Current Events > Is AI-generated 'art' theft?

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/8/5/AAPw6aAAD8wV.jpg

Is it?

That chart makes no sense, and was written with intent to disparage without understanding.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/8/7/AAVhf4AAD8wX.jpg

Why isn't anyone giving the creator of Mona Lisa money any more :\

Technically, yes.

But it's also dumb as fuck so you shouldn't use it anyway.

i thought people not referencing pictures they use/repost was considered bad
but ai doing it isn't so?

https://twitter.com/Sioteru_/status/1598993863212793856?cxt=HHwWgICg7cuc4rAsAAAA

Complete_Idi0t posted...

Why isn't anyone giving the creator of Mona Lisa money any more :\

He died i think. Idk if his family gets any money

no, because if the original is worth something, it's value does not diminish due to AI art.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


ok so is rap music "theft"?

I don't see how you can claim using people's work without their permission isn't theft.

Especially when you are then giving it to a company to profit off of.

Here's a presentation on why AI art is theft and bad for art in general (they talk specifically about Lensa but it really applies to all AI art generators):

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=596699992459208&set=pcb.596701125792428

Some of the main points:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/4/1/AABGtnAAD9Ip.jpg
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/4/2/AABGtnAAD9Iq.jpg
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/4/3/AABGtnAAD9Ir.jpg
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/4/4/AABGtnAAD9Is.jpg
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/4/5/AABGtnAAD9It.jpg

Back_Stabbath posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/8/7/AAVhf4AAD8wX.jpg

There goes Picasso's job.

Why is Yes losing big time?

Are you people stupid or something?

Of course AI art is theft.

spanky1 posted...

Why is Yes losing big time?

Are you people stupid or something?

Of course AI art is theft.

It is a bit weird to wrap your head around and it doesn't quite fit most people's immediate definition of theft (the outright taking of something from someone, against their will or intentions) due to everything being fed into the AIs is copies of something.

Yes, it is.

Theft? Probably.

But also the idea of companies using AI-generated art to displace actual human artists is dystopian as fuck and we shouldn't condone it.

wackyteen posted...

It is a bit weird to wrap your head around and it doesn't quite fit most people's immediate definition of theft (the outright taking of something from someone, against their will or intentions) due to everything being fed into the AIs is copies of something.

Indeed. New tech has that effect. Go back to the early 2000's and make a poll asking if Napster / Limewire / etc constitutes 'theft.'

With their current output so heavily borrowing from particular images, yes. Though I assume they should be able to train it that the output doesn't heavily match one particular piece. It's mostly just lazy devs jumping on the bandwagon that is the issue.

No. But it'll clearly be used to put actual artists out of work.

There's a lot of nuance to the discussion about transformative works and it'll be interesting to see where AI falls in that. Human artists frequently use elements of other copyrighted works, and whether or not the use is protected depends on just how transformative the derivative work is. As for whether or not it's stealing...I'm gonna go with sometimes

That thing where people are using AI to complete partial works of art from other artists is very messed up

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/9/1/AAb05zAADvhj.jpg

DipDipDiver posted...

There's a lot of nuance to the discussion about transformative works and it'll be interesting to see where AI falls in that. Human artists frequently use elements of other copyrighted works, and whether or not the use is protected depends on just how transformative the derivative work is. As for whether or not it's stealing...I'm gonna go with sometimes

I think the thing here is that art requires a certain human element to it, because it's all about expression. Two people can look at the same piece of art and have totally different, yet equally valid interpretations of it. Therefore, when a human artist sees a piece of work and takes inspiration from it, as long as they aren't blatantly plagiarizing, they'll put their own spin on it that's unique to their own experiences, emotions and views.

A.I. doesn't really have the ability to do that because it can't really interpret art from a subjective standpoint. It just plugs keywords into an algorithm and spits out an image or group of images that best fits the parameters of the original query. That's not to say these images can't evoke emotions in whoever views it, but it's definitely not by design the way conventional art is. The truth is once you take the emotional and personal aspects out of art, you pretty much remove the elements that make it art in the first place.

If I make money off of it or get some sort of clout from it, sure it's stealing. If I plug in "Mona Lisa with huge tits" into an art generator just to laugh then nah.

The whole thing hits close home to me because I'm in the self-publishing business and I'm always looking at book cover stuff, and I hate the AI trend. People are starting to use it to sell book covers. Imagine that. Some other guy creates a work of art, then it gets stolen by an AI program, then some other person sells it for a ton of money and the indie writer may not even be aware of it. It's theft and it hurts artists.

I think people have a misconception about how it uses other art. Its not making collages of various works of art. Its training based on the art fed to it. You can download Stable Diffusion on your computer, disconnect it from the internet, and it will still work the same. Its only a 500MB program so theres no way it contains copies of every image it was trained on.

Son_Of_Spam posted...

I think people have a misconception about how it uses other art. Its not making collages of various works of art. Its training based on the art fed to it. You can download Stable Diffusion on your computer, disconnect it from the internet, and it will still work the same. Its only a 500MB program so theres no way it contains copies of every image it was trained on.

It depends on what people are using. Some literally just stitch together different pieces of art in such a way that you can simply overlay the originals. For sites that are getting spammed by AI art, that's generally the case.

spanky1 posted...

Why is Yes losing big time?

Are you people stupid or something?

Of course AI art is theft.

Because most people aren't artists and are ignorantly voting no because they don't know better/it doesn't affect them so they don't care.

No. Youre allowed to create transformative work without breaching copyright.

Nemu posted...

It depends on what people are using. Some literally just stitch together different pieces of art in such a way that you can simply overlay the originals. For sites that are getting spammed by AI art, that's generally the case.

Which ones would those be? DALL-E 2 and Stable Diffusion are the most popular programs used, and neither uses that technique as far as I have seen.

https://twitter.com/kevintemmer/status/1599864552757530624

Even if it isn't 'theft', it is fucked up for the programs to not give any kind of recognition to the art it is relying on to generate the images.

It is one thing for the generators to use generic photos of hands and fuck it up like the examples given in this topic already, but outright wholesale storing and using of art for content generation is a whole different ballpark.

It's not dissimilar to if you took someone's existing trademark, changed one or a few minor things while leaving the whole design chiefly the same, and tried to pass it off as a new design while still blatantly infringing on their trademark.

wackyteen posted...

It's not dissimilar to if you took someone's existing trademark, changed one or a few minor things while leaving the whole design chiefly the same, and tried to pass it off as a new design while still blatantly infringing on their trademark.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_Soup_Cans

wackyteen posted...

It is one thing for the generators to use generic photos of hands and fuck it up like the examples given in this topic already, but outright wholesale storing and using of art for content generation is a whole different ballpark.

It's not storing any artwork. It uses images to train it's neural network, but none of them are actually stored in the program itself or in any way used during the art generation process. If you ask it to draw a car it doesn't pull up an image of a car and insert it. It "knows" what a car is supposed to look like because it's been taught what they look like. What A.I. art programs do is more akin to an artist using references (be it other artists' work or what they observe in real life) to figure out how to draw something.