then The Law has to apply to Both.
Here you can't cheat your way to have two Standards, it's just not possible.

That means if you want to "Protect" a "Style" through Patents and whatnot then it needs to apply to Both the human and the AIs.
That sets a precedent where humans can be Denied creating a Style.
And with the Encroachment of Corporations on the Ownership of All Art in a bid to "train their models legally".
Corporations owning styles is just a small step and just what the AI needed to give it an edge on the competition and return some of that investment, and the shinny new legal precedent would be already be set.

That Humans can not only be Denied a Style but All Style and Independent Artists as we know them will be Over.

That is my True Pessimism.

it's a new god! An eternal something something. Humanity and AI, loving each other, conquering the stars. That can't be stealing!
Those points about God is from the perspective of how the AI learns things.
If he does not learn like a human then the question is how does it learn and represent things?
A being without individuality containing all things.
 
Last edited:
Jun 23, 2020
250
2,186
Oh boy.. Its going to be a long read but i think its save to say that, AI is going to question our reality.

 
Last edited:
5.00 star(s) 1 Vote