An argument against image AIs

edited November 10 in General Discussion
This is long but provocative and well-thought-through set of arguments.

dewaldtassieguy
«13

Comments

  • edited November 10
    Thought provoking indeed. I played around with Dall-e etcetera for a while, but the novelty has started to wear off. Some interesting arguments are made in the video but it's going to be like closing the gate after the horse has bolted. AI art is already with us. Restraining its unfettered development will be like trying to hold the tide back. However, the intellectual property issue is going to result in much litigation.  I think AI art does need to be constrained so that copyrighted work cannot be used with impunity. The not-for-profit loophole should not be misused like this by billion-dollar enterprises to avoid liability for infringing copyright. Legislatures and the courts will need to deal with this eventually.
    AbstractiondewaldMoleMan
  • Yes agree. I found his arguments provided good foundation for thinking through cohesive policy response to the inevitable.
    dewaldtassieguy
  • The premise here seem the expoitation of style origin in AI. AI quantifies style and style elements from up to billions of online images. It essentially copies style into the intelligence. Artist style is not protected. Images are protected. I can see where AI images can be very similar to other AI images. I see archetypes repeating all the time. That may become a problem?  

    I went on one site that sells stock last night. They have many thousands of unique AI images. AI is here.

    It is imaginative beyond what an individual can have mastery in. Yet is not as 'creative or 'imaginative' as the individual.  

    I've challenged AI on composition of a general themes. Landscape and still life. Even character portraits. It wins every time. When I challenge it on my historical imaginings - I win hands down. But of course I'm biased. 

    Individuals are far more capable within their discipline. Assuming a high level of competency.

    As a commercial issue there is a real problem. Untrained, clever prompting can make that individual a Rembrandt of AI. As I've summarized here a lot of people will be out of tradition 'creative' work. At the same time many opportunities will be created. Some call it progress?
    Abstraction
  • edited November 10
    That's a really good article (I've read the text version that can be found among the links under the video on Youtube). Thank you.

    I wrote in some other thread that I do not see much "i" in the AI, at least now. That's all interesting, yes, but we've seen many interesting things. The direction that "AI" takes does not show a lot of progress compared to the past - just old ideas running on the new powerful computers and using the data from Internet - none of that was available even two decades earlier.

    I once met a guy who was approaching retirement working as a carpenter. Long ago, he started his career as a computer mechanic. And that was a creative job, as he had to understand what cogwheels had to be lubricated and what pulleys had to be tightened. But he lost his job when computers lost all those cogwheels.

    Then think about photography. First operators of processing labs lost their jobs. Film manufacturing etc. Then photographers themselves. Who needs that many of them when everyone can take a pretty good photo with a phone and it even can be used for marketing brochures.

    Now art. Yes, some money will not be made, but we need to think first, what is the purpose of art, apart from generating money? (Illustration art excluded). Isn't it making someone who sees it feel good? Then those generated images can make many people feel good. I have no problems with that. If people who cannot afford any real art will enjoy computer generated images, that is all good. Today they do not pay artists, they probably buy posters made of stock photography.

    Then there is difference between a digital image and artwork as a real object. Yes, one day someone will connect image generating to some machine that can squeeze paint out and apply it. So what? How many people are buying artwork with paint applied by a human? And people understanding the difference will keep buying real artwork when they can afford it.

    P.S. /edit: I do understand the concerns of copyrighted intellectual property used to train the systems, and that probably THAT is the main concern of artists. I just tried to look at the bigger picture.
    AbstractionMoleMan
  • edited November 10
    outremer said:
    Then there is difference between a digital image and artwork as a real object. Yes, one day someone will connect image generating to some machine that can squeeze paint out and apply it. So what? How many people are buying artwork with paint applied by a human? And people understanding the difference will keep buying real artwork when they can afford it.
    Yes, agree. One aspect of art, for many, is human connection and communication. I consider that a visceral thing. I'm sure one day soon I could buy a 3-d replica of a Van Gogh that showed all the brushwork dimensionality. I would not feel the same about that than if I had in my home an original painting done by Vincent, his hand, the same canvas he set up and took out into the fields and made his first marks upon...
    Many will be content to decorate their homes with AI art and take great pride in it as AI art. Maybe some will buy into the 'selling points' and take pride in it being AI, more modern, how it summarises human creativity or whatever... This will not be me. There will always be those who want the human touch.
    As an artist in the age to come, I would humanise myself to the buyer. Give them 'stories' about who I am that they could retell, and what moved me to paint this so they have associations beyond a canvas and frame with paint on it and a name of some guy. I think that's a strong counter.
    GTOCBGMoleMantassieguy
  • @Abstraction right, same thoughts here.

    As for trying to fight against the use of real art to train the systems, I can guarantee that there will be more ways for computer nerds to bypass and ignore those. Think about tax laws in developed countries, then tax havens, and then finally rogue/non-aligned/etc states where money goes and will go when tax havens are getting pushed by powerful countries.

    And another aspect: imagine all modern art will be somehow protected, shielded from the "AI". Then they will train using classic art, and there is more than enough of that. Unless that will also be protected although too much of that is in the "public domain". The result will be that "AI" will be "learning" from classical art and creating images closer to it. I am fine with that either when I think what kind of crap is being sold as art nowadays.

    And there is hope that most people will one day understand why I and hopefully others use quotes in "AI" and "learn" (see my first reply) and will resist the bullshit marketers from IT.
    Abstraction
  • The technology is developing so fast that everything will be different in just a few years.

    For now.. I've been using it to explore different styles and get a visual idea of what things I like, and what things I don't in paintings and ideas. I've found it to be brilliant for this kind of exploration. I've narrowed down what kind of painting aspect I like in such a short space of time.

    I've then used the technology to create literally hundreds of images and from these I have around 5-8 definite ideas for my next paintings. None of the created images are OK as they are but need a lot of work and editing. For example my next painting source image has things moved and removed, and with 9 different layers of changes/adjustments in affinity. Even then I will interpret the source image in my own style and brushwork. I'm quite excited about what it will look like :)

    Abstraction
  • When learning how to paint we learn from those who came before use.  AI can copy a style and paint with brushwork to match. As you see below it can even make very unique abstraction.

    The appeal of a painting is that it is unique. Connected to a relatable person. The low end of the Gallery Market may take a price hit. But the current world economy will do more damage.

    Illustration will be affected. But can AI be any worse than the end of magazines was.

    Artist styles over the centuries have been evolutionary. Derivative of those that came before.  




    Abstraction
  • I found it fascinating, especially how AI uses/adjusts/responds to ALL the data that it encounters, even professional artists evaluations/criticisms etc. 
    From a consumers perspective I imagine that AI will make ‘better’ art available/affordable  to more people. 
    From an artists perspective, I imagine AI may lesson the need for professional artists to some degree. If it lessons the number of folks willing to pay for human fine art, less people will take the necessary learning journey required to become professionals, and it seems that number is already pretty limited. 

    As for the legal struggles, It’s hard, sometimes harmful to generalize, but I think and am proud to say, that most artists are intelligent, thoughtful, sensitive, curious, and empathetic souls that rarely fend well in the world of greed and power. I do mean that as a compliment. We are just Wired differently I suppose. 😉

    Abstraction
  • CBGCBG -
    edited November 11
    Digital art
    Raytraced art
    Fractal art
    3D modelled art

    A painting by a human artist.

    Shall we compare prices and prestige?


    Looking forward how will supply and demand play into it?  The market is already swimming in images...everyone and their Dog can tell a computer to make AI images... Perhaps soon physical paintings by a computer will be common (you only need to hook up a robot with paint and paint brushes to a computer with an AI image).


    But some things will always be in demand among humans...  at least those humans who want something real, meaningful, and well... human.

    AI art is good for human painters, which is becoming more rare in a flooded market...it gives human creators something to differentiate themselves from.
    Abstractiondewald
  • edited November 11

    I've got an image from Dall-e that I'd like to use. It's a wonderful image derived from my prompt about a cloudy day on the beach with sunlight streaming through gaps in the clouds.  I've done a lot of work on it like @Richard_P has done with his from MJ - multiple layers in Affinity adding material from my own photos, etcetera. But I worry that if I paint it, I won’t be able to show it in case the purists start pointing the finger. I could go stand on the beach for months and maybe get lucky and capture a similar image, but life is short. However, as well as my fear of purist finger pointing, I have ethical issues with the way Dall-e, MJ and the others infringe copyright using the not-for-profit loophole as explained in the video that @Abstraction posted. So, I’m torn between my desire to use a beautiful image as a basis for a painting and my moral compass that tells me it may be unethical to so. Until/unless I can resolve this conflict in my own mind, I probably won’t paint it.  I'm hoping that the arguments presented in the video @Abstraction posted prove to be wrong. But I'm not in a position at the moment to know whether they are or not. So, I'll hold off painting until I know more. 

    Abstraction
  • If AI produces art that is derived from all images that it can acquire without ‘permission’ from all the perspective sources, how can one artist be legally responsible for ‘copying’ an AI image? It would seem then that the creators of the AI sights should be held accountable as well. 
    As sources of subjects go for artists to paint, it seems to me that an artist would need to be very accomplished and experienced to do even a ‘good’ job of coping a masters like Sargent. So I am a bit confused as to the conversation about the source of inspiration, it’s all free in my mind. It’s the execution, feeling, and mastery of the work that creates the ‘value’. 
  • One of the criteria of intelligence is reasoning, including the ability to explain the results or the conclusion. It is something that can be reached on different type of knowledge databases and by systems that follow "if-then" rules, and on data volumes manageable for our brains. I am greatly simplifying that of course, plus it's been long time since I was playing with that. Decades ago but then the researchers were honest and doing it out of passion. 

    With the huge data and knowledge bases of today, and with mostly statistical brute force algorithms, no system will be able to explain how does it arrive at its output. We are not going to look at those billions of images to follow its path, aren't we?

    Now, why am I explaining that is important:

    When you are using an automatically generated image, you will never know what references are used for it. It may look unique, and almost always it will be hard to find something relatively close. But if you intend to use it commercially, think twice. You may one day be surprised.

    It's similar to using free images from unsplash. Fine for exercise, no-no for commercial use, as there is no guarantee that the images are not illegal uploads.
    MoleMan
  • CBGCBG -
    edited November 11
    tassieguy said:

    I've got an image from Dall-e that I'd like to use. It's a wonderful image derived from my prompt about a cloudy day on the beach with sunlight streaming through gaps in the clouds.  I've done a lot of work on it like @Richard_P has done with his from MJ - multiple layers in Affinity adding material from my own photos, etcetera. But I worry that if I paint it, I won’t be able to show it in case the purists start pointing the finger. I could go stand on the beach for months and maybe get lucky and capture a similar image, but life is short. However, as well as my fear of purist finger pointing, I have ethical issues with the way Dall-e, MJ and the others infringe copyright using the not-for-profit loophole as explained in the video that @Abstraction posted. So, I’m torn between my desire to use a beautiful image as a basis for a painting and my moral compass that tells me it may be unethical to so. Until/unless I can resolve this conflict in my own mind, I probably won’t paint it.  I'm hoping that the arguments presented in the video @Abstraction posted prove to be wrong. But I'm not in a position at the moment to know whether they are or not. So, I'll hold off painting until I know more. 

    As far as I am concerned, you are allowed to paint anything you wish. 

    If you want to sell something, copyright is another issue. 

    As for ethics, and attribution (when showing or sharing), just credit any creator (artist, photographer, AI) other than you involved in creation of the reference (in a very similar way you might do so using a photograph which you did not take).   
    "Sunset by tassieguy.  Painted from a reference created in part by Dall-e"

    If you neglect any mention of the AI, photographer, etc. of the reference, that would be misleading and unethical (a fraud from an artistic point of view), but as long as you own up to what you did and did not do, did and did not create, you've done all you need to!
    Abstractiontassieguy
  • @CBG
    This is a fairly resolved is. In music remixing is common. Resampling is common. It sucks by it mostly allowed.

    If you make A Dall e 3 image you will granted the rights. If you have open source AI like StableDiffusion on your machine the images are yours.

    Do you attribute Photoshop if you cobble together a bunch of your own photos into a photocomposition that you paint from? Did Warhol attribute his derivative work?

    I do believe that if you display an AI print as your's without attribution you're being a jerk. But I've seen much worse at high end juried shows.
  • CBGCBG -
    edited November 11
    @CBG
    This is a fairly resolved is. In music remixing is common. Resampling is common. It sucks by it mostly allowed.
    Resampling is using isolated elements, bits and pieces, in your original work which, includes those bits.  It is not entirely made of elements by a single source, nor put together entirely by that source.  It's "yours" as the author, because you made the whole from a bunch of different parts.

    True, Dall-e produces something which is in that way a mozaic or a composite.  But copying a mozaic  as a whole is not itself creating a mozaic,.. its not creating a whole work, but straight copying of a whole work.

    @CBG

    If you make A Dall e 3 image you will granted the rights. If you have open source AI like StableDiffusion on your machine the images are yours.


    Purportedly.  Only insofar as the rights are actually properly capable of being transferred.  As noted by tassieguy the courts might have something to say one day.

    If a rogue engineer in the company changed to code to copy famous copyrighted artworks directly... no "license" can grant you rights to that, no matter what the license with the software claims.

    EDIT:  If you ask Dall-e to paint something with Mickey Mouse or Darth Vader in it... I think Disney might have something to say about your "rights" to the image.

    @CBG

    Do you attribute Photoshop if you cobble together a bunch of your own photos into a photocomposition that you paint from? Did Warhol attribute his derivative work?

    As the author of the "cobbling" of the photos, there would be no reason to attribute anything to Photoshop.  All of the creative activity and choices were made the person who uses photoshop.

    Think of Dall-e as a room full of artists, if you say :  paint me a crazy realistic picture of Kate Blanchet with a green sweater and a string of pearls... no matter how faithfully they did it, and no matter how many times you refined it with verbal commands, you did not paint that picture.

    Perhaps you were the "Director" of such a work... but no more certainly.

    In Warhol's case it was clear that his works were derivative.  that he did not design the Campbell's Soup can, that he did not take the photo of Marilyn Monroe ( or did he? I really don't care for or about Warhol)

    @CBG

    I do believe that if you display an AI print as your's without attribution you're being a jerk. But I've seen much worse at high end juried shows.
    I think you are more than a jerk, you are being a poser and a fraud.  Because it looks like a single person made the work, it is misleading (recall the reason why you encourage attribution to photographers of photo references) 


    as for juried shows,

    Lol.  No doubt.  :)




  • I think it's a bit more complicated than that. If you were creating a history painting or a still life there is a large element of planning and design input from the artist. But landscape paintings (without changing parts) rely on what nature and man has put there. There is still composition and other work for the artist to do, but less than for those other genres.

    Not trying to belittle landscapes, just saying the subject matter makes a difference :) 
  • Again STYLE is not protected. Images are. These head cuts were prompted with "... gauche in the in the style of James Gurney". I would challenge anyone to find even an element or Gurney. As the character ages elements are evolved. That takes more than pieces of clip art. It takes big thinking and a level of 'skills' that very few artist could do. Maybe Gurney.
    I spent a lot of years doing graphic programing. It's evolved to this in a mere 15 years. I was programing vector art and page descriptions an a little bit of bits. 
    Abstraction
  • outremer said:


    When you are using an automatically generated image, you will never know what references are used for it.
    This is what worries me.
    Abstraction
  • If you just finished reading a bunch oh art history books and you make a painting you will never know the reference or influences. All artist borrow indirectly or indirectly without being aware. It’s human. The idea that a reference of style was by a human or AI is is natural. Unavoidable. Taking an image of the web even if it’s copyright free and painting it is worse. It’s a conscious decision.  
    Again style is not protected. 
    Abstraction
  • @Richard_P I like the way you use it. I'm not hoping it will go away. I'm just interested in understanding implications.
    Richard_P said:
    But landscape paintings (without changing parts) rely on what nature and man has put there. There is still composition and other work for the artist to do, but less than for those other genres.
    I agree, but I still think there's a lot for the artist to do. Thousands of people take photos at the same locations all the time, even on the same day. I've been in so many places I couldn't capture with the lens what I was feeling. Sometimes I'm disappointed by a dozen of my photos at the same location. Then someone frames it in a certain way, with the right light and an artistic eye and people are moved.
    The idea that a reference of style was by a human or AI is is natural. Unavoidable.
    Agree. Style influence is unavoidable and therefore not a problem. A jazz guitarist (it was in Guitar Player magazine in the early eighties, can't remember who) once said, 'The secret of originality is diversity of influence.' If you use AI to generate ideas but then create a different image inspired by several AI images, that's original. If you just paint the AI image, you must reference it because people will assume you photographed or created the composition.
  • Just wanted to give you an example on how those intelligent things can work. It is quite outdated, they made a lot of progress since that. Anyways...

    I used to browse news headlines on Google news (German edition). They bring you a headline, a summary and their "intelligent" logic also adds a thumbnail image to illustrate it in the way it "thinks" best.

    The news was about meetings of then German chancellor Angela Merkel, and Greek and French presidents. I liked the way the system built by one of the most powerful IT companies picks the images for female and male meetings at high level. I saved a screenshot.

    I imagine the system analyzing images and keywords for those images was learning in a wrong way. Maybe it was too young with typical teenage imagination bubbling under the hood and is now wiser. But no one can guarantee that the systems of today have all hormones removed. Good luck trusting them.


  • @outremer... et al
     
    I don't have any German, so had to resort to Google Translate and which revealed the following...
     
    Tsipras meets Merkel and Hollande - attacks against Moscow at the summit
    THE WORLD - 1 hour ago
    Riga - The heads of state and government of the EU want regardless of the severe crisis with Russia their relations with the eastern...
    Share     Show more
     
    So no clues there as far as I can see, so they must be nested in the image. Am not sure Angela Merkel ever looked like that! Ms. Merkel is certainly no Rhinemaiden, and probably never was - not in a delicately poetic sense anyway. Tricky, isn't it? Here today: gone tomorrow. Problem is, how earnestly and honestly the present is cemented into the narrative - and what insecurities might abandonment of that principle create regarding the safekeeping of a rational future.
     
    With kind rgds, Duncan
  • CBGCBG -
    edited November 13
    I can’t wait
    till I can install AI pilots in all the planes of my airline and fire all the pilots, but I’ll keep one human pilot for my private jet.
    tassieguyMoleMan
  • CBGCBG -
    edited November 13
    @KingstonFineArt

    Of course not, but “there is consensus” that my AI piloted planes are “perfectly safe” and “safe and secure”.  We own the science on AI and flying!  

    We also sell life insurance.  (we happen to be immune from prosecution but that isn’t really a conflict of interest or corruption of any kind, trust me!)


    In all seriousness, people are the best and the worst… the same and possibly more so applies to AI and The Machine in general.
    MoleMan
  • edited November 13
    AI is making its presence felt in art as it has so many other areas of human endeavor.  AI is a powerful tool we humans have invented. As with the steam engine, its implementation will entail winners and losers, but the overall gains will outweigh the downsides. Climate change notwithstanding, anyone who thinks the industrial and scientific revolutions were a bad idea should revert to a hunter gatherer lifestyle and see how they like it. 

     AI in art is not a zero-sum game. Its major impact will be on commercial art/ illustration. The upside of that is that there will be new jobs for people designing ever more powerful computers and writing code for AI to make even better images for such commercial purposes. And it will not replace fine art.

    Fine art can make use of AI the way it made use of photography and image editors. There is nothing ethically questionable about doing that providing we do not use images that infringe the rights of others. I don't think we need to say we used our own original photography as an aid in creating a work of art and, similarly, I can't see why we need to say we used AI as a tool. But even if such acknowledgement were ethically necessary, that would be the easy bit. The hard bit is knowing whether the image AI produced for us drew on the work of other artists in a way that infringes upon their rights. The video that @Abstraction posted raises some serious questions in this regard and I will not be using AI images for painting until I am satisfied that no infringement of intellectual property took place in their creation. I don't want AI taking my paintings and using them to create images for others to use without acknowledging my part in the image's creation and I would not feel right about doing that to other artists. 

    Until we have more clarity on the source of images AI uses to generate images from out prompts, I think we need to think seriously about the ethics of using AI generated images in our paintings. 
    Abstraction
  • I wont have any problems with it as I wont be going near it  :)

    Im sure it is fun for many but I have enough distractions and prefer to spend as little time as I can on a computer.

    As for asking a programme to come up with ideas for me, well so far it has worked out ok for my own mind and brain to do that.

    Mine may not have the bells and whistles and cinematic wow factor of the latest computer graphics drawn from recipes baked from the swamp of ideas of any artist that has ever been on the internet.


    But I can live with that.

    It puts me in mind of manufacturing and I understand that there is a market for off the shelf ready made ideas, just as there is for traditional crafted work that has been created from the minds of artists who can think for themselves.

    Im going to have to unplug you now HAL.


     =) 


    tassieguyMoleManCBGAbstraction
  • edited November 13
    @tassieguy,

    There have been several posts on all this on the forum and I have not had the inclination to be as involved.

    Interesting article. What jumps out and I think is very sad is that fact that this technology has used and it’s using work from artists who have not consented to that.


    This definitely means it is something I will avoid.

    Now of course everyone can make their own minds up on this, but as far as im concerned if you are using it you are complicit in the above mentioned ripping off of other artists without their consent. 

    Ask yourselves how you would like it if if your treasured works that you had created were snapped up for this mega AI recipe book without you even being asked.


    Some people will be making a lot of money off the backs of other peoples works and ideas, with the originators seeing non of it.





    tassieguyAbstraction
  • Yes, @MichaelD, that is my concern with it. Until I know what references AI used, I don't feel right about using an AI generated image.
    MichaelD
  •  The references for Dall e are available. If you want to wade through a billion pictures.
  • edited November 13
    Ignorance, and the inconvenience of rectifying it, are no excuse in IP law or in ethics.  In common law jurisdictions (US, UK, Australia, etc.) IP infringements are generally seen as being subject to the doctrine of strict liability, or at least subject to the negligence test in tort law. Beware.


    CBGAbstractionMichaelD
  • edited November 13
    @KingstonFineArt

    You have often been proactive on the forum in underlining the importance and fairness of crediting the original artist when someone posts a copy they have done of someones work.

    Perhaps you see this differently.

    How convenient, im sure having a billion makes it much easier to hide who you have stolen from. 

    Having  access to the references of those being ripped off does not really change that they are being ripped off.


    CBGtassieguywhunt
  • If I asked the AI to paint an image in the manner of Leonardo then there are relatively few surviving paintings he did. If I asked the image to paint a photo of the Australian bush then it's using the sum total of thousands of photos people have took. I don't feel like it's ripping off one artist here, but it's learnt from them all just like we do with all our visual influences when we paint or take photos.

    So I think the context matters too. Ripping off one artists style is different than learning from thousands of photos IMHO.
    Abstractionwhunt
  • I see your point @Richard_P, however it cleverly isnt going for one artist and I dont think that diluting it by taking from thousands makes it any less a rip off.

    To me there is a marked distinction to be made between people using their influences to make their art and a company making money from thousands of art images and not seeking or gaining permission from artists.

    I am also aware that I am probably a Luddite in the minority.  :)
    AbstractionCBGtassieguy
  • Style is not protected. Only images. Unless you are trying to say the in the style of painting is in fact authentic. Yes that's fraud. But if you paint like Thomas Benton and sign your name It's accepted. The not coming but in the style. Would you make to the top of the charts at Sotheby's I don't think so.
    Even if you paint in someone's style chances are it's going to be different enough anyway. 

    I don't see a hell of a lot of original work on the net. It's all derivative.

    Abstraction
  • edited November 13
    Acknowledgement: There's no doubt we will see art done by humans where the composition is not theirs,  but AI, and not stated as such. If they do not do this they are misleading the public and potential buyers. Since forever it has been considered ethical to acknowledge a copied work or people have the right to assume it is their own composition, from them, as an artist. Disagree if you like, but if I paid good money for an original work and later discovered the artist simply painted an image generated by a computer I would feel differently about the work and the purchase. And because we can never know, we will never know.
    CBGMichaelD
  • Picasso, T. s. Elliot, Tennyson and other artists have said  Good artists copy, great artists steal.
    I think it refers to the fact that they took the best of the artists that preceded them and made them better.
    Back when I was in school I ran across a set of etchings done in The School of Fountainbleu.  I could pick out content that very closely looked like it could have been used to create Picasso’s La Geurnica painting. I’ve tried to locate those prints since then but have not been able to find them.  
    I doubt that I will do anything with AI imagery. I can see how it could be useful.  But as an artist you’ve got to make it “better”. 
    MichaelD
  • edited November 14
    As @MichaelD said, it's the fact that artists have not given permission for their work to be used by AI that is the real legal and ethical issue. And @KingstonFineArt, my work is on the net, and it is not derivative. The compositions, the colours combinations, etcetera are all original and I have not given my permission for it to be used by AI. I don't like the fact that it may be so used without my permission which I have not and would not give freely to the billion-dollar enterprises behind MJ and the like who will use it to make more billions. The artists whose work is so used get no recompense or acknowledgement. That is not right.
    CBGMichaelD
  • All work ois derivative. There are very few original artists. If you paint simple realism it is derivative. Big deal. Even the great realists were. Are. 

    You don’t give permission to have your style copied. It just happens. 
  • Guess I can start knocking out forgeries then and if I have any complaints I wil just say `The work and signature is merely in the style of………`
  • edited November 14

    @KingstonFineArt, my landscapes are derivative only in the sense that they depict an actual scene.  They are derivative only in the banal sense that everything we create is derived from the world around us. But my landscapes are not derivative in the sense that they draw on the work of others. The one I've just painted of the rockpool, for example ( https://forum.drawmixpaint.com/discussion/14927/rockpool-30-x30-76cmx76cm-ooc#latest ), is composed solely by me, it's based on my own photo but does not copy the photo exactly and was painted with no reference to the work of others. I've never seen any painting quite like it before. For the purposes of this discussion, I’ve done several image searches and there don’t seem to be any other paintings like it on the web. I prompted Dall-e for an image of a rockpool with mussels, but it could not come up with something like my painting. Now, my painting is posted here in the forum. I don't know whether AI can get access to it. But if tomorrow AI generates an image of a rockpool that looks like my painting, then would I not be justified in wondering if my copyright had been infringed? AI cannot get up and go check out the rock crevices on the Tasmanian seashore like I did to find this subject. It could only have got the picture from the web, and I can't find another like mine on the web.  If an AI image is made using my painting, I will have not given permission for it to be so used. How would this not be wrong? If someone then uses the AI image to create a painting like mine and passes it off as their own, then why should I not be able to claim copyright infringement? If someone had access to my painting, or a good photo of it, and copied it and passed it of as their own, then that would be a violation of my copyright, no? How would the AI situation be different? Someone who uses an AI image derived from my painting might want to argue that they got it from an AI that got it from the billions of images on the web and that they had no way of knowing the image was mine and, finally, that this somehow absolves them from liability. But that's like someone stealing your car and then saying, oh, but I didn't know it was yours. Maybe they didn't know the car was yours, but they certainly knew it wasn't theirs.  Even if only certain aspects of my work are used in training an AI, the fact is that I have not authorized such use and I am given no choice on whether to opt out of this system. If it is true that AI is using images in the way described in the video that @Abstraction posted above, and in the Guardian story I linked to above, then I think there is a problem and wouldn't feel right about using such images unless the problem can be resolved.


    CBG
  • MichaelD said:


    To me there is a marked distinction to be made between people using their influences to make their art and a company making money from thousands of art images and not seeking or gaining permission from artists.

    Being critical of AI I can accept arguments of all sides in this discussion. But I think @michaeld now got a 100% hit. I would also add the EASE with which one can do it.

    To repeat myself I do not think a lot can be done to restrict all that but maybe... Look at EU regulations regarding GMO's.
    MichaelD
  • edited November 14
    outremer said:
    MichaelD said:


    To me there is a marked distinction to be made between people using their influences to make their art and a company making money from thousands of art images and not seeking or gaining permission from artists.

    Being critical of AI I can accept arguments of all sides in this discussion. But I think @michaeld now got a 100% hit. I would also add the EASE with which one can do it.

    To repeat myself I do not think a lot can be done to restrict all that but maybe... Look at EU regulations regarding GMO's.
    @outremer Yes, I agree, there are plenty of well-thought-out and intelligent comments within this conversation - although I suspect your final phrase is something of a plant.  ;)
     
    Best rgds, Duncan
  • MoleMan said:
    outremer said:
    MichaelD said:


    To me there is a marked distinction to be made between people using their influences to make their art and a company making money from thousands of art images and not seeking or gaining permission from artists.

    Being critical of AI I can accept arguments of all sides in this discussion. But I think @michaeld now got a 100% hit. I would also add the EASE with which one can do it.

    To repeat myself I do not think a lot can be done to restrict all that but maybe... Look at EU regulations regarding GMO's.
    @outremer Yes, I agree, there are plenty of well-thought-out and intelligent comments within this conversation - although I suspect your final phrase is something of a plant.  ;)
     
    Best rgds, Duncan
    Yes, not WMO's. Genetically modified organisms, in particular GMO agriculture is used widely outside the EU, but EU restricted that mostly to research. I meant that while restricting AI is not an easy task, be it in art or elsewhere, something can still be done. Sorry I was too short and it wasn't clear.
    MoleMan
  • edited November 14
    There needs to be legislation and penalties to stop the use of artists' images to train AIs without the artists' consent. And some of the revenue generated by the billion-dollar enterprises behind the image AIs already up and running should go as royalties to the artists whose work has already been used. Without their consent. As far as I can see, this issue is an ethical no-brainer. Using artists work this way without their consent is just wrong.
  • Probably not a bad idea.

    But first I like to see legislation to pay artists a percentage of the resale of their art. 

    I was in at the founding of The Graphic Artist Guild back in the early 70s. This was a demand then and had been a cry from fine artists for years. NFTs, as weird as they are, have future profits built in. Probably as an attraction to artist to create NFTs. 

    I'm all for royalties. I actually got a royalty check for around $10 on the second printing of a children text book. It helped pay a parking ticket.

    It would be an accounting nightmare. Artists move, change accounts, die. Maybe there could be an AI for that.

    I can remember when I was at Bloomberg News there was talk UBI. Universal Base Income based on AI job displacement. The idea started at the heart of Silicon Valley.  Would we do a big interactive on it? At the time nothing came of it.

    I'm not against it. Not at all. In fact I think it's the future. But don't give me the task of setting up the systems of payment. 
  • All good ideas, @KingstonFineArt. I'm pleased (and somewhat surprised) that you see things this way. And just because implementation might be difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do these things. They are right and so we should do them.  :)
Sign In or Register to comment.