Viral Instagram photographer confesses: His photos are AI-generated

Bongo said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have this feeling AI is extensively going to be used for generating reference material. In fact, it probably already is - one more online rabbit hole to go look for and fall into... :)
 
brianvds said:
I have this feeling AI is extensively going to be used for generating reference material. In fact, it probably already is - one more online rabbit hole to go look for and fall into... :)
Click to expand...
absolutely. I've used it. Using Dali2 - most all results I got were horrible 'cause I'm not good at writing the prompt. But got some ideas from it - nothing I could use straight as a painting. I wanted to do a "Reservoir Dogs" with real dogs, with the dogs posed kinda like on the poster. SO this was what I got from Dalle
1695876067867.png


and this was my painting
1695876208597.png


It IS a rabbit hole that has been a dry hole for the most part for me.
 
Bongo said:
absolutely. I've used it. Using Dali2 - most all results I got were horrible 'cause I'm not good at writing the prompt. But got some ideas from it - nothing I could use straight as a painting. I wanted to do a "Reservoir Dogs" with real dogs, with the dogs posed kinda like on the poster. SO this was what I got from Dalle
Click to expand...

And that is one reason why AI art might not be as big of a threat to human illustrators as we think. To get really good results from it requires good prompt writing. I.e. prompting AIs is a skill in itself; you cannot just ask the secretary to quickly go generate a few great illustrations for some or other project.

It is just possible that in the end, really good prompt writers will be every bit as expensive to hire as human illustrators.

EDIT: it occurs to me that if AI prompt writing is a specialized skill, then it may be unfair to such prompters to exempt their work from copyright law.

But then, a great deal of copyright law has become largely irrelevant anyway, due to the difficulty in effectively enforcing it.
 
In the case of the monkey selfies, the way I understood it was that Slater set up his equipment to make it look like the animals were taking pictures of themselves. To me, that's HIS photography skill, therefore, his work.
 
Artyczar said:
In the case of the monkey selfies, the way I understood it was that Slater set up his equipment to make it look like the animals were taking pictures of themselves. To me, that's HIS photography skill, therefore, his work.
Click to expand...
""Slater further stated that he set the camera's remote shutter trigger next to the camera and, while he held onto the tripod, the monkeys spent 30 minutes looking into the lens and playing with the camera gear, triggering the remote multiple times and capturing many photographs.""

To me that sounds no different than if an animal triggered a trip wire that set off a remote camera out in the wild.
I think what happened was reporters were quick to characterize the situation as the monkey taking the photo, and Slater went along as it makes for a good story -- but in the end cost him the copyright.
 
The laws over AI have not even started yet. Anytime there is new tech there is a lot of confusion and the first creators of the tech always lose. See Blackberry, Napster and even VCR/Betamax. God, I still remember all the lawsuits over cell phone tech years ago. It was not the best tech companies that won it was the ones with the biggest lawyers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top