51–60 of 390 posts
I was wondering whether there were authenticity issues at stake? For example you can imagine someone wanting a stock image of "New York Skyline" and using an AI generated image that looks right but actually contains elements not in the skyline. This could undermine trust in Getty, which would be something they'd want to avoid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
generated images =/= created AI generated images have the potential to be art in the eyes of the beholder, but let's not pretend that generation is the same as the mental, physical, and spiritual flow state that goes into painting or drawing a piece.
why not? human artists do exactly the same thing - combine learned patterns into new compositions.
That's not the same thing, and there's a reason why all of those generated images seem... off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No they do not. They assert that the AI can't be the "author", it has to be a human. It's exactly the same as trying to assign copyright to your camera. Even though it generated the image from photons, it was the human pressing the button that mattered.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-copyright-offic... > An image generated through artificial intelligence lacked the “human authorship” necessary for protection > Both in its 2019 decision and its decision this February, the USCO found the “human authorship” element was lacking and was wholly necessary to obtain a copyright, Engadget’s K. Holt wrote. Current copyright law only provides protections to “the…
If you say "I directed the computer" or "I gave the AI a prompt", that would be enough to support your copyright claims.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No they do not. They assert that the AI can't be the "author", it has to be a human. It's exactly the same as trying to assign copyright to your camera. Even though it generated the image from photons, it was the human pressing the button that mattered.
Wasn't there an issue a few years back about a photo taken by a monkey was non-copyrightable?
Great. So who is now starting the Getty competitor that does accept these or (even better) accepts these and makes them available via CC license? With good custom and tagging, easier since you have the text prompt that generated the content, you could probably disrupt Getty's entire business model in half a year.
AI imagery is here to stay and will get better every day.
A service should either embrace it or they will lose a significant portion of their users/customers to another who does support AI content. While most of the AI content is not ready for prime time in terms of coherence and resolution, it's just a matter of time that it reaches (and quickly surpasses) traditional methods.
https://twitter.com/illubots/status/1572620909885669378
(I'm building an illustration agency for robot brains, aka neural networks. So far, I have 3 robots who can consistently draw in their unique style. This is by illustration robot Jonas)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we may be talking about two different concepts regarding creation of art. Absolutely humans (and myself, I'm a professional illustrator) use a mental patterns to come up with ideas. The physical difference in AI generation is the lack of butt-in-chair time of the flow state. Painting/drawing/rendering art is not just mindless time to be compressed; it's a mental/physical/emotional/(and some would say spiritua…
so you say what disqualifies AI is that it's a lot faster than humans at doing the same task
So what? FurAffinity’s stated goal with the ban is to protect human artists. Obviously banning something that undermines human artists is a step towards that goal. If you want a place to show your AI art, there are plenty of other sites that will welcome you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s funny because, I can make an image and they wouldn’t know it’s A.i generated.
Why is this voted down? It's true. How can this be in actuality prevented? Changing times. Not even imagery or art can be trusted. A whole range of human creativity based occupations is approaching the border of redundancy. You can argue that they may never arrive at that border, but there is no argument to be made that this is the first time ever in the history of human kind where artists are approaching that border…
It's no different than submitting a plagiarized essay to a teacher. Yeah, it's often hard to detect/prevent such submissions and you could even get away with it. But if you get caught, you'll still get in trouble and it will be removed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No they do not. They assert that the AI can't be the "author", it has to be a human. It's exactly the same as trying to assign copyright to your camera. Even though it generated the image from photons, it was the human pressing the button that mattered.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-copyright-offic... > An image generated through artificial intelligence lacked the “human authorship” necessary for protection > Both in its 2019 decision and its decision this February, the USCO found the “human authorship” element was lacking and was wholly necessary to obtain a copyright, Engadget’s K. Holt wrote. Current copyright law only provides protections to “the…
The person was still trying to get the AI marked as the owner. In fact in the application "does not assert that the Work was created with contribution from a human author" which the office acceded to but did not actually agree or disagree with.
So it still says nothing about whether a human can have copyright over a image they used an AI to make. It is another example that the AI itself having copyright is rejected.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No they do not. They assert that the AI can't be the "author", it has to be a human. It's exactly the same as trying to assign copyright to your camera. Even though it generated the image from photons, it was the human pressing the button that mattered.
Wasn't there an issue a few years back about a photo taken by a monkey was non-copyrightable?
The monkey pressed the buttons on the camera without human direction, and so was the "author". Since the monkey is not a human, no copyright existed.
In this case, the human claims the computer had no input at all, it did it by itself, hence no copyright. However we all know that computers can't do things by themselves in the same way as a monkey. The USCO accepts whatever explanation you give them though, so they had to go by the stated facts.
In any case where the human operator of the computer actually does want copyright of the images, all they have to do is say "I setup the computer to generate the images" and they will own the copyright.