Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SwagginsYolo420 t1_jab9ycc wrote

Photos are a great example.

Somebody takes a photograph of a skyline, why should they be able to copyright that? All they did was press a button, the skyline itself was created by others.

If the answer is because of the compositional choices involved, then that's no different from a user giving specific prompts to an AI. Which is exactly what the comic book author was doing when creating their work.

Photography should not be copyrightable under the same standards held to AI in this case.

> don't understand art

Understanding art isn't a prerequisite for creating art.


cachemonet0x0cf6619 t1_jacpa5i wrote

i disagree with photos as a good example. the skyline in your example never changes is. and you and i can stand at the same spot and take the same photo with the same camera and it will turn out the same.

on the other hand this is not true for ai art. you and i can use the sample computer and provide the same prompts and we will get something different for the same prompt.


SwagginsYolo420 t1_jaf341y wrote

> and you and i can stand at the same spot and take the same photo with the same camera and it will turn out the same.

But both of our photos would still be protected by copyright despite being near identical to each other. Yet the AI image, created by giving it the exact same factors as input, down to film stock and exposure time, lens selection, time of day and weather conditions etc, would not be.

And there would be some differences in our photos, mostly random factors like the exact pattern of clouds, or visible lights on/off at the moment, passing birds in the sky etc.

And that random factor is something to consider, random imagery generated by nature is copyrightable in an image - like a cloud pattern, vegetation or natural landscape - but not if that random imagery is generated by AI.

> you and i can use the sample computer and provide the same prompts and we will get something different for the same prompt.

The more specific information we give the prompt, the more similar the results would be. I bet we could get pretty close by being providing enough information in the prompt, with the minor differences in detail being reasonably considered inconsequential.


Skullpt-Art OP t1_jae4n33 wrote

Here's what was said about the difference between photography and AI art generation :

'The office argued that, unlike a photographer, Midjourney users have
very limited control of the final images. Photographers manipulate
framing, lighting, subject, exposure time, depth of field, composition,
and more when creating a photograph. According to USCO, “The process by
which a Midjourney user obtains an ultimate satisfactory image through
the tool is not the same as that of a human artist, writer, or
photographer… the initial prompt by a user generates four different
images based on Midjourney’s training data. While additional prompts
applied to one of these initial images can influence the subsequent
images, the process is not controlled by the user because it is not
possible to predict what Midjourney will create ahead of time.'


SwagginsYolo420 t1_jaey7qm wrote

That may sound convincing to somebody unfamiliar with the software, but how the process is characterized is misleading.

Certainly, the less information given to the AI, the more random the output. However if you sculpt your prompt to include all of the photographic and desired image factors, you can produce a very specific result. The AI model can simulate all of the photography factors, listed, if you instruct it to do so. Lens type, exposure time, lighting, film stock etc.

A person could take an actual photo. Then recreate that image from scratch through the AI by providing enough information to sculpt the output with all the factors involved in the photo's composition.

That would leave you with two nearly identical images created by the same person, but only one of those images able to be protected by copyright law. But both images required the same compositional choices on behalf of the image creator.

I recommend every play with software like midjourney or stable diffusion themselves and learn the basics about how AI prompting is done, and learn how specificity on the part of the artist/software user is always going to be necessary to produce the desired result.

Certainly with the comic book artist in the article, it should become obvious that the images in question aren't completely at random, but all done in a similar style that served to illustrate the story and in a specific order that matches and illustrates the written text. That can't occur at random, it required very specific decisions made by the artist for each image.


Skullpt-Art OP t1_jaez8yn wrote

Has there been any examples of what you've described? The two nearly-identical images, one produced by human and one produced by AI with explicit direction, as opposed to 4 generated close-enough ones?

Also, I think the argument is that the actions of one using AI to create art is closer to what an Art Director does, rather then what an artist does. You can direct a person or a computer with directions, but that doesn't mean you are the one putting pen to paper, so to speak.


SlyRaptorZ t1_jabh1mr wrote

You and these AI promoters aren't creating art.


SwagginsYolo420 t1_jabvmm9 wrote

Art depends on the intent, does it not?

I think the concept of craftsmanship is what is the issue here. As in, somebody can spend years mastering a specific creative technique with a lot of study and practice, and now somebody else can just come along now and press a few buttons to generate a very similar result. It's a lot to think about.

Craftsmanship is not required for creating art, though it is arguably a preferred ingredient by many who appreciate art.


SlyRaptorZ t1_jabcpae wrote

But in the case of AI, it's not skylines, it's art that people have made themselves that is being stolen. I say people who don't understand this don't understand art because they don't know what it is to create something and have it stolen as if it were nothing.


gurenkagurenda t1_jabflgo wrote

This sounds like you’re confused about how these models work. It’s not just a big database of art that the model is clipping pieces out of.


SlyRaptorZ t1_jabhdts wrote

I've had it explained to me quite well. The AI isn't drawing or painting anything. It's extrapolating. If you didn't feed all of those drawings of a horse into it to spit back out, you wouldn't be able to ask it for a horse and it would draw a horse.

There are a lot of you who are wistfully telling yourselves bullshit to side step the fact that you're nothing but thieves asking a computer to do your work for you like a monkey.


gurenkagurenda t1_jabikll wrote

The model does not need to see drawings of a horse to produce a picture of a horse. It needs to see pictures of horses, sure, but those could be photographs, drawings, whatever. As a human, you also would not be able to draw a picture of a horse without ever seeing a horse, so I’m not sure what your point is.

Also, how do you know that you’ve had it explained to you well? Unless you’ve attempted to apply the knowledge, you can only tell if you’ve had it explained convincingly


SwagginsYolo420 t1_jabu0rv wrote

Ok but see why my example of photography in particular applies here.

A photographer can use a specific camera with a specific lens, specific camera settings, shutter speed, film stock etc. They can photograph a specific city skyline from a specific angle and distance and elevation at a certain time of day/night with specific weather and visibility etc. They could then take a unique picture.

The photographer has made all of those creative choices and hardware selection to compose the shot, which is a primary argument as to why a photograph is copyrightable and art.

The exact same photographer could also use a popular imaging-creation AI, and almost perfectly re-create the real photograph they took via AI by carefully using all of those same exact creative choices down to the lens type, in the software prompt.

So the same person would have created a nearly identical image from two different methods. Yet one is currently copyrightable and one is not - despite the same creator putting the same effort and knowledge into composing both versions of the final image.