I just want to make funny Pictures.

  • @TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    121 month ago

    Why not sell it? Because chances are the things it was trained off of were stolen in the first place and you have no right to claim them

    Why not claim it’s yours? Because it is not, it is using the work of others, primarily without permission, to generate derivative work.

    Not use it and hire a professional? If you use AI instead of an artist, you will never make anything new or compelling, AI cannot generate images without a stream of information to train off of. If we don’t have artists and replace them with AI, like dumbass investors and CEOs want, they will reach a point where it is AI training off AI and the well will be poisoned. Ai should be used simply as a tool to help with the creation of art if anything, using it to generate “new” artwork is a fundamentally doomed concept.

      • @TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        21 month ago

        These articles feel like they aren’t really tied to my feelings about AI, frankly. I’m not really concerned about who is getting credited for the art that the AI creates, copyright laws just work to keep the companies trying to push for AI in power already. I am concerned that AI will be used to replace those who create the art and make it even harder for artists to succeed.

        • @Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          41 month ago

          Copyright is being used more by companies to sue artists or even just individuals, than it is protecting your art.

          It is an archaic grasp of control created by Disney to keep people from drawing a mouse with 2 round ears.

          The help it supposedly provides you doesn’t come close to the amount of sacrifices you have to make to gain it.

          • @TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            11 month ago

            I did say in the message that copyright is being used by companies more than artists. That’s why I wasn’t arguing about AI from a copyright angle because copyright doesn’t really help artists anyway.

          • @TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            31 month ago

            Could you please explain the point you’re making rather than expecting me to come to a conclusion reading the articles you linked?

            I see nothing in them even after a re-read that would address the idea of AI being used to replace artists. If anything these articles are just confirming that those fears are well founded by reporting on examples such as corporations trying to get voice actors to sign away the rights to their own voices.

              • @TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                41 month ago

                Ah I see, you just sent me the wrong articles. I don’t see how I was supposed to just know you also wanted me to read the other blog post on the first article you linked. Feels very “do your own research” doesn’t it?

                However, these also don’t seem to change my initial opinion. The first article talks about the writers guild ruling that you should not be able copyright anything created wholly by AI, as it should be used as a tool. This feeds into my point that you can’t really claim to have truly made anything made by using an AI (unless you created all the training images and run the AI yourself, that is properly employing it as an artistic tool)

                The second article seems to be about the copyright laws related to AI and how companies are avoiding infringing in copyright law. Again, I already wasn’t considering copyright, I already understand that copyright laws don’t protect artists and that ruling AI as copyright infringement wouldnt help anything.

                I don’t think you are actually interested in making a point here, just trying to make me defend myself online. Fortunately I have had nothing better to do this morning so I have.

                • @Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  -2
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  If you had been reading them in good faith, the first article follows naturally into the companion blog post. The last one isn’t about copyright law, you should read the whole thing.

                  I linked articles by people whose explanations can do justice to this incredibly complex topic much better than I can. The point is obvious if you take the time to actually read them.

                  • @TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    11 month ago

                    Could you explain how the last one goes against what I am saying? The author seems to be personally against AI art and wants to ensure that artists continue to be paid for their work, how does that go against what I am talking about? You haven’t made a single statement in your actual stance on this topic, just said I was off base and linked articles.

          • To quote a funny meme: “I’m not doing homework for you. I have known you for 30 seconds and enjoyed none of them.”

            You should make an argument and then back it up with sources, not cite sources, and expect them to make your point for you. Not everybody is going to come to the same conclusions as you, nor will they understand your intent.

              • @TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                11 month ago

                You haven’t made a single statement as to what meaning you’ve drawn from these articles, this is useless to the conversation. I am reading these articles and stating my conclusions, but you are simply telling me and others to read them again. You don’t seem to actually be interested in sharing what you think, yourself.

                • @Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  -1
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  Why not sell it? Because chances are the things it was trained off of were stolen in the first place and you have no right to claim them

                  Why not claim it’s yours? Because it is not, it is using the work of others, primarily without permission, to generate derivative work.

                  They explain what’s wrong with these two statements.