This whole vid was AI-bro babble, just with a nicer voice and more elegant accent. AI prompters are not artists. You're quoting Mark Twain...if he were alive, what would he have thought about a machine that allows every single person around him to write JUST like him, rendering him obsolete, through the commodification of his rare talent?
Opioid for the mediocre people who were never in any art industry and never sat down to develop a skill. Those AI bros have no idea what they are talking about.
i love using ai art but i have been extremely unimpressed with most peoples ai creations. i am fully back onto REAL art. i use the ai for inspiration rn not posting ai stuff anymore
The best AI comes from artists and writers, the rest is just normal and empty. I use AI a lot but i don't post online. I use it to illustrate my ideas and boost them.
What they should do, is remove all rights for AI generated art to have copyright. That would devalue it enough for money milkers to again focus on Human generated art.
11:50. Just because we in the "west" (America and Europe) put such pity limitations on A.I art generation does not mean that others will be so noble... such as our friends in Russia and our Chinese friends... do you people who call yourselves real artists really think that your "art" will or hasn't already been used by countries or people who live in those countries that have no "copyright laws" that you can use to limit them? I don't think so and I don't think you will ever see true "copyright laws" protecting your "art" from being used by them in their own specific A.I. models 🤔🤷♂️. Even if you win some court cases here and even mange to limit A.I. generated art here the people in other countries like Russia or China may still most likely break whatever new A.I. "copyright laws" we might come up with in the coming years... just think about how... not so smart you are being hopefully your tiny brains can finally understand this 🙂......................
i have NEVER understood why these ppl have been making a big deal out of art generated by a machine, these are not your creations these are simply put machine generated images based on models from your work, you hsve NO rights to something a machine makes for a person.
What I need is an AI tool that detects AI images. The web is flooded with AI production and I don't want to use it for inspiration. I want to be inspired by human creativity, not artificial algorithms.
@@aisamsonreal Hi! Partially created by AI, inspired by AI - don't want it for my references. Edited by AI - a derivative work made by AI, same as where someone takes someone else's picture and paints over it and passes it off as their own - don't want it for inspiration, except the changes are only technical stuff (brightness, contrast, tones, etc). I want to be inspired by art created 100% by the human emotions and mind. Many of the people who endorse the use of AI for creative tasks do not realize the main problem, as obvious as it is - AI takes away from humans what makes humans human - creativity. What's the point of wanting to make art and letting a machine do it for you? This is not art, but production. Аnd can appreciate the production only as production, not as an art.
I understand and appreciate your view, but suppose every AI art site is closed because of the Anti-Ai activists (artists), you're basically saying to those that use AI art sites "tough shit". Not everyone can draw or paint, and those are the people that use these sites, they enjoy creating images. I am aware that images created by AI are not deemed to be art, and that many artists are concerned that it will affect their livelihoods, which it won't, but let's not punish the 10's or 100's of thousands or even millions of people who enjoy creating these images, who derive pleasure from it. Art will always be a human activity, AI will never replace humans.
@@deejay1964Thank you for your understanding and appreciation! The answer is, why non artist will use artists sites to post AI production? There are sites for AI things, let them post there, and leave art sites for humans art. That way no one is punished, except that already artists got less clients, because the clients use AI to do many of their needs, and as an artist, I see it from my experience. Besides, last week I was searching internet for references for my own project and at least half of the images were AI generated, and with the time this will become bigger problem. It's end of human creativity, everyone will use AI instead of his brain, because that's what AI does - not only labor tasks, but creative ones as well. There will be no need for humans to use and develop their brains except to consume AI creations. I just watched a video presentation from NVidia about their new super chip, which characteristics are mind blowing and they will use not only for AI software, but will integrate it in robots as well. Soon we, humans, will be obsolete, mate... :)
for 2d art is easy to see if it AI art and that honest program. scraper take art and put in blender so harder to tell it A.I generated because it steal some one else art.
Does this mean we can sue anyone who used our art work as inspiration and be sued by anyone who inspired us? As a digital artist I'm among those most affected by Midjourney, but I don't think it's reasonable to sue them when they're not directly duplicating our work.
You get it Brotha 💯‼️ AI is literally our best interpretation of how our brain works so it very hypocritical with what they are going with (I totally agree with your point of using AI to try to duplicate or forge peoples work and how that needs to be dealt with accordingly)
If "style" itself is protected, then Walmart, Target and other stores better get their checkbooks out. Because, if this grows legs, they are going to be sued by designers who will claim that the clothing styles they created were - knocked-offs by these stores to create cheaper versions of their fashions. But, I believe this will be shot down in the courts. I smell a lawyer rat in this one, trying to drum up business.
@@Freshlygrazed I beg to differ. An art SUBJECT with the artist individual styling is a commodity, like a written book. The style or technique used to produce it, is not. This lawsuit will not fly, it touches too many variables. I’ve dealt with patents, and if I went to Yosemite Park and photographed the same subject matter exactly like the famous photographer, Ansel Adams, in his black and white technique, as long as it is known that is my photo art, that’s fine. BUT, if I do the same thing and try to pan it off as an Ansel Adams photo, then I could be sued, because his actual photos with his signatures, prints, proofs and originals are solely his and his heirs and cannot be otherwise. He owns the copyrights and patents on his actual works NOT the style rendered in. If someone, purposely creates an actual piece by an artist is whose styling is apart of the AI’s algorithm and in turns tries to make money off of said piece, they can then be sued. The artists who are suing don’t understand the full ramifications, that if the lawsuit won (which it won’t) they in-turn could be sued by the computer companies who could actually say well you used our computer technology to make your digital art… we want you to pay us for using our technology to make money. There would be lawsuit after lawsuit. Because, the court will hear it (the lawsuit) in America any complaint has the right to be heard in a court of law. But, it will go no further in the end, because something like that would negatively affect ingenuity, Western Capitalism and Commerce.
Simply put, pay all the non-public domain artists that were directly ripped off to train the model. Pay them handsomely, give them stock, make sure they are not made homeless by the software that owes its existence to them. Pay the artist to point that the AI programs are barely profitable.... it is the only right thing to do.
I'm a fine artist and illustrator and if MidJourney had me on that list, I would be flattered because at the end of the day, it's not going to affect my overall sales versus showing my art on the internet as Chinese companies like Cotosen saw fit to be nice enough the steal several of my Steampunk Designs to put on their shirts, their shorts, hats, etc., and they are popular items apparently. There is absolutely NO WAY I can begin to sue this company as they just change their name. To CYA, they even have the audacity to have a part where you can write and let them know that an image on a piece of clothing as they have hundreds of images that it's obvious they stole from American and European artists, that you can write them about the infringement and they will "Immediately STOP using said images!" - BS! I've written over six times to the company and their "sister companies" on the web and .....crickets. Meanwhile, my designs are helping someone else make money - I'm so glad the I could help! Eyes ROlling upward. My point is that it did not take A.I. to steal my art. They did that on their own just fine with a 20 year old image enlargement program. I was more affected by Marvel and DC when the movies came out as suddenly EVERYONE and their brother started to steal the works on the hardworking artists and clearly trademarked designs of Batman, Wonder Woman, Ironman and then re-print them for Con Show prints, t-shirts, etc. Everyone didn't want original art, the crowd wanted Another image of Wonder Woman or Batman!! Hundreds, if not thousands of artists that were quite capable of coming up with their own characters decided to steal the images and repaint them in Photoshop or Clip Studio. They then had the audacity to sell 4 large prints for just $20 turning conventions into flea market mentalities. Suddenly my prints of my work was too "overpriced" at the ethical $25 per 11x14 print of my own designs when I would sell at least 4 to a customer easily up until 2012-2014. I believe in creating my own styles, my own environments from my imagination and characters. This problem started in 2009! These thievery did not require A.I. Then either. So, the problem is NOT A.I. and training with certain artists styles, the problem is simply now insecure artists are threatened once again by the fact anyone can now create art. In the end, A.I. will be just another tool and novelty. It will help more than it will hurt and problem create millions more jobs than before. This is so common that I've seen major market shifts and people screaming foul for fear of what they don't understand. Board Drafters screaming back with AutoCAD and other computer based drafting came out. It's just another evolution of technology. My advice to the artists that want to sue, save your dimes and nickels and outsmart the A.I. by leaning it and keeping up with the technology just like traditional cell animators had to do when computer animation stated to dominate movies. Just the way it is. Sorry Charlie.
You know american laws dont affect chinese, right? AI is worldwide and not just limited to China. Lets hear your tough talk when AI improves and reproduces your work lol
Without the true artist midjourney and the ones who call them self’s “artist” just because they type properly would never be near the artist category, midjourney stole from people that worked their ass off, a prompter would never understand true effort. So if company’s get paid by the effort of others they should pay back, nothing is free in life. So stop being a idiot it should be public if there is no going back, but the ones who truly gave the data to make this work should get payed and at least respected, now they are at risk of automation with no compensation.
Everything in life is free if you have billions of dollars. Like it or not, the corporations are going to win this fight just like they always do. And I don't see why artists should be given special consideration here. Everyone is at risk of automation, literally everyone. Not to mention if you've ever posted anything on the internet whether it be art, text, video or audio, your data has just as equally been used to train these models as the artists'. This post I'm making right now will be used as training data, guaranteed. We don't need to compensate artists specifically, we need UBI.
Yeah, it’s still a tricky one, I understand that you can’t put the ‘toothpaste back in the tube’, and hard for the LLMs to unlearn the data, but it still remains that those models required an initial injection of vast swathes of data before they could effectively operate. There was clearly value attributed to collected data of that size, but without acknowledgment, or permission sought from the owners of that data.
When you go to art school and look at hundreds of artworks that's where you learn how to do art. You take what people made before you and you turn it into your own thing. Yet no artist ever gave permission for their work to be used to teach other artists how to make art, nor sued anyone because they learned by looking at their work. How is AI art any different? It's just faster than a human but it doesn't do anything different than any of us have already been doing their entire life: making stuff by watching how other make stuff and getting inspired. The real reason why AI art in general is under attack is that people are scared shitless they'll soon be obsolete. Understandable, but they way they are going at it trying to enforce copyright law is the wrong way because then they make it about greed and profit and that's a battle they are going to lose because why pay an artist thousands of dollars when I can just use AI for 30 a month? In the long run, economic efficiency will win. What they should be doing is raising the way more interesting ethical debate, "we can do it, but should we?" which interests most things AI in any field not only art.
It is very easy for the LLMs to "unlearn" the source works. All that is required is to delete the LLM and start over by training it with works solely in the public domain. Of course, this would result in LLMs which have extremely little or no value.
This is just a tool and will never replace Artists. When I was in Art School we modeled techniques and styles of other "Artists" if I didn't learn from those of the past my drawings would look like 💩 in music snd every form of Art we copy to an extent and model after others! What discovered is using old school art with AI is freaken amazing! I view AI as a tool that allows you to be the Director a Orchestrator of new creations, and the fuel is your imagination!
I think the same as a fashion design student! Sometimes it gives creative and innovative ideas for sewing patterns, which I still need to figure out by myself and draft the pattern myself. I use it whenever I feel stuck to get inspiration but I also do my pattern prints with ai. I try to figure out how to incorporate it in my design process instead of being completely against it. I also think there is no big difference in viewing Pinterest pictures for inspiration or just go ahead and generate inspiration.
Exactly…they think it’s copying their work but in actuality it’s being used to train its language on art and identifying what certain composition or shots look like…it’s how everyone learns skills but monkey see monkey do
agreed. took some art classes before stint with the Marines (Cooper Union college in nyc) and were told the same thing we are talking about masters of art...styles Ai and how you train it i could understand but once generated it turns it into some much different .. example would be when you blend something. Note i use my own artwork many times to see how Midjourney as well as other see my artwork and its interpretation of it.. Sometime truly amazing pieces come out that give me better ideas or to use as is.
@@CorporalDavis yes it’s the ultimate tool for creators…generative AI has a slight quantum aspect to it as well(Schrödinger’s Cat) because you can train it with certain data and get really fine tuned results but to a certain extent you don’t know what your getting until you generate it (especially if you let it have more creative freedom)
The new style reference parameter for MidJourney seems to be a way to remove the liability from the app itself, placing it onto the prompter's "plate". I've noticed that when using style reference images (--sref), any artist names used in the actual prompt seem to be meaningless.
I've trained my own local AI on my own style, and it has increased my productivity 100 times. Now, I can scan in my sketches and go through finishing it fast in my own style. It's great!!!
the thing with Midjourney and AI related companies, its that its profits from artists without even saying thanks, if it was free for everyone to use it would have less problems i think. Im aware of the computing power needed for the machines to work, just saying that if it was free, maybe artist would not care THAT much about machine inspiring on them... those companies are making tons of money while artist have always struggle to get paid jobs in what they like to do...
Inspiration and influence is very hard to legally pin down. If you got a musician who scores a number one hit on the charts, and then they uncover a Spotify list of 20 artists that the creator listened to in the past 5 years. Can those 20 artist claim that their music was the source of that hit record? Because the artist was inspired and influenced by it? That would be crazy... 'cause who inspired and influenced those artists? They didn't start from scratch. Even listening to something could subconsciously have an effect on a creator's own creative output, without knowing it. Through the ages, creative people have copied and have been inspired by other artists, giving it their own spin. It only becomes a problem when the work is an actual copy of another work, like a cover song which has the same exact melody and lyrics.
It's also been shown in more than a few court cases where large sums of money have been wasted on lawyers, that there is a certain amount of music theory that is just recognized as universal. If you make a song with a I-IV-V chord progression, well, welcome to the club of literally thousands of hit songs that use that progression. I'm a lead guitar player. I've memorized dozens of my favorite solos, and many of them are just small changes in the same patterns, but with a different tone... sometimes. I really started learning how similar some of this music was.
well to tell if using a model are just scraping is doing copy right character test. It give you copy righter character unedited than it scraping. if hard to get to it then going off training data.
I appreciate both arguments, but as an Artist and a Photographer, few of the majority of Artists have begun with a truly ORIGINAL idea. Often inspired by another, including those who are considered Masters of their craft. AI is a medium. If one uses AI with direct intent to emulate a specific Artist for commercial gain (money, credibility, etc.), that’s a different conversation entirely.
totally agree. Not only that but its scraped to make more art faster and not have any of scraped resources be compensated. And thats the main problem more than if Ai art is art. Lets not confuse the matter. The fact these companies scraped these art. Make money from their software and choose not to compensate. thats the main issue. And the fact that this Ai stuff doesnt not just include art is troublesome. If trch compamines can scrape with out restriction, then they scrape personal data, records, voice and your own face or loved with out penalty is a problem. With more tools that can basically do Identity theft to all degrees including art is an issue. I think all Ai art users should really think about that. Not just right for expeession. But looks whats being scraped on all levels. Sure progress is good. But it shouldn't be with out moral or exploitation. If these tech companies created this machine on fincancial compensated material. This debate of Ai art, if its art or not artconversation would go a lot smoother. It should be treated like music with "sampling" and compensated. and not "Laundered" its the wrong mentality
AI is a medium for useless hacks. Ai has it's uses but creating "art" is not one of them. All it does is allow the profoundly mediocre to pretend they have talent.
@@loverrlee Not every who uses AI art it out for money, some use it because it's fun and gives them the opportunity to create (using the term loosely) art that they would not otherwise be able to create. Not everyone is gifted with the ability to drawing or paint.
I think people who support AI are being difficult because they can play stupid or delusional. When most people come to the conclusion that AI art scrapping is an ethical problem, the humbling of the AI world will be immediate. It will never be too late, there is always a source which has a label and things are moving faster now than ever before. AI will be stopped and you all will have the whole public domain, which is incredibly valuable mind you. Leave artists alone and stop gaslighting. You can't draw if you don't learn. Prompting is not an art style, it's a lazy hack to acheive nothing off the backs of hardworking people.
AI only outputs what you put in. It is inherently uncreative. Which is why real artists can never be replaced by it and need not be worried if they are dedicated to their craft.
I think that people are misinterpreting what Nick Cave means which is that a lot of people will never explore their abilities because exactly what they want will be done for them and in turn when they don't have the thing that will do it for them they will be helpless in creating the world they want
Cave's right, a lot of people will and already are. That being said, I still use AI art and I still create digital art and I still create art in my art journals in traditional mediums.
Imitation is the sincerest for of flattery. This software is the future, get on board or risk falling behind. Artists, coders and creatives have a head start and now have far more capabilities than ever before. What a time to be alive.
As an AI user & co-creator (not calling myself an AI artist, cause #SorryNotSorry, we're not if we're only prompting) the entire quote is... 'Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness.' So maybe don't use that to try & prove your point, lol.
Myself being an artist, I often wondered about that very issue. I agree with the artist A.I has bypassed the artist, I do believe they should be compensated for these images. Inspiration, copying and mimicking along with imitation all have different meanings in a sense drawing inspiration then giving credit is what makes the difference! If u can’t be honest about what you have copied, what you’re mimicking then you’re stealing and it’s dishonesty at that point and you lose credibility within that craft and or what you’re saying!
I love using technology as a tool in my workflow. I am a graphic artist and abstract painter. I consider myself a mixed media artist. However many of my painter friends are up in arms because they know that the average person will go for low cost AI generations instead of hiring them and paying the price for organic skilled work by an artist. That is the problem for them. And I understand their fear.
Another issue it how the data is collected. That data is unpaid labor that was taken without consent. Personally I Do think AI can be great tool if used as a tool not a replacement. And these companies need to either get consent and pay to use others labor (data) or create something for people to use on their own labor.
I am on that list and I did not give permission. If they want to use my work I want a BIG cut. They can't do this without the artists and honestly, I don't want to be part of it. Use my work...PAY ME!
There two sides to the coin, your art would not have gain as much notoriety without the use of AI, 9/10. So there’s benefit there. That’s a benefit to the artist that will surpass their lifetime. Where the actual value in that is for court to decide. “BIG cut” why not fair share? If the AI copy’s artists it’s not unreasonable for the AI to identify the artist used in the generated photo. Once these artist are identified, I’d love to see the work that they create.
I'm not unwilling to accept and respect AI generated content as an artform. Personally, I like traditional works over digital, photography, photoshop etc. Idk judt feels like it has something more special. It's just my taste and I see the appeal and value AI works could have to others. I'm finding it hard to appreciate AI art for what it is currently and I think it's mainly influenced by the environment surrounding it. (Or at least, what I have often seen). There seems to be lack of respect and empathy for the artists that came before them. The ones that even made their own medium possible.
I reckon it's more logical to give a shared copyright to both the company and prompt writers in the future, and creators should have the right to choose whether to use a style derived from some specific artist or not, and if it is a YES, the choice to share the styles or not should be in the artists' hands. It's a different world already, human beings should value more for the ideas and imaginations than technics, prompt writers are writers too, and it's writers' duty to give the worlds more imagination just as artists' original creativity matters!
@@Rosa-ng8uu Lots of artists look alike. The also copy the artist side and try to express similar things not just the technique. In fact most artists express similarly.
learning is normal stealing and tracing is not if a human artist traced an art and called it "his own" it's stealing same thing with a machine that steals works and overlays it it's theft plain and simple
This isn’t about taking 2D art forms and recreating them. It’s about generating immersive narrative worlds. That’s a far bigger artistic undertaking than we might imagine from our current viewpoint.
Generative images are just a tool like Photoshop. As an artist myself, I understand the fear but in reality this world is about adapting. If you resist a technology then you only miss out on the opportunities and limit your skillset.
I've never thought of the ai lawsuits as a problem amongst individual ai creators getting in trouble... (its not ai artist vs anti ai artists)... I could care less and its impossible to police anyway... the concern is big corporations replacing roles. Screen writers, story board artists and concept artists. It's true that "we could "use ai as an "assistant" tool in the process but particularly in these departments most artists involved would rather do the work manually. its fun and its the best way to improve and learn a plethora of skills. Specially as a jr artist. As a Sr concept artist myself I'm concerned that we will loose traditional art fundamentals knowledge to the next generation of ai artists. I'm not sure how we can reason that choosing to give up on 10,000 years of perfecting our ability to craft an image by hand is actually a "good thing" for progress? to me knowledge IS progress. Investing in skills, to learn, to understand optics, perspective, how light behaves, how to trace and visualize shadows. Drawing and painting are tools for visual learners to make sense of the world. I just hope we still have a place in a society that is run by ai. For me the best compromise for ai assimilation would be some kind of tax break or tax penalty depending on the size of a company and the genuine demand for human workers to do labor manually vs automated. If there is a shortage of human interest in a particular labor task, automate that. If a large number of humans like to do something manually... let us preserve that skill. For very small companies ai could serve as a catalyst until it starts to grow. Lastly I'm pretty sure (myself included) many more artists would be more willing to embrace ai in the future if a model gets trained with only creative commons data. Currently they ARE taking advantage of ppls data and privacy... Big businesses don't easily get away with unlicensed software... why is data any different? data has A LOT of value in the new ai economy. I'm fine with waiting to see how these ethics get sorted out in court. Regardless learning new software is ALWAYS easier then learning the foundations of any new skill. Ai tools will only become easier to use and will hide the true knowledge in the automated process. So unless the new advice to artists is to learn how to code neural networks because that's the only viable future of art I'm gonna continue learning as much as I can about the world as a visual learner by drawing, painting and 3d modeling. Hopefully such skills will still be valuable to future clients for many many more year to come. Its incredible how capable humanity is with and without ai!
Also, many people are seeing stockphoto and gettyimages logos (well.. attempts at them) showing up in from some of the trained models being used for stable diffusion. This isnt becuse people are prompting for the logos... its because that aspect is over abundant in the data set. Theyre on enough images associated with the words photo and photograph etc that the logos will attempt to show up. Its no different than how it learns what to render when you type the word cat. It associates the ears and whiskers and paws with 'cat' even though youre not prompting out for those aspects of the cat. The lawsuit is like the owner of dasani being upset when someone prompts ocean and gets water. Outside of the artists name, anything else prompted for probably has hundreds if not thousands of images with related data in the dataset. Are you really going to be mad that you represent a 1/100000th of the dataset and maybe 1/1000th of the training data that associates with the prompt elements. Should van gogh come back from the dead and sue anyone who used the word 'painting' in a prompt? Anyone crying about this shit doesnt care about art or creativity. They only care about money and themselves. Imagine gatekeeping imgination and creative expression. They need to get good and start arting some shit no one has ever seen before. If theyre always making new stuff, creating new styles, making new statements, DiSrUpTiNg new or institutions... then they will be fine as that new art style or concept wont be in any of the data sets.
That's the same shit as that person who tweeted about some AI generator stealing images cause it tried to make a signature & that's when everyone went batshit. Umm... yeah. I'm so tired I don't even have the energy to write anything else. But you know where I'm going with it lol.
The same people sueing Ai are the same people who think a duct-taped Banana to a Wall is art at least Ai helps spark creativity I mean if they can sue that Art format what else are they gonna have to copyright or ban next they shorta put themselves in a corner with this debate??
It’s not about inspiration. Anytime that argument is used it’s to deflect from the reality of labor and data theft. People have a right to their work, and companies should not be able to take whatever the want without consequences.
The best way for real Human artists to survive is for other Humans in the top 1% of all entertainment, film etc. industries to start hiring Human Artists to do the work. As long as corporations continue to cut costs in human labors and resort to machine automation, these lawsuits won't matter much even if the copyright laws wins. Corporations will only be forced to things in secret and bypass human labor laws.
Who ever thinks that they need real human artists to survive ? It's just business for them . If there are chances to cut any expenses, they will do that in a heartbeat.
I'm astounded that public domain isn't part of the debate. I would pay for an image generator trained solely on public domain works. Why hasn't anyone done it???
Because it creates a worse looking product. Midjourney is on record for admitting this. They essentially admitting that art theft was the only way to create a valuable product.
@FuturMaestro no there aren't. Literally every painting and every art current in history is registered online and can be accessed by anyone. For some reason they chose to take contemporary artist's works from their own portofolios.
It's a cutthroat business that's only being made harder. I empathize, but it is the reason I never took my love of the hobby to a professional level in my youth. I probably wasn't good enough and the competition is soul wrenching.
It is true that creating is mainly combining concepts, but you're not only taking advantage on other artists ideas, but also their effort to develop their ideas. The money and years they put into learning the fundamentals and getting better at painting. They're getting nothing from this, nor money neither recognition. It would be cool if you use AI to generate images and exploring new ideas, but giving the artists what they deserve for saving you time and money to get those results. In addition, I think we shouldn't use AI as final result. Just merging results isn't art, without intention. AI doesn't have an intention, but you do.
I personally use ai art for inspiration maybe i want to draw a pagoda in a traditional japanese woodblock style i could look at dozens of images and spend the time conceptualizing what i want or i could bing it and have a dozen images to use as inspiration figured out how i want to draw it and what would look good. I think this is just shooting yourself in the foot as an artist
If I was a really good artist I would start a fiver freelance account and work with people who generates ai art and enhance their work to meet their imaginations
Since art existed artists were coping artists to learn from them and in this way develop their unique art, or not that much unique so styles have been forming, like impressionism or cubism. As I work with AI I can see how much of my art education influences it. Mostly same things must happen for the AI art to be excellent like when painting on canvas: vision, taste and sensibility, direction, making choices and fixing what doesn't work. We don't mind using machines in any other area of life.
It's a very complicated situation... But for example, do you know that very soon your Skillshare sponsor will be useless? Technology should be at the service of human needs and not the other way around. Quote: "AI isn't going anywhere"...do you still want it to stay here even when it makes love for you?
I don't think this lawsuit will go through. Midjourney, as said, is currently trained on derivative works of listed artists. Previous versions are trained on actual artist's work. The previous version is no longer in use. And as such, derivative works are considered fair use, even for monetization. The copyright holder of the derivative work is the maker of the derivative work, not the original artists. In other words, they can't be sued for current versions.
Creating fan art inspired by your favorite artwork using AI tools offers a captivating fusion of creativity and technology. It's an exciting way to combine traditional art appreciation with modern AI techniques. I look forward to seeing your innovative creations!
i actually mostly agree with what you said. the nature of Life is expansion. i FULLY support and respect the art community and understand deeply their frustrations. it's beyond painful to have your stuff "stolen" without so much as a nod or a conversation. like you said, i too believe that there are no "new" ideas. and i also think it's fun and amazing to take something that someone else did and allow it to inspire new ways of expression. but i also understand that we have, up to the present, constructed a society where, some will take the ideas of another and use it in a way that benefits themselves and hurts others; so we had to come up with copyright laws.... i like what you said about how we are evolving. and i agree. and that this experience that we are all having with AI will, in effect, help us evolve as a species when it comes to art(and since "art imitates Life", it will also evolved Life for us). we are being pushed out of our comfort zones and so the question is, what will you choose to do with the discomfort??..... anyway, just adding my 2 cents to the collective😋. great video. Sending 💖
I personally only use AI art tools to make funny memes or interesting wallpapers and those wallpapers are mostly just for me to view, I rarely share them and if I do share AI art, I always let people know that I didn't actually make it. I do however have to spend some time fixing mistakes that the AI made, I don't think I've got AI to generate a single image that I didn't have to edit. I'm currently working on a story and I've avoided using AI to help with that, because I want it to be my own thoughts and words. I do want to include images with the story and I have a plan with what I want to do with that. For the book cover and other images, I am going to use AI art to create concept images, which give the idea of what I want and then I'm going to try and find an artist (within my limited budget) that can actually create human art based on those concept images. That's where it gets interesting though, there is a chance that the artist will themselves use an AI art tool lol and I will have to check for that, because if they do, that destroys the whole process. I have a feeling that new books that were created with only the human mind and with no AI help, might become a unique selling point in the future.
Yeah, AI is a boon for people who are good at Photoshop. Oh, remember when digital photo editors were the bug-a-boo 30 years ago. Now no photographer can live without them. And how many artists on Deviant Art. etc. have used photoshop to improve their sketches. This guy has and I had classic training in sketching and painting in the 80s. Technology marches on.
I've been creating original digital art since the 1988 - Started uploading original graphics to BBS and Usenet groups around 1992. Everyone was sharing their works and workflows on how said images were achieved. By 1994 I was producing original 3D images and video... 1995 photography ... etc. 32 years later, Terabytes of my work is out there. I can't even list all the artists that have influenced my work over that time. I have no problems with my work being part a Dataset. With that, now having seen how David's Midjourney teams have addressed covering their tracks because of potential copyright issues; it reads like malice. This is very problematic for Generative AI going forward. A solution could be a consortium of "established working artists" licensing their works for a fee or percentages.
I read somewhere they are trying to keep digital art protected by inserting a layer with very low opacity that doesnt affect the general piece but that let u track if ur image is being used in a data base for AI. Can someone confirm if this is true or not?.
I saw a video where there is a website that lets the artist load their work and then they can share that version online and if an AI program tries to view it it will look like random stuff or even look like something different ie a tree would look like a cow and a cow might look like a gnome etc and begin to in essence corrupt the AI's dataset.
As far as the Open AI and LLM's go, they could pay to access Kindle Unlimited and get legal access to a vast amount of copyrighted books to use for training the AI.
I was a manual artist who fell in love with the agility offered by AI. Every artist uses works by other artists as a reference, to learn, train, improve. But I've never seen anyone credit and pay commission to the artists they used as references. What is the difference? Their ego is hurt, because with our human limitations, we need a lot of time to perfect something that an algorithm can do in seconds. The only option is to swallow the ego and continue being a manual artist by choice, because you like what you do, or accept and use technology to your advantage. Have you ever thought if we were charged for all the works we see, process in our brain and then express on paper? Every artist "steals" from other artists, to become an artist. Every human creates based on countless previous creations. We are a species that essentially learns by example. So, this is a fight in the name of vanity, and nothing more.
Does this mean we could get sued in school for learning off other artists..? The one thing that angers me is the online competitions, and people clearly used ai. You can even tell... The fingers and hands are a bit distorted, and some parts blurry. But Ai is mostly supposed to be a tool to inspire, and give ideas, but unfortunately people don't use it in that way. Also, if a piece of art is directly, copied & pasted then that is copyrighted, and is criminal. AI Doesn't really do that, it just makes imitations based off the style of an image. You cannot copyright a style.. I used to make ai art and post it on DeviantArt just to share with others, and i've seen people literally save the image and upload it and claimed they made it, themselves without ai... AI isn't really the issue, it's the humans that use it, to a degree. I loved the artist Sarashakeel, instead of fearing AI she made her own training set based on her own work. That is what i mean about it being a tool, and it's what the human behind the tool does with it.
Useing others labor without consent is labor/ data theft. The AI model can only function based on others data. People should have a right to their labor and data and have the right to consent. These companies should get consent and pay to use others labor to develop their AI models.
Midjourney is a visualisation tool that can basically create anything, far beyond the limits of what humans have ever attempted to paint, draw or photograph. It doesn't need any particular artist, any artist is but a tiny drop in a limitless ocean of generative possibilities. 99.99999% of stuff I see on Midjourney has never been seen by humans before, it bears no similarity to anything that has existed to this point in time. Midjourney, for any true artist, is humbling, it is a peak into the infinite, and it is not a threat, it's a wonder.
I think it's annoying because it stands on the shoulders of real artists and is viewed by them as competition. It shouldn't be except some short sighted executives won't be able to resist the idea of using it this way. I think it would be a much more potent tool for Experimentation or a kind of virtual Artistic Mad Science Lab. Personally, I sometimes like to mashup about 5 to 10 or more Artists or Styles together to see how well it's handled and the crazy results. I want to see CyberCelestialCosmicQuantumGalaxyTeslaGadgetDecoNeonNanoAtomSorceryMysticalCelticPunk.
@@JohnStevens-y6e well, frankly, I don't do that as much as I draw inspiration from real life. Just about any artist learns from real life because it helps with understanding fundamentals much better. When you look at another artist, you look to see what techniques they use, there's usually a purpose and the works that artists make that they show to the world vs the works that they do as studies are two separate things as well.
Samson, I agree with you. For me. generative AI is just one more (powerful) tool in my box to create art. What makes the difference between an artist and anyone who knows how to use AI generative software is the vision, the intention that the software doesn't have on its own. The copyright is a not a real question, as it doesn't matter to me. Nobody has the vision I have and nobody would be able to steal it from me. And at the same time, as all artists I am influenced and inspired by artists everything / anything I can see , it's all about what the artist in me will perceive in all the things that are given to see to my eyes... As Picasso said "The meaning of life is to find your gift. The purpose of life is to give it away."
I think the AI companies have got much deeper pockets than the artists, and likely better lawyers. The thing I struggle with the argument is that art imitates art. What is truly original anyway? My guess is that most of the artists on the list are in some way imitating each other in some way.
A great and important video! I have been painting and selling my art since 1991. In 2017 I left the canvas for virtual reality. If I still painted “classically” I would be depressed right now! It is mainly the speed of the AI that is particularly humbling. To work on a painting for 5 years in times of AI you have to be damn idealistic... So: Who wants to spend years learning and practicing something that they can get at the push of a button? I now use various AIs for my VR worlds and videos. Stable Diffusion's ability to generate endless textures for my VR brushes is breathtaking. I wouldn't want to monetize a prompted image unless I trained the AI with my own art. MJ makes money from our data (the art of the world) that should belong to everyone. That's why I have no pity if MJ is punished or banned. Free Open Source Local Stable Diffusion gives you the skills of all artists for free and I think that is the right way! (Big FANX to StabilityAI!) I am deeply disturbed and very euphoric at the same time....yeagh! ...crazy times.... Happy colored greetinx
I play with Midjourney mostly to experiment with it. I have reservations about trying to use it directly to make a commercial product. I feel like it is technically Ethical, but kind of in poor taste. For now, I'm interested in using A.I. for Textures for personal 3D projects. Lastly, I kind of wonder if the debate is really sparked by the flawed way Art is 'Commodified' or how Artists make a living? There really should be a more robust Patronage system or the insanely wealthy Billionaires could be kicking in money funding the people that significantly contribute to our Culture. If the Artists were living more at ease financially, could both them and Midjourney be at least less "Financially" antagonistic? Even so, on those terms it would be nice if a system giving Credit was built into the file Metadata saying what it was based on or some transparency? It seems to me the instinctive move by Midjourney to play a digital Codex shuffle game on style origins comes from the lawsuits.
Of course, we stopped Napster tho. And Ares, and e-mule. A very few people uses them rn, not only because of regulations, but because there are many new tools better than downloading music, like Spotify, Apple Music, or "add song" features on social media that actually pay the artists for using their music.
@@rickwest9315 Better things because they regulated the whole thing. AI isn't going anywhere, but it will be nerfed just like any technology. And then there will be better things made by real artists, because they're the only ones that are creating.
@@Erixdiego nerfed? There's over 3k sites that are using a.i. If a.i gets "nerfed". They will just have programs like Torrents that people will just use.
I would be more concerned about reality being presented correctly in electronic form, than these arguments over artistic licenses that people are debating.
Who is to say that any real artist can paint another’s style and literary sell that as their own. This is not copyright at all. It’s been happening for hundreds of years. No artist has ever sued another artist who has an identical style with near images in that style, styles are not copyrightable only specific pieces can be.
Hmm random very impactful message earns a sub. I am an expert at learning new skills, but a lack in ability to recognize new and useful skills. Always have just done what i WANTED to do, and not what was strategic. I am lucky to have naturally gained the abilty to adapt but this is the next level.
this was handled last year already and how Adobe firefly was born. the solution was to just not reference the artists name. even tho its there. The only case they had was that their names were being used, so they removed that. While copyrights are one thing, artists dont own their audience and if their audience is a learning program it isnt any different. The program just cant claim to be that artist. Currently, AI doesnt claim to be anyone. People do. counterfeit and forgery have always been a problem in the arts. But using tools to copy styles easier have pushed innovation to where we are today.
AI companies will need to develop a system that pays a commission to artists whose work has been used to train image gen apps. Credits will need to be based on usage, just like Spotify. The algorithm will need to attribute credits using fractions of usage. Artists will then be clamouring to get their work "scraped."
@@j_shelby_damnwird No. Just a practical solution that's already been implemented to solve a very similar problem. An algorithm that provides an equitable distribution of royalties. Not rocket science.
The Luddite movement will fail, and their inspiration is not theirs alone. What they learn and master is not entirely theirs. AI is also a valuable opportunity for the wealth and money that had been concentrated in a few people to return to those without skills. Therefore, actions to protect their vested rights must be thoroughly destroyed. The development of AI should never be stopped
What an interesting story as I have written a blog about AI Art, IP and the fair use act. (USA Bias) and even had a copy write attorney go over it to ensure the facts are as they currently are. Next court hearing written down so I can keep it up to date. Thank You.
That’s like suing someone for doing a collage.. not going to stand the test of trial, sorry, bud. You may own your art’s copyright, but you don’t own the language of your art (for good or for bad). It’s like me owning my words but not owning the words or the letters.. do you understand this difference?
I'm an artist, and I understand the uproar, I really do, but typically the art generated by MJ is unique--meaning the overall piece is one-of-a-kind. Does it have similarities to other pieces, or styles, or artists, sure, but it's not copying a 'piece of art.' (usually) Just like a human artist grows up and admires artists--they then go to school and train in their craft as they mimic other artists and styles. We as humans either consciously influence our art by particular art pieces we've seen in the past, or we unconsciously create a work of art that is similar to another artist or art piece. AI models aren't that different in terms of how they are trained, and how they piece together elements of what they've seen and learned. The new piece may have similarities to past works and other artists...but I'd gather there are tens of thousands of human artists that all paint and draw very similar things to one another--it's just not being called out in such a way as this lawsuit. As long as the AI art that is created isn't 'purposefully' mimicking a piece of art. Meaning, as long as the human prompting the art isn't purposefully trying to recreate a particular piece of art, there should be no lawsuit. If, also, a piece of art kicked out by AI is very similar to a particular work (which can happen if prompted to create Matrix stills, for example), then yes, this should not be allowed (specifically if it's being created for a commercial reason). It should be handled the same way it's handled with another human artist. I have to say, again, I understand why we are all so scared and upset...but typically, the majority of art generated by AI are unique pieces, that blend WAY too many 'influences' to be considered a copyright infringement. Sure we can argue case-by-case basis if you want, because it can happen that AI produces something a little too similar to a previous work...but I've been using it for over a year now, and the stuff it creates is transformative enough, I think we just have to swallow our pride, and start leveraging this tech as a tool, and not stomp towards it with pitchforks. Create your regulations. Get up-in-arms about it. If it makes you feel better. But this genie is out of the bottle, and in my middle-aged creative mind, humans do the same things this AI is doing, only 1000 times faster...and that's one of the reasons we are mad. Human artists will never go away, and there will always be galleries showcasing our work, and there will always be human artists paid to produce stuff, but fortunately or unfortunately, humans have to evolve in every aspect along side our technology (or at least we should). In terms of 'photography competitions' and the like, yes, definitely one should not be able to submit AI generated works. I mean, you're just a doofus or scumbag if you try to pull this kind of thing, and this is a totally different issue...douchbags. All of this legal training data set mumbo-jumbo is irrelevant in my eyes. Again, just as we handle it with humans, as long as a work generated by AI isn't obviously copying another piece of work, there should be no lawsuit. Like I said before, there are tens of thousands of human artists mimicking other artists out there, it's how we work as a species, but as long as a particular piece isn't exactly the same, or trying to commercialize an IP already laid out by a previous individual or entity, we have no true grounds to call it copyright infringement. My two cents. Thanks.
This is so dumb. Artists (im one) are stabbing themselves in the heart. This can only be solved if a style can be copyrighted. And if they manage to do it, it will be the end of all emerging artists because in art everything is a rehash of other artists.
There is no such thing as "your style", that's what the US courts said: "Copyright doesn’t protect things like style and genre, because doing so would limit the ways that others can create other works, thereby chilling their ability to express themselves through their works. " And that's exactly my point: You can't trademark a style, you can trademark your work, of course. But it's not "your style" is "your artwork", and the AI is using that, styles. The AI don't replicate artwork unless it's something cliché like Monalisa. @@FuturMaestro
Samson... all good points... feels like human generated art might be seen as more valuable in future, since the rate A.I generates art, potentially cheapens it.
I am very torn. As a creator, I have a real problem with data scraping and stealing the creative efforts of others. That said, as a graphic designer with deadlines, my ability to ideate quickly and inspire is unparalleled. I won't use it for the final art. Period. I also have a problem supporting a company like Midjourney with my funds when it is obvious they are unethical. I quit my subscription. I will have to create my art using my noggin. Like we have done for Millennia.
I don't see what the problem is. The images the AI generator is generating are completely new images regardless of whether they are based on some artist's style or not. No real artist on earth has ever not taken inspiration from other artist into their own work; how is this different? And it's not just one artist they are taking inspiration from, but thousands.
Late to the discussion here, but here in the States Section 107 of the copyright law includes a provision that there are some instances where someone can use copyright material under fair use. These include comment and criticism, which is why we can have so many reaction videos. But copyright material can be used for teaching and research. This is where Midjourney and other ai art software could win the lawsuit.
@ttt5205 I was referring more to "teaching" the software. I don't think the Midjourney programmers are instructing the program to copy the reference material directly but rather using them as a starting point for the consumer's prompts. Don't the prompts adjust the work and make it something unique? How close does the rendered material need to be to violate copyright? The programmers are not passing off someone else's work as their own, just using it as a reference point.
@@timmeyer9191 diffusion models are built by default to recreate as closely as possible, the training material. That's how scores are assigned. There is no built in method for avoiding copying. Only coincidence.
Using someone else's style of drawing is not stealing it, as long as you don't do it like the original, if we are going to criticize AI generated art, then we probably have more than AI to sue, just think of all the photographs, movies, games , music that may be similar to others.
Waiting on mega corporations that own all the IPs to sue these artists that are complaining about AI stealing thier art, who make livings off of drawing someone's else's IP
It dose happen, all the time. Usually companies don’t care about fan art because for them it’s free advertising and benefits them. And it’s a way for artists to get noticed and get hired by these companies as well. Fan art rarely negatively effects these companies. But if you start making a certain amount of money or they don’t like what you’re doing. They will come after you and take everything. It’s happened to several people I know. Also many who do sell fan art are either working for the company and, or have licensing agreements. So maybe try doing more research instead of makeup assumptions.
@Sasha444luvs I work in the comics community and have an Instagram. Let's be honest, Artists have been doing this for decades. Yes, a small minority get hit, but most get away with it. So your argument is non consensual plagiarism is OK if it benefits the original creator? What about if the creator is dead? Artists have been drawing / selling Dave Steven's Rocketeer long since his death. As much as they say they love him, I don't see any of them donating profits to his estate🤷🏽♂️
FYI You ARE an artist and just like other artists that use more traditional methods, you stand on the shoulders of giants. The solution is giving credit where its due and in proportional amounts, if I make a piece of art inspired by 1 person/artist its is important that I credit the appropriate artist. if there are multiple then it is important multiple are credited. It should be possible and necessary that the AI understands is able to articulate, what the sources of inspiration are and by what percentage. for example 40% Banksy and 60% Vincent van Gogh. with a system like this, then the artist could have a process of being rewarded for their work. the system could record the usage. if you make work that many people want to generate, you should be rewarded. the subscription fee alone could support the artists.
AI should have never been applied to creating art. Art is a human form of expression. Leave it to people. Apply AI to solving world problems, cancer, weather, pollution, etc. Art is both a form of human expression and field that employs many people. What art is not is world/societal problem.
Hmm. Some of these artists definitely sold out a long time ago. Copyright is responsible for stifling both progress (in the form of patents), research and cultural development. It is a capitalist tool to control thought. I wonder how long some of us creatives will be able to relate to the term 'artist' at all, given that the label has been co-opted by these 'saviors of humankind' fighting AI.
I blame Disney and how it has ruined the idea of copyright for public and private good. Four generations of people have grown up with this idea that they should own ideas in perpetuity, and personally I think that's wrong.
I agree, but it's an extension of that now.This lawsuit implies that you can copyright DERIVATIVES of your idea. Remixes. Imitation. AI doesn't make exact copies, it learns very effectively how to imitate. If so called artists are allowed to make this law, then not only can I not use their art, I cannot even be inspired by their art to do anything similar without being sued for copyright violation. It's nonsensical.@@ChainedFei
@@ElectricSkullmeat it would not be the first time, nor the last, that the government fucked up common sense. Just like how they ruined copyright. It was all supposed to operate like the patent system currently does; 15 years of exclusivity, followed by public domain. However, I *LIKE* to think (And perhaps this is stupid of me) that the SCOTUS would look at this case and say "Hah, no, we already decided on if you can copyright styles, GTFO".
@@ChainedFeiDisney sues everyone. BUT IRONICALLY they have stolen MANY of their stories and themes from folk stories etc and have profited off it! It's so ridiculous. Think about it
Teaching AI models with any material at all is exactly the same as a human who has seen or read something and then learned from it, or got ideas from it, and then makes his/her original works. Would you sue someone who learned by studying works of art to become equally good artist himself/herself? There's really no copyright infringement at all happening with machine learning models.
This whole vid was AI-bro babble, just with a nicer voice and more elegant accent. AI prompters are not artists. You're quoting Mark Twain...if he were alive, what would he have thought about a machine that allows every single person around him to write JUST like him, rendering him obsolete, through the commodification of his rare talent?
Opioid for the mediocre people who were never in any art industry and never sat down to develop a skill. Those AI bros have no idea what they are talking about.
i love using ai art but i have been extremely unimpressed with most peoples ai creations. i am fully back onto REAL art. i use the ai for inspiration rn not posting ai stuff anymore
The most impressive AI artwork I've seen was made by actual artists who would use AI as a "digital assistant"
i would love to see an example. i have seen some cool effects with people using runway for music videos and stuff...@@olegfischer1285
The best AI comes from artists and writers, the rest is just normal and empty. I use AI a lot but i don't post online. I use it to illustrate my ideas and boost them.
Yea & what about Ipads digital illustration that’s not a physical form of art if they really wana debate about it.
do u have an example? the best stuff ive seen is with runway ai for enhancing special effects in music videos and stuff @@olegfischer1285
What they should do, is remove all rights for AI generated art to have copyright. That would devalue it enough for money milkers to again focus on Human generated art.
11:50. Just because we in the "west" (America and Europe) put such pity limitations on A.I art generation does not mean that others will be so noble... such as our friends in Russia and our Chinese friends... do you people who call yourselves real artists really think that your "art" will or hasn't already been used by countries or people who live in those countries that have no "copyright laws" that you can use to limit them? I don't think so and I don't think you will ever see true "copyright laws" protecting your "art" from being used by them in their own specific A.I. models 🤔🤷♂️. Even if you win some court cases here and even mange to limit A.I. generated art here the people in other countries like Russia or China may still most likely break whatever new A.I. "copyright laws" we might come up with in the coming years... just think about how... not so smart you are being hopefully your tiny brains can finally understand this 🙂......................
i have NEVER understood why these ppl have been making a big deal out of art generated by a machine, these are not your creations these are simply put machine generated images based on models from your work, you hsve NO rights to something a machine makes for a person.
You will never be an artist. Cope and seethe, bugman
What I need is an AI tool that detects AI images. The web is flooded with AI production and I don't want to use it for inspiration. I want to be inspired by human creativity, not artificial algorithms.
This is an interesting concept, but where do you draw the line? What if an image is partially created by ai? Or edited by AI?
@@aisamsonreal Hi! Partially created by AI, inspired by AI - don't want it for my references. Edited by AI - a derivative work made by AI, same as where someone takes someone else's picture and paints over it and passes it off as their own - don't want it for inspiration, except the changes are only technical stuff (brightness, contrast, tones, etc). I want to be inspired by art created 100% by the human emotions and mind. Many of the people who endorse the use of AI for creative tasks do not realize the main problem, as obvious as it is - AI takes away from humans what makes humans human - creativity. What's the point of wanting to make art and letting a machine do it for you? This is not art, but production. Аnd can appreciate the production only as production, not as an art.
I understand and appreciate your view, but suppose every AI art site is closed because of the Anti-Ai activists (artists), you're basically saying to those that use AI art sites "tough shit". Not everyone can draw or paint, and those are the people that use these sites, they enjoy creating images. I am aware that images created by AI are not deemed to be art, and that many artists are concerned that it will affect their livelihoods, which it won't, but let's not punish the 10's or 100's of thousands or even millions of people who enjoy creating these images, who derive pleasure from it. Art will always be a human activity, AI will never replace humans.
@@deejay1964Thank you for your understanding and appreciation! The answer is, why non artist will use artists sites to post AI production? There are sites for AI things, let them post there, and leave art sites for humans art. That way no one is punished, except that already artists got less clients, because the clients use AI to do many of their needs, and as an artist, I see it from my experience. Besides, last week I was searching internet for references for my own project and at least half of the images were AI generated, and with the time this will become bigger problem. It's end of human creativity, everyone will use AI instead of his brain, because that's what AI does - not only labor tasks, but creative ones as well. There will be no need for humans to use and develop their brains except to consume AI creations. I just watched a video presentation from NVidia about their new super chip, which characteristics are mind blowing and they will use not only for AI software, but will integrate it in robots as well. Soon we, humans, will be obsolete, mate... :)
for 2d art is easy to see if it AI art and that honest program. scraper take art and put in blender so harder to tell it A.I generated because it steal some one else art.
Does this mean we can sue anyone who used our art work as inspiration and be sued by anyone who inspired us? As a digital artist I'm among those most affected by Midjourney, but I don't think it's reasonable to sue them when they're not directly duplicating our work.
You get it Brotha 💯‼️ AI is literally our best interpretation of how our brain works so it very hypocritical with what they are going with (I totally agree with your point of using AI to try to duplicate or forge peoples work and how that needs to be dealt with accordingly)
Actually, it's time to move on.
If "style" itself is protected, then Walmart, Target and other stores better get their checkbooks out. Because, if this grows legs, they are going to be sued by designers who will claim that the clothing styles they created were - knocked-offs by these stores to create cheaper versions of their fashions. But, I believe this will be shot down in the courts.
I smell a lawyer rat in this one, trying to drum up business.
Actually, they are taking your art and incorporating it into "their" art. So technically it does affect you.
@@Freshlygrazed I beg to differ. An art SUBJECT with the artist individual styling is a commodity, like a written book. The style or technique used to produce it, is not. This lawsuit will not fly, it touches too many variables. I’ve dealt with patents, and if I went to Yosemite Park and photographed the same subject matter exactly like the famous photographer, Ansel Adams, in his black and white technique, as long as it is known that is my photo art, that’s fine. BUT, if I do the same thing and try to pan it off as an Ansel Adams photo, then I could be sued, because his actual photos with his signatures, prints, proofs and originals are solely his and his heirs and cannot be otherwise. He owns the copyrights and patents on his actual works NOT the style rendered in. If someone, purposely creates an actual piece by an artist is whose styling is apart of the AI’s algorithm and in turns tries to make money off of said piece, they can then be sued. The artists who are suing don’t understand the full ramifications, that if the lawsuit won (which it won’t) they in-turn could be sued by the computer companies who could actually say well you used our computer technology to make your digital art… we want you to pay us for using our technology to make money. There would be lawsuit after lawsuit.
Because, the court will hear it (the lawsuit) in America any complaint has the right to be heard in a court of law. But, it will go no further in the end, because something like that would negatively affect ingenuity, Western Capitalism and Commerce.
Simply put, pay all the non-public domain artists that were directly ripped off to train the model. Pay them handsomely, give them stock, make sure they are not made homeless by the software that owes its existence to them. Pay the artist to point that the AI programs are barely profitable.... it is the only right thing to do.
"The right thing to do "always in the bottom list for anything who has monthly subscriptions
There is no such thing as an "AI artist"....
I'm a fine artist and illustrator and if MidJourney had me on that list, I would be flattered because at the end of the day, it's not going to affect my overall sales versus showing my art on the internet as Chinese companies like Cotosen saw fit to be nice enough the steal several of my Steampunk Designs to put on their shirts, their shorts, hats, etc., and they are popular items apparently. There is absolutely NO WAY I can begin to sue this company as they just change their name. To CYA, they even have the audacity to have a part where you can write and let them know that an image on a piece of clothing as they have hundreds of images that it's obvious they stole from American and European artists, that you can write them about the infringement and they will "Immediately STOP using said images!" - BS! I've written over six times to the company and their "sister companies" on the web and .....crickets. Meanwhile, my designs are helping someone else make money - I'm so glad the I could help! Eyes ROlling upward. My point is that it did not take A.I. to steal my art. They did that on their own just fine with a 20 year old image enlargement program.
I was more affected by Marvel and DC when the movies came out as suddenly EVERYONE and their brother started to steal the works on the hardworking artists and clearly trademarked designs of Batman, Wonder Woman, Ironman and then re-print them for Con Show prints, t-shirts, etc. Everyone didn't want original art, the crowd wanted Another image of Wonder Woman or Batman!! Hundreds, if not thousands of artists that were quite capable of coming up with their own characters decided to steal the images and repaint them in Photoshop or Clip Studio. They then had the audacity to sell 4 large prints for just $20 turning conventions into flea market mentalities.
Suddenly my prints of my work was too "overpriced" at the ethical $25 per 11x14 print of my own designs when I would sell at least 4 to a customer easily up until 2012-2014. I believe in creating my own styles, my own environments from my imagination and characters. This problem started in 2009! These thievery did not require A.I. Then either. So, the problem is NOT A.I. and training with certain artists styles, the problem is simply now insecure artists are threatened once again by the fact anyone can now create art. In the end, A.I. will be just another tool and novelty. It will help more than it will hurt and problem create millions more jobs than before. This is so common that I've seen major market shifts and people screaming foul for fear of what they don't understand. Board Drafters screaming back with AutoCAD and other computer based drafting came out. It's just another evolution of technology. My advice to the artists that want to sue, save your dimes and nickels and outsmart the A.I. by leaning it and keeping up with the technology just like traditional cell animators had to do when computer animation stated to dominate movies. Just the way it is. Sorry Charlie.
"Insecure artists" indeed. You nailed it man.
Why does this comment doesn{t have more likes is beyond me.
You know american laws dont affect chinese, right? AI is worldwide and not just limited to China. Lets hear your tough talk when AI improves and reproduces your work lol
Without the true artist midjourney and the ones who call them self’s “artist” just because they type properly would never be near the artist category, midjourney stole from people that worked their ass off, a prompter would never understand true effort. So if company’s get paid by the effort of others they should pay back, nothing is free in life. So stop being a idiot it should be public if there is no going back, but the ones who truly gave the data to make this work should get payed and at least respected, now they are at risk of automation with no compensation.
Everything in life is free if you have billions of dollars. Like it or not, the corporations are going to win this fight just like they always do. And I don't see why artists should be given special consideration here. Everyone is at risk of automation, literally everyone. Not to mention if you've ever posted anything on the internet whether it be art, text, video or audio, your data has just as equally been used to train these models as the artists'. This post I'm making right now will be used as training data, guaranteed. We don't need to compensate artists specifically, we need UBI.
👏👏👏
Yeah, it’s still a tricky one, I understand that you can’t put the ‘toothpaste back in the tube’, and hard for the LLMs to unlearn the data, but it still remains that those models required an initial injection of vast swathes of data before they could effectively operate. There was clearly value attributed to collected data of that size, but without acknowledgment, or permission sought from the owners of that data.
It's getting to the point where AI is running on its own creations.
@@Rikalonius Eh no its not. You would cause model collapse. AI developers are avoiding AI data like some kind of plague. It harms the model.
When you go to art school and look at hundreds of artworks that's where you learn how to do art. You take what people made before you and you turn it into your own thing. Yet no artist ever gave permission for their work to be used to teach other artists how to make art, nor sued anyone because they learned by looking at their work. How is AI art any different? It's just faster than a human but it doesn't do anything different than any of us have already been doing their entire life: making stuff by watching how other make stuff and getting inspired. The real reason why AI art in general is under attack is that people are scared shitless they'll soon be obsolete. Understandable, but they way they are going at it trying to enforce copyright law is the wrong way because then they make it about greed and profit and that's a battle they are going to lose because why pay an artist thousands of dollars when I can just use AI for 30 a month? In the long run, economic efficiency will win. What they should be doing is raising the way more interesting ethical debate, "we can do it, but should we?" which interests most things AI in any field not only art.
@@nokta7373 do you think the LLMs understand artistic techniques and principles?
It is very easy for the LLMs to "unlearn" the source works. All that is required is to delete the LLM and start over by training it with works solely in the public domain. Of course, this would result in LLMs which have extremely little or no value.
This is just a tool and will never replace Artists. When I was in Art School we modeled techniques and styles of other "Artists" if I didn't learn from those of the past my drawings would look like 💩 in music snd every form of Art we copy to an extent and model after others! What discovered is using old school art with AI is freaken amazing! I view AI as a tool that allows you to be the Director a Orchestrator of new creations, and the fuel is your imagination!
I think the same as a fashion design student! Sometimes it gives creative and innovative ideas for sewing patterns, which I still need to figure out by myself and draft the pattern myself. I use it whenever I feel stuck to get inspiration but I also do my pattern prints with ai. I try to figure out how to incorporate it in my design process instead of being completely against it. I also think there is no big difference in viewing Pinterest pictures for inspiration or just go ahead and generate inspiration.
Exactly…they think it’s copying their work but in actuality it’s being used to train its language on art and identifying what certain composition or shots look like…it’s how everyone learns skills but monkey see monkey do
agreed. took some art classes before stint with the Marines (Cooper Union college in nyc) and were told the same thing we are talking about masters of art...styles Ai and how you train it i could understand but once generated it turns it into some much different .. example would be when you blend something. Note i use my own artwork many times to see how Midjourney as well as other see my artwork and its interpretation of it.. Sometime truly amazing pieces come out that give me better ideas or to use as is.
@@CorporalDavis yes it’s the ultimate tool for creators…generative AI has a slight quantum aspect to it as well(Schrödinger’s Cat) because you can train it with certain data and get really fine tuned results but to a certain extent you don’t know what your getting until you generate it (especially if you let it have more creative freedom)
Totally 💯 agree
The new style reference parameter for MidJourney seems to be a way to remove the liability from the app itself, placing it onto the prompter's "plate". I've noticed that when using style reference images (--sref), any artist names used in the actual prompt seem to be meaningless.
I've trained my own local AI on my own style, and it has increased my productivity 100 times.
Now, I can scan in my sketches and go through finishing it fast in my own style. It's great!!!
the thing with Midjourney and AI related companies, its that its profits from artists without even saying thanks, if it was free for everyone to use it would have less problems i think. Im aware of the computing power needed for the machines to work, just saying that if it was free, maybe artist would not care THAT much about machine inspiring on them... those companies are making tons of money while artist have always struggle to get paid jobs in what they like to do...
Exactly man
Inspiration and influence is very hard to legally pin down. If you got a musician who scores a number one hit on the charts, and then they uncover a Spotify list of 20 artists that the creator listened to in the past 5 years. Can those 20 artist claim that their music was the source of that hit record? Because the artist was inspired and influenced by it? That would be crazy... 'cause who inspired and influenced those artists? They didn't start from scratch. Even listening to something could subconsciously have an effect on a creator's own creative output, without knowing it. Through the ages, creative people have copied and have been inspired by other artists, giving it their own spin. It only becomes a problem when the work is an actual copy of another work, like a cover song which has the same exact melody and lyrics.
It's also been shown in more than a few court cases where large sums of money have been wasted on lawyers, that there is a certain amount of music theory that is just recognized as universal. If you make a song with a I-IV-V chord progression, well, welcome to the club of literally thousands of hit songs that use that progression. I'm a lead guitar player. I've memorized dozens of my favorite solos, and many of them are just small changes in the same patterns, but with a different tone... sometimes. I really started learning how similar some of this music was.
Only that an AI is simply a computer system, it doesn't take "inspiration".
well to tell if using a model are just scraping is doing copy right character test. It give you copy righter character unedited than it scraping. if hard to get to it then going off training data.
not the same thing, when will idiots stop acting like AI "does" what people do. Inspiration and sourcing are not the same thing.
I appreciate both arguments, but as an Artist and a Photographer, few of the majority of Artists have begun with a truly ORIGINAL idea. Often inspired by another, including those who are considered Masters of their craft.
AI is a medium.
If one uses AI with direct intent to emulate a specific Artist for commercial gain (money, credibility, etc.), that’s a different conversation entirely.
Yeah but that’s exactly what most people use AI art for…
totally agree. Not only that but its scraped to make more art faster and not have any of scraped resources be compensated. And thats the main problem more than if Ai art is art. Lets not confuse the matter. The fact these companies scraped these art. Make money from their software and choose not to compensate. thats the main issue.
And the fact that this Ai stuff doesnt not just include art is troublesome. If trch compamines can scrape with out restriction, then they scrape personal data, records, voice and your own face or loved with out penalty is a problem. With more tools that can basically do Identity theft to all degrees including art is an issue.
I think all Ai art users should really think about that. Not just right for expeession. But looks whats being scraped on all levels.
Sure progress is good. But it shouldn't be with out moral or exploitation.
If these tech companies created this machine on fincancial compensated material. This debate of Ai art, if its art or not artconversation would go a lot smoother.
It should be treated like music with "sampling" and compensated. and not "Laundered" its the wrong mentality
AI is a medium for useless hacks. Ai has it's uses but creating "art" is not one of them. All it does is allow the profoundly mediocre to pretend they have talent.
@@loverrlee Not every who uses AI art it out for money, some use it because it's fun and gives them the opportunity to create (using the term loosely) art that they would not otherwise be able to create. Not everyone is gifted with the ability to drawing or paint.
I think people who support AI are being difficult because they can play stupid or delusional. When most people come to the conclusion that AI art scrapping is an ethical problem, the humbling of the AI world will be immediate. It will never be too late, there is always a source which has a label and things are moving faster now than ever before. AI will be stopped and you all will have the whole public domain, which is incredibly valuable mind you. Leave artists alone and stop gaslighting. You can't draw if you don't learn. Prompting is not an art style, it's a lazy hack to acheive nothing off the backs of hardworking people.
AI only outputs what you put in. It is inherently uncreative. Which is why real artists can never be replaced by it and need not be worried if they are dedicated to their craft.
I think that people are misinterpreting what Nick Cave means which is that a lot of people will never explore their abilities because exactly what they want will be done for them and in turn when they don't have the thing that will do it for them they will be helpless in creating the world they want
Cave's right, a lot of people will and already are. That being said, I still use AI art and I still create digital art and I still create art in my art journals in traditional mediums.
Imitation is the sincerest for of flattery. This software is the future, get on board or risk falling behind. Artists, coders and creatives have a head start and now have far more capabilities than ever before. What a time to be alive.
As an AI user & co-creator (not calling myself an AI artist, cause #SorryNotSorry, we're not if we're only prompting) the entire quote is... 'Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness.' So maybe don't use that to try & prove your point, lol.
@willva y'all are delusional with your ideas that every new online trend is somehow a starting point for a big change.
Myself being an artist, I often wondered about that very issue. I agree with the artist A.I has bypassed the artist, I do believe they should be compensated for these images. Inspiration, copying and mimicking along with imitation all have different meanings in a sense drawing inspiration then giving credit is what makes the difference! If u can’t be honest about what you have copied, what you’re mimicking then you’re stealing and it’s dishonesty at that point and you lose credibility within that craft and or what you’re saying!
I love using technology as a tool in my workflow. I am a graphic artist and abstract painter. I consider myself a mixed media artist. However many of my painter friends are up in arms because they know that the average person will go for low cost AI generations instead of hiring them and paying the price for organic skilled work by an artist. That is the problem for them. And I understand their fear.
Another issue it how the data is collected. That data is unpaid labor that was taken without consent. Personally I Do think AI can be great tool if used as a tool not a replacement. And these companies need to either get consent and pay to use others labor (data) or create something for people to use on their own labor.
They have to really "free the market" for all
I am on that list and I did not give permission. If they want to use my work I want a BIG cut. They can't do this without the artists and honestly, I don't want to be part of it. Use my work...PAY ME!
thanks for chipping in, who are you?
I would rather not say. I try to keep a low profile online as it's a toxic cesspit. @@aisamsonreal
Exactly this
couldn't agree more
There two sides to the coin, your art would not have gain as much notoriety without the use of AI, 9/10. So there’s benefit there. That’s a benefit to the artist that will surpass their lifetime. Where the actual value in that is for court to decide.
“BIG cut” why not fair share? If the AI copy’s artists it’s not unreasonable for the AI to identify the artist used in the generated photo. Once these artist are identified, I’d love to see the work that they create.
I'm not unwilling to accept and respect AI generated content as an artform. Personally, I like traditional works over digital, photography, photoshop etc. Idk judt feels like it has something more special. It's just my taste and I see the appeal and value AI works could have to others.
I'm finding it hard to appreciate AI art for what it is currently and I think it's mainly influenced by the environment surrounding it. (Or at least, what I have often seen). There seems to be lack of respect and empathy for the artists that came before them. The ones that even made their own medium possible.
I reckon it's more logical to give a shared copyright to both the company and prompt writers in the future, and creators should have the right to choose whether to use a style derived from some specific artist or not, and if it is a YES, the choice to share the styles or not should be in the artists' hands. It's a different world already, human beings should value more for the ideas and imaginations than technics, prompt writers are writers too, and it's writers' duty to give the worlds more imagination just as artists' original creativity matters!
Samson, I utilize AI and your channel is KEY for keeping me up to date with the latest news and updates. Thank you for your work!
I appreciate that!
imitation is not copyrightable? therefore u cannot copy right ai
Using mid journey is one of the most empowering platforms I have ever used… And at times embarrassing. I have a lot to learn! And I love it. ✨👏💪
Man the lengths to justify AI in this thread of comments is so ridiculous.
yeah,thieves always say that crap
@@Crepyydoll63 thieves lol
They should sue each other for obviously learning from each other.
Humans sue each other all the time for copyright infringement.
But they learn techniques, not to be an artist.
@@Rosa-ng8uu Lots of artists look alike. The also copy the artist side and try to express similar things not just the technique. In fact most artists express similarly.
learning is normal stealing and tracing is not
if a human artist traced an art and called it "his own" it's stealing
same thing with a machine that steals works and overlays it
it's theft plain and simple
@@starsandallwitch where do you see any AI tracing art? Do you even generate?
This isn’t about taking 2D art forms and recreating them. It’s about generating immersive narrative worlds. That’s a far bigger artistic undertaking than we might imagine from our current viewpoint.
Generative images are just a tool like Photoshop. As an artist myself, I understand the fear but in reality this world is about adapting. If you resist a technology then you only miss out on the opportunities and limit your skillset.
I've never thought of the ai lawsuits as a problem amongst individual ai creators getting in trouble... (its not ai artist vs anti ai artists)... I could care less and its impossible to police anyway... the concern is big corporations replacing roles. Screen writers, story board artists and concept artists. It's true that "we could "use ai as an "assistant" tool in the process but particularly in these departments most artists involved would rather do the work manually. its fun and its the best way to improve and learn a plethora of skills. Specially as a jr artist. As a Sr concept artist myself I'm concerned that we will loose traditional art fundamentals knowledge to the next generation of ai artists. I'm not sure how we can reason that choosing to give up on 10,000 years of perfecting our ability to craft an image by hand is actually a "good thing" for progress? to me knowledge IS progress. Investing in skills, to learn, to understand optics, perspective, how light behaves, how to trace and visualize shadows. Drawing and painting are tools for visual learners to make sense of the world. I just hope we still have a place in a society that is run by ai. For me the best compromise for ai assimilation would be some kind of tax break or tax penalty depending on the size of a company and the genuine demand for human workers to do labor manually vs automated. If there is a shortage of human interest in a particular labor task, automate that. If a large number of humans like to do something manually... let us preserve that skill. For very small companies ai could serve as a catalyst until it starts to grow. Lastly I'm pretty sure (myself included) many more artists would be more willing to embrace ai in the future if a model gets trained with only creative commons data. Currently they ARE taking advantage of ppls data and privacy... Big businesses don't easily get away with unlicensed software... why is data any different? data has A LOT of value in the new ai economy. I'm fine with waiting to see how these ethics get sorted out in court. Regardless learning new software is ALWAYS easier then learning the foundations of any new skill. Ai tools will only become easier to use and will hide the true knowledge in the automated process. So unless the new advice to artists is to learn how to code neural networks because that's the only viable future of art I'm gonna continue learning as much as I can about the world as a visual learner by drawing, painting and 3d modeling. Hopefully such skills will still be valuable to future clients for many many more year to come. Its incredible how capable humanity is with and without ai!
Also, many people are seeing stockphoto and gettyimages logos (well.. attempts at them) showing up in from some of the trained models being used for stable diffusion. This isnt becuse people are prompting for the logos... its because that aspect is over abundant in the data set. Theyre on enough images associated with the words photo and photograph etc that the logos will attempt to show up. Its no different than how it learns what to render when you type the word cat. It associates the ears and whiskers and paws with 'cat' even though youre not prompting out for those aspects of the cat. The lawsuit is like the owner of dasani being upset when someone prompts ocean and gets water. Outside of the artists name, anything else prompted for probably has hundreds if not thousands of images with related data in the dataset. Are you really going to be mad that you represent a 1/100000th of the dataset and maybe 1/1000th of the training data that associates with the prompt elements. Should van gogh come back from the dead and sue anyone who used the word 'painting' in a prompt?
Anyone crying about this shit doesnt care about art or creativity. They only care about money and themselves.
Imagine gatekeeping imgination and creative expression. They need to get good and start arting some shit no one has ever seen before. If theyre always making new stuff, creating new styles, making new statements, DiSrUpTiNg new or institutions... then they will be fine as that new art style or concept wont be in any of the data sets.
That's the same shit as that person who tweeted about some AI generator stealing images cause it tried to make a signature & that's when everyone went batshit. Umm... yeah. I'm so tired I don't even have the energy to write anything else. But you know where I'm going with it lol.
The same people sueing Ai are the same people who think a duct-taped Banana to a Wall is art at least Ai helps spark creativity I mean if they can sue that Art format what else are they gonna have to copyright or ban next they shorta put themselves in a corner with this debate??
The nuance between 'using' and 'being inspired from' is often very thin.
Not for a machine.
It’s not about inspiration. Anytime that argument is used it’s to deflect from the reality of labor and data theft. People have a right to their work, and companies should not be able to take whatever the want without consequences.
@@Sasha444luvscompletely agree with you here Sasha.
@@badpuppy3maybe so and we must control machines
The best way for real Human artists to survive is for other Humans in the top 1% of all entertainment, film etc. industries to start hiring Human Artists to do the work. As long as corporations continue to cut costs in human labors and resort to machine automation, these lawsuits won't matter much even if the copyright laws wins. Corporations will only be forced to things in secret and bypass human labor laws.
Who ever thinks that they need real human artists to survive ? It's just business for them .
If there are chances to cut any expenses, they will do that in a heartbeat.
I'm astounded that public domain isn't part of the debate. I would pay for an image generator trained solely on public domain works. Why hasn't anyone done it???
there's so few images in public domain, and quality is mostly not great so garbage in, garbage out...
Because it creates a worse looking product. Midjourney is on record for admitting this. They essentially admitting that art theft was the only way to create a valuable product.
I think adobe is attempting to do something like that with their AI, I haven't been up to date with their progress, but you can look it up.
@FuturMaestro no there aren't. Literally every painting and every art current in history is registered online and can be accessed by anyone. For some reason they chose to take contemporary artist's works from their own portofolios.
artists are some of the largest egotistical copers I've ever met
It's a cutthroat business that's only being made harder. I empathize, but it is the reason I never took my love of the hobby to a professional level in my youth. I probably wasn't good enough and the competition is soul wrenching.
It is true that creating is mainly combining concepts, but you're not only taking advantage on other artists ideas, but also their effort to develop their ideas. The money and years they put into learning the fundamentals and getting better at painting.
They're getting nothing from this, nor money neither recognition. It would be cool if you use AI to generate images and exploring new ideas, but giving the artists what they deserve for saving you time and money to get those results.
In addition, I think we shouldn't use AI as final result. Just merging results isn't art, without intention. AI doesn't have an intention, but you do.
I personally use ai art for inspiration maybe i want to draw a pagoda in a traditional japanese woodblock style i could look at dozens of images and spend the time conceptualizing what i want or i could bing it and have a dozen images to use as inspiration figured out how i want to draw it and what would look good. I think this is just shooting yourself in the foot as an artist
If I was a really good artist I would start a fiver freelance account and work with people who generates ai art and enhance their work to meet their imaginations
I've fed more than one of my art pieces into Mid Journey to improve it.
Too late, Fiverr is full with AI sellers and clients also started using AI too instead of hiring artists. :)
Since art existed artists were coping artists to learn from them and in this way develop their unique art, or not that much unique so styles have been forming, like impressionism or cubism. As I work with AI I can see how much of my art education influences it. Mostly same things must happen for the AI art to be excellent like when painting on canvas: vision, taste and sensibility, direction, making choices and fixing what doesn't work. We don't mind using machines in any other area of life.
It's a very complicated situation... But for example, do you know that very soon your Skillshare sponsor will be useless? Technology should be at the service of human needs and not the other way around. Quote: "AI isn't going anywhere"...do you still want it to stay here even when it makes love for you?
Samson remind me what is that awesome website to generate mockups. You mentioned about some time ago
It's Pacdora:
ua-cam.com/video/5S8lprqac2c/v-deo.html
:D
If it wasn't for the original artwork none of your prompts would be able to create anything.
I don't think this lawsuit will go through. Midjourney, as said, is currently trained on derivative works of listed artists. Previous versions are trained on actual artist's work. The previous version is no longer in use. And as such, derivative works are considered fair use, even for monetization. The copyright holder of the derivative work is the maker of the derivative work, not the original artists. In other words, they can't be sued for current versions.
Creating fan art inspired by your favorite artwork using AI tools offers a captivating fusion of creativity and technology. It's an exciting way to combine traditional art appreciation with modern AI techniques. I look forward to seeing your innovative creations!
i actually mostly agree with what you said. the nature of Life is expansion. i FULLY support and respect the art community and understand deeply their frustrations. it's beyond painful to have your stuff "stolen" without so much as a nod or a conversation. like you said, i too believe that there are no "new" ideas. and i also think it's fun and amazing to take something that someone else did and allow it to inspire new ways of expression. but i also understand that we have, up to the present, constructed a society where, some will take the ideas of another and use it in a way that benefits themselves and hurts others; so we had to come up with copyright laws.... i like what you said about how we are evolving. and i agree. and that this experience that we are all having with AI will, in effect, help us evolve as a species when it comes to art(and since "art imitates Life", it will also evolved Life for us). we are being pushed out of our comfort zones and so the question is, what will you choose to do with the discomfort??..... anyway, just adding my 2 cents to the collective😋. great video. Sending 💖
I personally only use AI art tools to make funny memes or interesting wallpapers and those wallpapers are mostly just for me to view, I rarely share them and if I do share AI art, I always let people know that I didn't actually make it.
I do however have to spend some time fixing mistakes that the AI made, I don't think I've got AI to generate a single image that I didn't have to edit.
I'm currently working on a story and I've avoided using AI to help with that, because I want it to be my own thoughts and words. I do want to include images with the story and I have a plan with what I want to do with that.
For the book cover and other images, I am going to use AI art to create concept images, which give the idea of what I want and then I'm going to try and find an artist (within my limited budget) that can actually create human art based on those concept images.
That's where it gets interesting though, there is a chance that the artist will themselves use an AI art tool lol and I will have to check for that, because if they do, that destroys the whole process.
I have a feeling that new books that were created with only the human mind and with no AI help, might become a unique selling point in the future.
Yeah, AI is a boon for people who are good at Photoshop. Oh, remember when digital photo editors were the bug-a-boo 30 years ago. Now no photographer can live without them. And how many artists on Deviant Art. etc. have used photoshop to improve their sketches. This guy has and I had classic training in sketching and painting in the 80s. Technology marches on.
I'm not an artist, never claimed to be one. I just like to play with Midjourney.
I've been creating original digital art since the 1988 - Started uploading original graphics to BBS and Usenet groups around 1992. Everyone was sharing their works and workflows on how said images were achieved. By 1994 I was producing original 3D images and video... 1995 photography ... etc. 32 years later, Terabytes of my work is out there. I can't even list all the artists that have influenced my work over that time. I have no problems with my work being part a Dataset.
With that, now having seen how David's Midjourney teams have addressed covering their tracks because of potential copyright issues; it reads like malice. This is very problematic for Generative AI going forward. A solution could be a consortium of "established working artists" licensing their works for a fee or percentages.
I read somewhere they are trying to keep digital art protected by inserting a layer with very low opacity that doesnt affect the general piece but that let u track if ur image is being used in a data base for AI. Can someone confirm if this is true or not?.
I saw a video where there is a website that lets the artist load their work and then they can share that version online and if an AI program tries to view it it will look like random stuff or even look like something different ie a tree would look like a cow and a cow might look like a gnome etc and begin to in essence corrupt the AI's dataset.
As far as the Open AI and LLM's go, they could pay to access Kindle Unlimited and get legal access to a vast amount of copyrighted books to use for training the AI.
I was a manual artist who fell in love with the agility offered by AI. Every artist uses works by other artists as a reference, to learn, train, improve. But I've never seen anyone credit and pay commission to the artists they used as references. What is the difference? Their ego is hurt, because with our human limitations, we need a lot of time to perfect something that an algorithm can do in seconds. The only option is to swallow the ego and continue being a manual artist by choice, because you like what you do, or accept and use technology to your advantage. Have you ever thought if we were charged for all the works we see, process in our brain and then express on paper?
Every artist "steals" from other artists, to become an artist. Every human creates based on countless previous creations. We are a species that essentially learns by example. So, this is a fight in the name of vanity, and nothing more.
How I love your videos!! one better than the other.
Glad you like them!
Does this mean we could get sued in school for learning off other artists..?
The one thing that angers me is the online competitions, and people clearly used ai. You can even tell... The fingers and hands are a bit distorted, and some parts blurry.
But Ai is mostly supposed to be a tool to inspire, and give ideas, but unfortunately people don't use it in that way.
Also, if a piece of art is directly, copied & pasted then that is copyrighted, and is criminal. AI Doesn't really do that, it just makes imitations based off the style of an image. You cannot copyright a style..
I used to make ai art and post it on DeviantArt just to share with others, and i've seen people literally save the image and upload it and claimed they made it, themselves without ai...
AI isn't really the issue, it's the humans that use it, to a degree.
I loved the artist Sarashakeel, instead of fearing AI she made her own training set based on her own work. That is what i mean about it being a tool, and it's what the human behind the tool does with it.
@@CatTriping Your comment? Not sure. There's no explanation or anything so...
Useing others labor without consent is labor/ data theft. The AI model can only function based on others data. People should have a right to their labor and data and have the right to consent. These companies should get consent and pay to use others labor to develop their AI models.
👏👏👏
Midjourney is a visualisation tool that can basically create anything, far beyond the limits of what humans have ever attempted to paint, draw or photograph. It doesn't need any particular artist, any artist is but a tiny drop in a limitless ocean of generative possibilities. 99.99999% of stuff I see on Midjourney has never been seen by humans before, it bears no similarity to anything that has existed to this point in time. Midjourney, for any true artist, is humbling, it is a peak into the infinite, and it is not a threat, it's a wonder.
I think it's annoying because it stands on the shoulders of real artists and is viewed by them as competition. It shouldn't be except some short sighted executives won't be able to resist the idea of using it this way. I think it would be a much more potent tool for Experimentation or a kind of virtual Artistic Mad Science Lab. Personally, I sometimes like to mashup about 5 to 10 or more Artists or Styles together to see how well it's handled and the crazy results. I want to see CyberCelestialCosmicQuantumGalaxyTeslaGadgetDecoNeonNanoAtomSorceryMysticalCelticPunk.
Then why does it use other people's art exclusively then?
@@artorhen Why do look at and draw inspiration from other people’s art when you create things?
@@JohnStevens-y6e well, frankly, I don't do that as much as I draw inspiration from real life. Just about any artist learns from real life because it helps with understanding fundamentals much better. When you look at another artist, you look to see what techniques they use, there's usually a purpose and the works that artists make that they show to the world vs the works that they do as studies are two separate things as well.
Samson, I agree with you. For me. generative AI is just one more (powerful) tool in my box to create art.
What makes the difference between an artist and anyone who knows how to use AI generative software is the vision, the intention that the software doesn't have on its own. The copyright is a not a real question, as it doesn't matter to me. Nobody has the vision I have and nobody would be able to steal it from me. And at the same time, as all artists I am influenced and inspired by artists everything / anything I can see , it's all about what the artist in me will perceive in all the things that are given to see to my eyes...
As Picasso said "The meaning of life is to find your gift. The purpose of life is to give it away."
Artist steal from other artist and call it art. So how is copyrights going to work?
I think the AI companies have got much deeper pockets than the artists, and likely better lawyers. The thing I struggle with the argument is that art imitates art. What is truly original anyway? My guess is that most of the artists on the list are in some way imitating each other in some way.
A great and important video!
I have been painting and selling my art since 1991.
In 2017 I left the canvas for virtual reality. If I still painted “classically” I would be depressed right now!
It is mainly the speed of the AI that is particularly humbling.
To work on a painting for 5 years in times of AI you have to be damn idealistic...
So:
Who wants to spend years learning and practicing something that they can get at the push of a button?
I now use various AIs for my VR worlds and videos. Stable Diffusion's ability to generate endless textures for my VR brushes is breathtaking.
I wouldn't want to monetize a prompted image unless I trained the AI with my own art.
MJ makes money from our data (the art of the world) that should belong to everyone. That's why I have no pity if MJ is punished or banned.
Free Open Source Local Stable Diffusion gives you the skills of all artists for free and I think that is the right way! (Big FANX to StabilityAI!)
I am deeply disturbed and very euphoric at the same time....yeagh! ...crazy times....
Happy colored greetinx
"NEVER ARGUE WITH
A FOOL, ONLOOKERS
MAY NOT BE ABLE
TO TELL THE
DIFFERENCE."
MARK TWAIN
It's the same about AI art and human artists.
This isn't Evolution and to think that it makes art obsolete is to fundamentally misunderstand what art is
I play with Midjourney mostly to experiment with it. I have reservations about trying to use it directly to make a commercial product. I feel like it is technically Ethical, but kind of in poor taste.
For now, I'm interested in using A.I. for Textures for personal 3D projects.
Lastly, I kind of wonder if the debate is really sparked by the flawed way Art is 'Commodified' or how Artists make a living? There really should be a more robust Patronage system or the insanely wealthy Billionaires could be kicking in money funding the people that significantly contribute to our Culture. If the Artists were living more at ease financially, could both them and Midjourney be at least less "Financially" antagonistic? Even so, on those terms it would be nice if a system giving Credit was built into the file Metadata saying what it was based on or some transparency? It seems to me the instinctive move by Midjourney to play a digital Codex shuffle game on style origins comes from the lawsuits.
Ya, we went through the same thing when downloading music became a thing. You can't stop A.I.
AI is committing bigger crimes, so justice may succeed this time.
Of course, we stopped Napster tho. And Ares, and e-mule. A very few people uses them rn, not only because of regulations, but because there are many new tools better than downloading music, like Spotify, Apple Music, or "add song" features on social media that actually pay the artists for using their music.
@@Erixdiegowe never really stopped, we just moved on to better things. A.I isn't going anywhere
@@rickwest9315 Better things because they regulated the whole thing. AI isn't going anywhere, but it will be nerfed just like any technology. And then there will be better things made by real artists, because they're the only ones that are creating.
@@Erixdiego nerfed? There's over 3k sites that are using a.i. If a.i gets "nerfed". They will just have programs like Torrents that people will just use.
I would be more concerned about reality being presented correctly in electronic form, than these arguments over artistic licenses that people are debating.
Who is to say that any real artist can paint another’s style and literary sell that as their own. This is not copyright at all. It’s been happening for hundreds of years. No artist has ever sued another artist who has an identical style with near images in that style, styles are not copyrightable only specific pieces can be.
Hmm random very impactful message earns a sub. I am an expert at learning new skills, but a lack in ability to recognize new and useful skills. Always have just done what i WANTED to do, and not what was strategic. I am lucky to have naturally gained the abilty to adapt but this is the next level.
Thanks for watching and welcome aboard!
Wouldn’t there be a separate category for A.I. artist as well as digital artist?
this was handled last year already and how Adobe firefly was born. the solution was to just not reference the artists name. even tho its there. The only case they had was that their names were being used, so they removed that.
While copyrights are one thing, artists dont own their audience and if their audience is a learning program it isnt any different. The program just cant claim to be that artist. Currently, AI doesnt claim to be anyone. People do.
counterfeit and forgery have always been a problem in the arts. But using tools to copy styles easier have pushed innovation to where we are today.
AI companies will need to develop a system that pays a commission to artists whose work has been used to train image gen apps. Credits will need to be based on usage, just like Spotify. The algorithm will need to attribute credits using fractions of usage. Artists will then be clamouring to get their work "scraped."
In your dreams, Morpheus
@@j_shelby_damnwird No. Just a practical solution that's already been implemented to solve a very similar problem. An algorithm that provides an equitable distribution of royalties. Not rocket science.
The Luddite movement will fail, and their inspiration is not theirs alone. What they learn and master is not entirely theirs. AI is also a valuable opportunity for the wealth and money that had been concentrated in a few people to return to those without skills. Therefore, actions to protect their vested rights must be thoroughly destroyed. The development of AI should never be stopped
“To return to those without skills.” So you’re a communist...
What an interesting story as I have written a blog about AI Art, IP and the fair use act. (USA Bias) and even had a copy write attorney go over it to ensure the facts are as they currently are. Next court hearing written down so I can keep it up to date. Thank You.
People calling themselves artists isn't new. There are only a lot more of them today than 10 years ago.
the link to the list is truncated by youtube
and the redirect locks up
That’s like suing someone for doing a collage.. not going to stand the test of trial, sorry, bud. You may own your art’s copyright, but you don’t own the language of your art (for good or for bad). It’s like me owning my words but not owning the words or the letters.. do you understand this difference?
I'm an artist, and I understand the uproar, I really do, but typically the art generated by MJ is unique--meaning the overall piece is one-of-a-kind. Does it have similarities to other pieces, or styles, or artists, sure, but it's not copying a 'piece of art.' (usually)
Just like a human artist grows up and admires artists--they then go to school and train in their craft as they mimic other artists and styles. We as humans either consciously influence our art by particular art pieces we've seen in the past, or we unconsciously create a work of art that is similar to another artist or art piece. AI models aren't that different in terms of how they are trained, and how they piece together elements of what they've seen and learned. The new piece may have similarities to past works and other artists...but I'd gather there are tens of thousands of human artists that all paint and draw very similar things to one another--it's just not being called out in such a way as this lawsuit.
As long as the AI art that is created isn't 'purposefully' mimicking a piece of art. Meaning, as long as the human prompting the art isn't purposefully trying to recreate a particular piece of art, there should be no lawsuit. If, also, a piece of art kicked out by AI is very similar to a particular work (which can happen if prompted to create Matrix stills, for example), then yes, this should not be allowed (specifically if it's being created for a commercial reason). It should be handled the same way it's handled with another human artist.
I have to say, again, I understand why we are all so scared and upset...but typically, the majority of art generated by AI are unique pieces, that blend WAY too many 'influences' to be considered a copyright infringement. Sure we can argue case-by-case basis if you want, because it can happen that AI produces something a little too similar to a previous work...but I've been using it for over a year now, and the stuff it creates is transformative enough, I think we just have to swallow our pride, and start leveraging this tech as a tool, and not stomp towards it with pitchforks.
Create your regulations. Get up-in-arms about it. If it makes you feel better. But this genie is out of the bottle, and in my middle-aged creative mind, humans do the same things this AI is doing, only 1000 times faster...and that's one of the reasons we are mad. Human artists will never go away, and there will always be galleries showcasing our work, and there will always be human artists paid to produce stuff, but fortunately or unfortunately, humans have to evolve in every aspect along side our technology (or at least we should).
In terms of 'photography competitions' and the like, yes, definitely one should not be able to submit AI generated works. I mean, you're just a doofus or scumbag if you try to pull this kind of thing, and this is a totally different issue...douchbags.
All of this legal training data set mumbo-jumbo is irrelevant in my eyes. Again, just as we handle it with humans, as long as a work generated by AI isn't obviously copying another piece of work, there should be no lawsuit. Like I said before, there are tens of thousands of human artists mimicking other artists out there, it's how we work as a species, but as long as a particular piece isn't exactly the same, or trying to commercialize an IP already laid out by a previous individual or entity, we have no true grounds to call it copyright infringement.
My two cents. Thanks.
This is so dumb. Artists (im one) are stabbing themselves in the heart. This can only be solved if a style can be copyrighted. And if they manage to do it, it will be the end of all emerging artists because in art everything is a rehash of other artists.
not true, you can draw the sky and would not rehash other artists
Wrong. So wrong.
And in what style would you draw it?@@FuturMaestro
@@chuchuchutrain6735 my style, a mirror of my emotions and feeling, no need to copy, just express who you are, what you feel, that's real art.
There is no such thing as "your style", that's what the US courts said: "Copyright doesn’t protect things like style and genre, because doing so would limit the ways that others can create other works, thereby chilling their ability to express themselves through their works. "
And that's exactly my point: You can't trademark a style, you can trademark your work, of course. But it's not "your style" is "your artwork", and the AI is using that, styles. The AI don't replicate artwork unless it's something cliché like Monalisa. @@FuturMaestro
Samson... all good points... feels like human generated art might be seen as more valuable in future, since the rate A.I generates art, potentially cheapens it.
I am very torn. As a creator, I have a real problem with data scraping and stealing the creative efforts of others. That said, as a graphic designer with deadlines, my ability to ideate quickly and inspire is unparalleled. I won't use it for the final art. Period. I also have a problem supporting a company like Midjourney with my funds when it is obvious they are unethical. I quit my subscription. I will have to create my art using my noggin. Like we have done for Millennia.
i sertainly hope the suit fails because it would prevent absolutely everything ai.
I don't see what the problem is. The images the AI generator is generating are completely new images regardless of whether they are based on some artist's style or not. No real artist on earth has ever not taken inspiration from other artist into their own work; how is this different? And it's not just one artist they are taking inspiration from, but thousands.
Late to the discussion here, but here in the States Section 107 of the copyright law includes a provision that there are some instances where someone can use copyright material under fair use. These include comment and criticism, which is why we can have so many reaction videos. But copyright material can be used for teaching and research. This is where Midjourney and other ai art software could win the lawsuit.
Not really. Midjourney is clearly not a teaching or research product. Everyone knows their main aim is commercial.
@ttt5205 I was referring more to "teaching" the software. I don't think the Midjourney programmers are instructing the program to copy the reference material directly but rather using them as a starting point for the consumer's prompts. Don't the prompts adjust the work and make it something unique? How close does the rendered material need to be to violate copyright? The programmers are not passing off someone else's work as their own, just using it as a reference point.
@@timmeyer9191 diffusion models are built by default to recreate as closely as possible, the training material. That's how scores are assigned. There is no built in method for avoiding copying. Only coincidence.
Using someone else's style of drawing is not stealing it, as long as you don't do it like the original, if we are going to criticize AI generated art, then we probably have more than AI to sue, just think of all the photographs, movies, games , music that may be similar to others.
Midjourney puts my stick figures to shame.
People forget the human behind the art.
Waiting on mega corporations that own all the IPs to sue these artists that are complaining about AI stealing thier art, who make livings off of drawing someone's else's IP
That already happens
It dose happen, all the time. Usually companies don’t care about fan art because for them it’s free advertising and benefits them. And it’s a way for artists to get noticed and get hired by these companies as well. Fan art rarely negatively effects these companies.
But if you start making a certain amount of money or they don’t like what you’re doing. They will come after you and take everything. It’s happened to several people I know.
Also many who do sell fan art are either working for the company and, or have licensing agreements. So maybe try doing more research instead of makeup assumptions.
@Sasha444luvs I work in the comics community and have an Instagram. Let's be honest, Artists have been doing this for decades. Yes, a small minority get hit, but most get away with it. So your argument is non consensual plagiarism is OK if it benefits the original creator? What about if the creator is dead? Artists have been drawing / selling Dave Steven's Rocketeer long since his death. As much as they say they love him, I don't see any of them donating profits to his estate🤷🏽♂️
I hate midjourney , no free plan and forced to use stupid messy chatbox to generate , thanks no
thanks for the list, i just added many art styles to my business :)
Didn't Nick Cave write 'The Ass Saw the Angel' after reading the dictionary or the bible ? data set = artistic outcome
FYI You ARE an artist and just like other artists that use more traditional methods, you stand on the shoulders of giants. The solution is giving credit where its due and in proportional amounts, if I make a piece of art inspired by 1 person/artist its is important that I credit the appropriate artist. if there are multiple then it is important multiple are credited. It should be possible and necessary that the AI understands is able to articulate, what the sources of inspiration are and by what percentage. for example 40% Banksy and 60% Vincent van Gogh. with a system like this, then the artist could have a process of being rewarded for their work. the system could record the usage. if you make work that many people want to generate, you should be rewarded. the subscription fee alone could support the artists.
AI should have never been applied to creating art. Art is a human form of expression. Leave it to people. Apply AI to solving world problems, cancer, weather, pollution, etc. Art is both a form of human expression and field that employs many people. What art is not is world/societal problem.
I would have loved if they used my photography and digital art!
11:48 - evolving, evoking taste into new mediums will separate copying of art to originating art 🤓 valid.
Didn’t George Lucas basically plagiarize the plot of Star Wars?
Hmm. Some of these artists definitely sold out a long time ago. Copyright is responsible for stifling both progress (in the form of patents), research and cultural development. It is a capitalist tool to control thought. I wonder how long some of us creatives will be able to relate to the term 'artist' at all, given that the label has been co-opted by these 'saviors of humankind' fighting AI.
I blame Disney and how it has ruined the idea of copyright for public and private good. Four generations of people have grown up with this idea that they should own ideas in perpetuity, and personally I think that's wrong.
I agree, but it's an extension of that now.This lawsuit implies that you can copyright DERIVATIVES of your idea. Remixes. Imitation. AI doesn't make exact copies, it learns very effectively how to imitate. If so called artists are allowed to make this law, then not only can I not use their art, I cannot even be inspired by their art to do anything similar without being sued for copyright violation. It's nonsensical.@@ChainedFei
@@ElectricSkullmeat it would not be the first time, nor the last, that the government fucked up common sense. Just like how they ruined copyright. It was all supposed to operate like the patent system currently does; 15 years of exclusivity, followed by public domain.
However, I *LIKE* to think (And perhaps this is stupid of me) that the SCOTUS would look at this case and say "Hah, no, we already decided on if you can copyright styles, GTFO".
@@ChainedFeiDisney sues everyone. BUT IRONICALLY they have stolen MANY of their stories and themes from folk stories etc and have profited off it! It's so ridiculous. Think about it
Copyright laws only exist via the government. Has nothing to do with capitalism.
Teaching AI models with any material at all is exactly the same as a human who has seen or read something and then learned from it, or got ideas from it, and then makes his/her original works. Would you sue someone who learned by studying works of art to become equally good artist himself/herself?
There's really no copyright infringement at all happening with machine learning models.
yeah,like its the same ?? please dude🤣🤣
@@Crepyydoll63 You're free to explain me what's different then. Are you sure you understand machine learning at all?