While I appreciate the meaning of your comment, legally, it can't be "theft." Theft is when property is taken from one person and is no longer available to the original owner. By "theft" I would assume you meant "copyright infringement" which is a quite different thing, legally.
It MIGHT be copyright infringement, which is still to be …
While I appreciate the meaning of your comment, legally, it can't be "theft." Theft is when property is taken from one person and is no longer available to the original owner. By "theft" I would assume you meant "copyright infringement" which is a quite different thing, legally.
It MIGHT be copyright infringement, which is still to be determined in court. But the way these tools work, is algorithms and math, it's not quite as simple as it uses images. It is trained on billions of images, but when generating new images it's using it's algorithm, not the original images. And the images don't come out intact but transformed, remixed, and changed. Some argue, that's not so different from what human artists do. And for it to be copyright infringement, legally the copyright holder (in this case a human artist) must show not only that their image was used, and that it was registered properly, but that there are damages. What damages are there if an AI image is used in someone's newsletter, can't be attributed as a copy to of any one particular artist, and is a case where the newsletter operator never would have paid a cent to a human artist? In that case, there really aren't damages, I don't think. However, I am not a lawyer which is why clarification on these issue is something desperately needed.
I can't speak to the Chinese works situation, although I would think that a human working artist in one country deserves their art to be seen and have a chance to show and sell it just like any human does. Unless you mean Chinese artists are infringing other artists' copyrights, which again would become a legal issue.
I realize once most people take a position, my comment isn't likely to change their minds, but as the article pointed out, and even addresses the "learning" piece of AI, it's more complicated and nuanced than people think upon first blush.
I personally don't think human fine artists have anything to worry about and, eventually, this tech will become another tool they use, but I am remaining open-minded and could reverse course especially as the legalities are clarified.
You misunderstand me Clint. I think AI generated art is undercutting artist-generated art, using their own hand, just like Chinese manufacturing destroyed Australian manufacturing because they could not compete on price. If someone makes an AI image, no artist is employed to make the image, thereby depriving an artist of income.
My comments are not directed at you or Boldbrush, in fact, I do not know which newsletter you are referring to which has AI images.
I would like to see AI generated images marked as ‘AI’. Just as an artist would sign their original work of art.
I agree about marking them. However, AI doesn't just by itself "generate art." It still requires a human to work with it to get the output one wants. Francien Kreig, featured in our article, is making and selling AI art (and continuing to also make traditional oil paintings). Where there is AI art there is an artist behind it. Because in that case, it's not true that "no artist is employed to make the image." SHE is making the image and SHE is getting paid when she sells them, which she is doing. Is she doing something wrong by taking advantage of a new tool to provide herself with an additional income source?
I haven't yet seen an AI art undercut a fine artist, but would love to see real world examples of that if that is true. I can't imagine someone purchasing a 1024x1024 pixel image instead of a real watercolor or oil painting but I don't know for sure it hasn't happened.
While I appreciate the meaning of your comment, legally, it can't be "theft." Theft is when property is taken from one person and is no longer available to the original owner. By "theft" I would assume you meant "copyright infringement" which is a quite different thing, legally.
It MIGHT be copyright infringement, which is still to be determined in court. But the way these tools work, is algorithms and math, it's not quite as simple as it uses images. It is trained on billions of images, but when generating new images it's using it's algorithm, not the original images. And the images don't come out intact but transformed, remixed, and changed. Some argue, that's not so different from what human artists do. And for it to be copyright infringement, legally the copyright holder (in this case a human artist) must show not only that their image was used, and that it was registered properly, but that there are damages. What damages are there if an AI image is used in someone's newsletter, can't be attributed as a copy to of any one particular artist, and is a case where the newsletter operator never would have paid a cent to a human artist? In that case, there really aren't damages, I don't think. However, I am not a lawyer which is why clarification on these issue is something desperately needed.
I can't speak to the Chinese works situation, although I would think that a human working artist in one country deserves their art to be seen and have a chance to show and sell it just like any human does. Unless you mean Chinese artists are infringing other artists' copyrights, which again would become a legal issue.
I realize once most people take a position, my comment isn't likely to change their minds, but as the article pointed out, and even addresses the "learning" piece of AI, it's more complicated and nuanced than people think upon first blush.
I personally don't think human fine artists have anything to worry about and, eventually, this tech will become another tool they use, but I am remaining open-minded and could reverse course especially as the legalities are clarified.
Thanks for your comment!
You misunderstand me Clint. I think AI generated art is undercutting artist-generated art, using their own hand, just like Chinese manufacturing destroyed Australian manufacturing because they could not compete on price. If someone makes an AI image, no artist is employed to make the image, thereby depriving an artist of income.
My comments are not directed at you or Boldbrush, in fact, I do not know which newsletter you are referring to which has AI images.
I would like to see AI generated images marked as ‘AI’. Just as an artist would sign their original work of art.
I agree about marking them. However, AI doesn't just by itself "generate art." It still requires a human to work with it to get the output one wants. Francien Kreig, featured in our article, is making and selling AI art (and continuing to also make traditional oil paintings). Where there is AI art there is an artist behind it. Because in that case, it's not true that "no artist is employed to make the image." SHE is making the image and SHE is getting paid when she sells them, which she is doing. Is she doing something wrong by taking advantage of a new tool to provide herself with an additional income source?
I haven't yet seen an AI art undercut a fine artist, but would love to see real world examples of that if that is true. I can't imagine someone purchasing a 1024x1024 pixel image instead of a real watercolor or oil painting but I don't know for sure it hasn't happened.