Art Wars: The AI Menace
-
@sockpuppet7 Technically, if they retouched the image afterwards, they might have a copyright based on that - depending on how much they altered.
There are two issues I see with copyrighting pure AI-generated images. First - the question regarding to what extent, if any, they constitute derivative works, given that all models are trained on a pre-existing corpus. This can, if all else fails, be swept under the rug.
The bigger issue is that two people can unwittingly produce the same image through use of the same parameters, and it's not readily apparent who should get copyright in this case.
Now, this is to an extent true in the case of more traditional works, which is why we have a whole bunch of case-law attempting to determine at what point copyright kicks in - for example, stock characters and scènes à faire are generally not protectable. So, in practice, copyright law works around likely points of clash by saying nobody is entitled to protection in this case.
With AI generation, the main guard against clashes is the seed, given that there's no requirement for the prompt to be especially elaborate, and that the same sort of user that does prompts like "a picture of an astronaut riding a horse" (that is: the vast majority) isn't going to take even half-a-second to try and adjust the default parameters. Thus, the vast majority of AI-generated works are going to be in the nature of stock characters: a generic description filtered through a randomizer.
Now, I've worked with SD enough to know that there's a ton of creative choices one can make, but I also know that ultimately the only technique that gets you from idea to final result is gacha.
-
@sockpuppet7 said in Art Wars: The AI Menace:
It annoys me that if I push a button in my phone camera the picture is protected by copyright, but some people that spent hours crafting a prompt and retouching an image aren't getting copyright for stupid reasons
If you take a picture with your phone of the Mona Lisa, the copyright isn’t yours. It would be Da Vinci’s, if it hadn’t long run out, but not yours.
Likewise, the AI generated stuff is a derivative work of the pictures they used for training without license or permission.
-
@topspin said in Art Wars: The AI Menace:
If you take a picture with your phone of the Mona Lisa, the copyright isn’t yours. It would be Da Vinci’s, if it hadn’t long run out, but not yours.
Like you can take a photo of the Eiffel Tower during the day and the copyright of the resulting image is yours, but if you do it during the night, the copyright is held by the Société d'Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel
-
-
@izzion said in Art Wars: The AI Menace:
@Watson said in Art Wars: The AI Menace:
Société d'Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel
à tes souhaits
merci
-
@Watson said in Art Wars: The AI Menace:
@topspin said in Art Wars: The AI Menace:
If you take a picture with your phone of the Mona Lisa, the copyright isn’t yours. It would be Da Vinci’s, if it hadn’t long run out, but not yours.
Like you can take a photo of the Eiffel Tower during the day and the copyright of the resulting image is yours, but if you do it during the night, the copyright is held by the Société d'Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel
First and
there is no "copyright" in any of those examples because there is no "copyright" in French law (and it's not just linguistic 
ery about "copyright" not being the French word: it is usually translated by "droit d'auteur" but that notion differs in subtle but important ways from "copyright").Then in all 3 cases, you (=the photographer) owns the right to the picture you're taking, regardless of whether you hold the rights to the object being pictured. This means, for example, the Société d'Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel cannot use your picture without your authorisation (which would be the case if they held the rights). You may not be able to use the picture yourself (if someone else owns the rights to the object and refuses to let you use them), but you still own the rights.
Next, for Mona Lisa, no one holds the rights for the painting itself (anymore) since the author is long dead. But you still own the rights to your own picture and can do as you please with it (publish it, sell it...). Note that you can't, for the same reason, publish any other picture of the Mona Lisa as the rights of that picture belong to whoever took it.
For the Eiffel tower by day, this is a building in a public space and therefore pictures can be freely used without the authorisation of the rights' holder but only for non-commercial uses. So you don't need any further authorisation to publish that picture on e.g. your personal Instagram account but can't e.g. sell postcards based on it.
Finally, this blanket authorisation is however strictly limited to "architectural works and sculptures" and therefore lighting isn't covered. Thus by night, you still hold the rights to your picture but can't publish it anywhere without the rights holder's authorisation, even for non-commercial use.
-
@remi said in Art Wars: The AI Menace:
Thus by night, you still hold the rights to your picture but can't publish it anywhere without the rights holder's authorisation, even for non-commercial use.
On paper, yes. In practice, I don't think they've ever sued anyone for typical non-commercial uses, such as sharing your vacation photos. Here's what the official website says:
Utiliser l'image de la tour Eiffel : tournages et prises de vue.
Professionnels : ce qu’il faut savoir pour tourner à la tour Eiffel, faire des prises de vue pour un documentaire, film, reportage, publicité, projet audiovisuel.
Les prises de vues de la tour Eiffel de nuit pour des particuliers et pour un usage privé ne nécessitent aucun accord préalable.
It could argued that posting them on the Internet is not "private use", but if you're not making any money from it, the point is rather moot.
-
-
@Zerosquare said in Art Wars: The AI Menace:
@remi said in Art Wars: The AI Menace:
Thus by night, you still hold the rights to your picture but can't publish it anywhere without the rights holder's authorisation, even for non-commercial use.
On paper, yes. In practice, I don't think they've ever sued anyone for typical non-commercial uses, such as sharing your vacation photos.
You're right, but I was talking about the theory. Though in this specific example you're probably also right about the theory since the mention on the website is them explicitly giving you permission. But most rights' holders of light installations are unlikely to have such an explicit permission, the Eiffel tower is a special case.
In practice it is very unlikely you will ever have any (copy)rights issues when using something to which you don't hold the rights for a private/non-commercial use, since in the overwhelming majority of cases such an use will be so tiny that no-one will ever know you've used it (and also there are a few "fair use" exceptions that are likely to cover you anyway).
Even if they notice you, the rights' holder are unlikely to be willing to spend money (and time) for the uncertain prospect of gaining a tiny amount of money from you (by definition if it's non-commercial you're not gaining money from the use, and you're also unlikely to lose them much, even counting weird things like brand recognition).
The only counter-example that comes to mind is the equivalent of the RIAA who came after schools who played music in e.g. school fairs without having paid the fee, and probably the only reason they did so was because they have a streamlined process to extract money (i.e. without the need to write, approve and sign a new contract) (about 80 EUR/year for a primary school, for example).
-
Tom Hanks calls out dental ad for using AI likeness of him
Tom Hanks posted a warning on Instagram, telling his followers that a dental ad has used an AI-generated version of him without permission.
Marketers who understand the Streisand effect:
-
@remi said in Art Wars: The AI Menace:
@Watson said in Art Wars: The AI Menace:
@topspin said in Art Wars: The AI Menace:
If you take a picture with your phone of the Mona Lisa, the copyright isn’t yours. It would be Da Vinci’s, if it hadn’t long run out, but not yours.
Like you can take a photo of the Eiffel Tower during the day and the copyright of the resulting image is yours, but if you do it during the night, the copyright is held by the Société d'Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel
First and
there is no "copyright" in any of those examples because there is no "copyright" in French law (and it's not just linguistic ery about "copyright" not being the French word: it is usually translated by "droit d'auteur" but that notion differs in subtle but important ways from "copyright").Then in all 3 cases, you (=the photographer) owns the right to the picture you're taking, regardless of whether you hold the rights to the object being pictured. This means, for example, the Société d'Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel cannot use your picture without your authorisation (which would be the case if they held the rights). You may not be able to use the picture yourself (if someone else owns the rights to the object and refuses to let you use them), but you still own the rights.
Next, for Mona Lisa, no one holds the rights for the painting itself (anymore) since the author is long dead. But you still own the rights to your own picture and can do as you please with it (publish it, sell it...). Note that you can't, for the same reason, publish any other picture of the Mona Lisa as the rights of that picture belong to whoever took it.
For the Eiffel tower by day, this is a building in a public space and therefore pictures can be freely used without the authorisation of the rights' holder but only for non-commercial uses. So you don't need any further authorisation to publish that picture on e.g. your personal Instagram account but can't e.g. sell postcards based on it.
Finally, this blanket authorisation is however strictly limited to "architectural works and sculptures" and therefore lighting isn't covered. Thus by night, you still hold the rights to your picture but can't publish it anywhere without the rights holder's authorisation, even for non-commercial use.
In a similar vein, in NL we have something called 'portrait rights'. This means someone has some influence on how a photo which prominently features them can be used. Though I do not know the details, like whether there is an exception for journalistic use, and I've never heard of it extending to buildings.
-
@PleegWat said in Art Wars: The AI Menace:
In a similar vein, in NL we have something called 'portrait rights'. This means someone has some influence on how a photo which prominently features them can be used. Though I do not know the details, like whether there is an exception for journalistic use, and I've never heard of it extending to buildings.
From what I recall, there's a similar thing in the UK, pendantically based on libel/slander, seeing as how you might use the portrait you took to promote something that the subject of the portrait doesn't agree with. (Example: using a vegan model's photograph in advertisements for meat products.) The legal theory is, they say, that by doing that, you are libeling/slandering the model, suggesting that he/she also supports the meat product in question, and therefore damaging his/her reputation among his/her fellow vegans.
Being a question of libel/slander, of course, it cannot as such apply to buildings.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Art Wars: The AI Menace:
(Example: using a vegan model's photograph in advertisements for meat products.)
I approve of this use of the vegan model's photo. Anything that defames, insults, and/or ridicules a vegan is a good thing.
-
@HardwareGeek there are people who are vegan because they have ethical issues with consuming animal products but don’t patronise or proselytise others for having different values or making different choices.
Sadly there are precious few of them.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Art Wars: The AI Menace:
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Art Wars: The AI Menace:
(Example: using a vegan model's photograph in advertisements for meat products.)
I approve of this use of the vegan model's photo.
Now, imagine if someone used your photo to advocate terrible grammar.
-
@Zerosquare said in Art Wars: The AI Menace:
@HardwareGeek said in Art Wars: The AI Menace:
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Art Wars: The AI Menace:
(Example: using a vegan model's photograph in advertisements for meat products.)
I approve of this use of the vegan model's photo.
Now, imagine if someone used your photo to advocate terrible grammar.
What type of terrible grammar are we talking? The type that is driving on a major throughway despite the fact that she doesn't know how to? Or the type that bulldozes other grammars in the rush for her favorite bingo card?
-
@izzion said in Art Wars: The AI Menace:
What type of terrible grammar are we talking?
The kind often called ‘American English’
-
Sometimes I wonder how many actual artists are in threads arguing over AI art. From my perspective, it seems like it’ll hurt amateurs. I consider myself amateur-level; I can draw but not at a level or volume where monetization would be easy.
Alot of the AI art that I’ve seen so far is very samey anime. It actually reminds me of that one artist we’ve all seen at conventions that has five hundred drawings of the same girl cosplaying as the entire Marvel/DC multiverse. You buy one, you’ve seen them all.
Anyway, competing against that mook is already difficult enough. Now everybody that can type a few words into a website prompt could possibly set up a booth? I hope they cannibalize each other before all of the artists with their own style throw in the towel.
-
@Zenith For now. Silica Animus will generally get better at the job as it absorbs the details that people most expect from it.
of the AI art that I’ve seen so far is very samey anime
competing against that mook is already difficult enough
I hope they cannibalize each otherCareful what you wish for. It's that small business that makes the economy move.
artists with their own style
How many of those artists currently make a living only from their art, and not from doing random uninspired shit on their day jobs or at least freelancing?
Furthermore, the spending power of people is limited, and goddamn do they like that very samey anime. These artists with their own style will be forced to raise their prices because of lessened demand. As that happens and, irrespectively of that, as training models become less expensive, more people will be able to feed the style they want into the big machine.
I hope
You keep doing that. That's going to help. But if it does not, I suppose WTDWTF will always have a place for your eventual disappointment.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity Who's been pissing in your Cheerios lately? Or are you secretly (oops) Mr Samey Anime Art Guy?
We don't need more monoculture. Not in technology, not in art, not anywhere. Especially when it's shit.
An artist's alley full of samey anime art is like a dealer room full of Funko Pops - both should be nuked from orbit.
-
@Zenith said in Art Wars: The AI Menace:
Who's been pissing in your Cheerios lately?
Just lately?
We don't need more monoculture.
Then take a stand against Silica Animus. Not only it proliferates monoculture, but it threatens to swallow all others with it.
-
Here’s the real problem.
Yes, this stuff hurts amateurs. It also hits the bottom level of the paid world where they’re not really good enough to do their own thing.
And it hurts the junior sector, which is the real problem here.
Because what this sets in motion is that in 5 years time, there’s going to start to be a lack of seniors in the field as those good enough to stay will have raised their prices, or otherwise just left the industry, with no juniors to replace them.
And this isn’t just art as a field, we’ll see this in various of the creative industries where AI can be used in lieu of actual people because it’s cheaper and good enough.
Already Amazon is under a deluge of AI produced books being fed into it.
And we are not immune much as we might think we are, the same problem affects our industry too where us lot personally might be fine but those who would follow in our wake… not so much.
-
@Arantor said in Art Wars: The AI Menace:
And we are not immune much as we might think we are, the same problem affects our industry too where us lot personally might be fine but those who would follow in our wake… not so much.
Yes, but we've already been having that problem before, maybe to a lesser degree. A huge amount of people applying with
absolutely zeroeffectively negative competence.
-
@topspin the difference is those who used to follow in our wake were moderated, guided, steered by whatever competence was around them.
The next generation will be guided by a stochastic parrot. The top few percent will rise above, just as we did, driven by a desire or a need to do better - but by then, they’ll be undervalued by a society that will have long decided that competence is unaffordably too expensive.
We’re already moving in that direction, and AI is absolutely speeding it up.
-
@Zenith said in Art Wars: The AI Menace:
Alot of the AI art that I’ve seen so far is very samey anime.
I guess this means you look at a lot of anime. OTOH I haven't noticed this sort of thing at all. But yeah, if there are people making anime related art (and I know there are) then a tool making it easier to make anime related art is definitely going to increase the supply.
Anyway, competing against that mook is already difficult enough. Now everybody that can type a few words into a website prompt could possibly set up a booth? I hope they cannibalize each other before all of the artists with their own style throw in the towel.
There are some tools that take existing pictures and work with those. I could definitely see them being handy to an artist to enhance their work. But also I don't generally buy picture type art directly.
-
@boomzilla I also included art that I got the Bing AI to create as well. It leans hard into a specific airbrushed/polished style of anime art. Samey Same Dude at Otakon/ComicCon uses it heavily. It sticks out like CalArts style in western cartoons from Adventure Time to Thundercats Roar.
But it'd be dumb if all it pumped out was Pat Lee art too. That mook's style could be summed up with "draw a big beefy robot, then decide who it's going to be" (colorist determined if everything was made of stone or glass). A virtual lost decade followed his rise to fame...
-
@Zenith I don't doubt that you can get that sort of art. I played around with StableDiffusion a bit and it could do all sorts of styles.
-
The Bing AI has some problems when it comes to computer monitors. It seems to not understand that the monitor has two sides:
The effect is fairly reproducible, a large majority of generated images from several similar prompts has this error.
-
It is just anticipating the next tech craze: transparent LCD panels.
-
@Zerosquare said in Art Wars: The AI Menace:
It is just anticipating the next tech craze: transparent LCD panels.
And mirrored. That's some wild transparent tech! You can easily read it from either side!
-
@sebastian-galczynski Oh no, you got it wrong.
That guy is crying because his monitor is so odd.
-
@sebastian-galczynski said in Art Wars: The AI Menace:
The Bing AI has some problems when it comes to computer monitors. It seems to not understand that the monitor has two sides:
The effect is fairly reproducible, a large majority of generated images from several similar prompts has this error.
I’ve looked at this for a minute now and completely changed my mind.
This is art!
-
@BernieTheBernie said in Art Wars: The AI Menace:
That guy is crying because his monitor is so odd.
On second thouht: The mention of SQL caused it to draw a backend developer
-
@sebastian-galczynski said in Art Wars: The AI Menace:
@BernieTheBernie said in Art Wars: The AI Menace:
That guy is crying because his monitor is so odd.
On second thouht: The mention of SQL caused it to draw a backend developer
But why is he working at a front end developer's workstation?
-
@izzion said in Art Wars: The AI Menace:
But why is he working at a front end developer's workstation?
Because the boss bought him a new M1 macbook as a perk (which is then used to run AMD64 docker images under qemu with slow emulated filesystems)
-
I'll just drop this here. I didn't watch it (yet; I might get around to it one of these days)
Since onebox is only sporadically operational, here's a twobox:
-
@izzion said in Art Wars: The AI Menace:
@sebastian-galczynski said in Art Wars: The AI Menace:
@BernieTheBernie said in Art Wars: The AI Menace:
That guy is crying because his monitor is so odd.
On second thouht: The mention of SQL caused it to draw a backend developer
But why is he working at a front end developer's workstation?
My grandfather famously preferred looking at the back of a TV rather than the front. But that was with the back cover removed. And that was pre-flatpanel.
-
Microsoft did WHAT to Bing after it created WHAT?!
I feel like we've reached peak — you know, I don't even know anymore. Peak something. Peak everything. Just peak:
Oops. Oopsie!
-
Microsoft has reportedly lobotomized its Bing AI
Would anyone be able to notice the difference?
-
@HardwareGeek Perhaps. It might now use an image of Goofey instead of Mickey, and someone might be able to see the difference.
-
@BernieTheBernie There I was thinking you might instead propose Dumbo or Aladdin. They both know more about flying, after all.
-
a kneeling warthog
-
@sockpuppet7 where?
-
-
A bit too on the nose.
-
Lovecraft themed
-
@DogsB
E_SITTING
-
@homoBalkanus said in Art Wars: The AI Menace:
@sockpuppet7 where?
It was generated for a wibble article
https://wibble.fbmac.net/content/the-revolutionary-yoga-instructor-a-kneeling-warthog
-
@sockpuppet7 That picture... The Nope thread is
.
-
Some VFX artists doing cool stuff with AI:
