Viral Instagram photographer confesses: His photos are AI-generated

laika

laika

Loitering Member
Messages
1,415
"With over 26,000 followers and growing, Jos Avery's Instagram account has a trick up its sleeve. While it may appear to showcase stunning photo portraits of people, they are not actually people at all. Avery has been posting AI-generated portraits for the past few months, and as more fans praise his apparently masterful photography skills, he has grown nervous about telling the truth."
 
Well, at least he did some photoshopping on them, apparently... :)

I don't mind AI art. But what saddens me is the endless lying and cheating. If someone posts photos he took of, say, a nature reserve in Japan, I want to know that they are real photos of the real thing.

But we are now rapidly getting to the point where you cannot believe a single thing you see or read on the web anymore. It might of course be a good thing. Maybe it will get us away from our screens and back to old-fashioned books - but be sure you get to read the book the author actually wrote, as opposed to the version rewritten by "sensitivity readers."

On second thoughts, I'm going back to the caves. Nature is always for real. :)
 
it's one of the things I don't like about artificial intelligence, we are only at the beginning but there are already various images, photos of people, we find these images without often indicating whether they are aiart, or drawings or people created by ai, so i think its more and more difficult to know what is ai , what is real , what is drawn.

for this I was hoping for a regulation, something, but I think it will be increasingly difficult to understand what is ai, what is not, I would like to know how to program and access some super ai, to make a search engine with a filter that if I am looking for a photo or I'm looking for an instagram profile it shows me what's ai, what's not, and it only shows it, if I want it.
at least being able to choose this, I think it would be nice and right.

one thing I notice on instagram profiles with people who only post works to.
they also have 25,000 followers or 30,000 thousand, but an average of 150 likes for each post and 10 comments, this seems strange to me, it bothered me and I don't look at them anymore.


Brian talked about caves, as a kid for a while I thought that when I grew up I would go to a cave to be a hermit..
then for a while I dreamed of becoming a magician.
then I was studying something that didn't matter to me, that I didn't want to do, but I saw that with the 2-year specialist course I could become a zoologist, I would have liked that, so I didn't abandon it right away but finishing the previous three-year period was increasingly painful for me and I left.
then I dreamed of something social and important to me, I tried it as best I could, it seemed possible but then I didn't make it and after so many years I still have regrets.
maybe I should have tried the cave.
 
Last edited:
The giveaway to me that these are NOT photographs is the rate at which they are posted = like every other day, every day, two a day, three a day !!!!

Imagine you were the photographer that made these. That would mean you'd have to go out and FIND these incredible faces, stop them, get them to talk to you, chat them up, convince them to let you take their photograph -AND POST IT for the world to see, then go back in your studio, dress them up, light them up, get to know them enough to elicit a good pose, take the photo, do all the post work -etc. Imagine in ONE day finding a frail old man with a great face, spending time with him, coaxing him into a great pose with great lighting, then speeding off to find a dapper businessman, a wistful woman.... etc.

Imagine the charisma, the people skills, the chutzpah, the boundless energy, enthusiasm, the sheer luck, to do that one, two, three times a day, five, six times a week... not to mention god-like photography skills, investment in equipment, travel expenses, etc.
 
118764507_1115556145506025_1409777534534527206_n.jpg
 
With AI art it cannot be copyrighted. Only people can copywrite something. that means no money.

use AI to generate a Company Logo or product. no copywrite at this time. That is a very risky thing to do.
 
cranberryartworks said:
With AI art it cannot be copyrighted. Only people can copywrite something. that means no money.

use AI to generate a Company Logo or product. no copywrite at this time. That is a very risky thing to do.
Click to expand...
Company Logos use a Trademark, not copyright - so you could generate an AI image and use it as a Trademark.
 
Bongo said:
Company Logos use a Trademark, not copyright - so you could generate an AI image and use it as a Trademark.
Click to expand...
But would you take the chance of losing the trademark or copywrite? Machines cannot own things (YET). it was just an idea.
Can you trademark something that is in the public domain?

If you found your picture or art in the AIs library it learned from, would you be part owner of the image/logo?
 
Last edited:
laika said:
"With over 26,000 followers and growing, Jos Avery's Instagram account has a trick up its sleeve. While it may appear to showcase stunning photo portraits of people, they are not actually people at all. Avery has been posting AI-generated portraits for the past few months, and as more fans praise his apparently masterful photography skills, he has grown nervous about telling the truth."
Click to expand...
Nervous might be an understatement.
 
brianvds said:
Well, at least he did some photoshopping on them, apparently... :)

I don't mind AI art. But what saddens me is the endless lying and cheating. If someone posts photos he took of, say, a nature reserve in Japan, I want to know that they are real photos of the real thing.

But we are now rapidly getting to the point where you cannot believe a single thing you see or read on the web anymore. It might of course be a good thing. Maybe it will get us away from our screens and back to old-fashioned books - but be sure you get to read the book the author actually wrote, as opposed to the version rewritten by "sensitivity readers."

On second thoughts, I'm going back to the caves. Nature is always for real. :)
Click to expand...
That's where I am also. If you do it, own it.
 
If you use an AI to write a story, who owns the story? I ask because of this article.
cranberryartworks said:
en.wikipedia.org

Monkey selfie copyright dispute - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

The laws could change but as of now you cannot copyright any writing, video, images, etc. created by A.I. -- but if you don't tell - how would they know?

In the case of the monkey photo, the whole point of the photo was that a monkey took it. He could have lied and said he took it, but then it would lose its value.

So unless the point of the story, photo, video, etc. is that it was produced by AI, you could simply not mention that fact to the copyright office, or lie.
 
Bongo said:
If you use an AI to write a story, who owns the story? I ask because of this article.


The laws could change but as of now you cannot copyright any writing, video, images, etc. created by A.I. -- but if you don't tell - how would they know?

In the case of the monkey photo, the whole point of the photo was that a monkey took it. He could have lied and said he took it, but then it would lose its value.

So unless the point of the story, photo, video, etc. is that it was produced by AI, you could simply not mention that fact to the copyright office, or lie.
Click to expand...

A further complication occurs to me: what if you use AI to create a reference image, that you use to paint from? Of course, once again, you need not necessarily disclose that.
 
brianvds said:
A further complication occurs to me: what if you use AI to create a reference image, that you use to paint from? Of course, once again, you need not necessarily disclose that.
Click to expand...
It would be the same as if you used a public-domain image as a reference. Free to make an exact copy, modify, distribute ,sell etc. but cannot copyright unless you make significant changes from the public domain (AI) image.

If you are using an AI image that you made no one would know that your painting was a copy of it. Further you could destroy the AI image you made after you used it for reference - so it would no longer even exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top