I'm encouraged and hopeful that hopefully we are getting past the vitriol and shock, and can hopefully start figuring this out as a society in a logical way. Personally I think the way to deal with this is to not regulate the tools, but regulate what people can do with them, if that regulation is needed. I can't help but wonder what Andy Warhol would have done with these tools. I won't speculate about that, but in my mind what we have is a tool that just accelerates the process we've been engaged in for all of history, and that is building on the ideas and work of others. It's forced us all to think about just how much and in what way building on the work of others is ethical, and i think that can be a healthy discussion. Thanks for sharing these videos.
@@kattman4605 (sorry for the wall of text, this is a complex issue). The reason I say that if we regulate we have to regulate what people do is because I don't think taking copyrighted material out of these tools will prevent people from doing the stuff that upsets people. It's easy to put those images right back in. So to answer your question specifically, I think if we make laws, the laws need to govern the end product, the image created and the person who distributes it..not the tool. of particular interest to me is the question.. Is it ok to blend the style of two or three artists using this tool to come up with a unique style? I think so, because it's how artists have always worked.. But lots of artists seem to think that this is so not ok that it needs to be illegal, so we need to figure this out. Adobe just created a version of this tool using only legally sourced images, I can't help but wonder if those artists are ok with it now? But then there's the other things..should we be able to create images of real people? In what situations? Is it ok if it's a celebrity? What about cloning voices? I really didn't like what star wars did.. But on the other hand I was happy with how the show star trek Picard used the tech to do the same thing in it's first season because they actually hired the original living actors. Should it specifically be illegal to create images that look as if they were created by someone else in a way that might confuse people into thinking they're looking at the original artists work? When is it an homage and when is it a rip off, when is it a forgery? These are all issues we've already faced, but it's true that image generators make these things easier to do so now even kids on tik tok will have to figure it out.
@@jameshughes3014 I must say that I am trully in love with your comment. These are EXACTLY what we must consider and it's refreshing to hear someone else besides me talking in detail about it. Thank you. I'd encourage engaging with others about this if you can; online or irl.
I'm encouraged and hopeful that hopefully we are getting past the vitriol and shock, and can hopefully start figuring this out as a society in a logical way. Personally I think the way to deal with this is to not regulate the tools, but regulate what people can do with them, if that regulation is needed. I can't help but wonder what Andy Warhol would have done with these tools. I won't speculate about that, but in my mind what we have is a tool that just accelerates the process we've been engaged in for all of history, and that is building on the ideas and work of others. It's forced us all to think about just how much and in what way building on the work of others is ethical, and i think that can be a healthy discussion. Thanks for sharing these videos.
What exactly do you mean by regulate what people can do with them? If I may ask.
@@kattman4605 (sorry for the wall of text, this is a complex issue).
The reason I say that if we regulate we have to regulate what people do is because I don't think taking copyrighted material out of these tools will prevent people from doing the stuff that upsets people. It's easy to put those images right back in. So to answer your question specifically, I think if we make laws, the laws need to govern the end product, the image created and the person who distributes it..not the tool.
of particular interest to me is the question.. Is it ok to blend the style of two or three artists using this tool to come up with a unique style? I think so, because it's how artists have always worked.. But lots of artists seem to think that this is so not ok that it needs to be illegal, so we need to figure this out.
Adobe just created a version of this tool using only legally sourced images, I can't help but wonder if those artists are ok with it now?
But then there's the other things..should we be able to create images of real people? In what situations? Is it ok if it's a celebrity? What about cloning voices? I really didn't like what star wars did.. But on the other hand I was happy with how the show star trek Picard used the tech to do the same thing in it's first season because they actually hired the original living actors.
Should it specifically be illegal to create images that look as if they were created by someone else in a way that might confuse people into thinking they're looking at the original artists work? When is it an homage and when is it a rip off, when is it a forgery?
These are all issues we've already faced, but it's true that image generators make these things easier to do so now even kids on tik tok will have to figure it out.
@@jameshughes3014 I must say that I am trully in love with your comment.
These are EXACTLY what we must consider and it's refreshing to hear someone else besides me talking in detail about it.
Thank you.
I'd encourage engaging with others about this if you can; online or irl.