WotC So it seems D&D has picked a side on the AI art debate.

[Charlaquin]

So if an artist takes a pile of magazines, cuts tiny pieces of images from each magazine to makes a collage, then sells the collage, is she being unethical? Seems to me that most people would say no.

No, all of the art in the magazine has been bought and paid for - from the artist by the producers of the magazine, from the producers of the magazine by a distributor, and from the distributor by you (or some other consumer from whom you acquired it). These AI take their art from artists collections in image hosting websites. If you were instead to use photoshop to stitch together bits of images you scoured DeviantArt for and pass that off as your own work, yes, I would consider that art theft.

 

[tetrasodium]

Let it go dude or dudette. Ive already said more than once that we're talking about different things. Accept it and move on.

Do tell. What are you talking about and can it be said without having to substitute opinion as fact or ignoring the consent already given? It seems like every time you've tried you immediately start with one of those two things as a requirement for everything that follows.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

No, all of the art in the magazine has been bought and paid for - from the artist by the producers of the magazine, and from the producers of the magazine by you. These AI take their art from artists collections in image hosting websites. If you were instead to use photoshop to stitch together bits of images you scoured DeviantArt for and pass that off as your own work, yes, I would consider that art theft.

I appreciate that you want artists to get paid for their work, but this isn't the distinction you want to make. Here, let's make it simple-

By this logic, if the AI is simply fed scans of magazines ... ALL of the magazines, that's fine. Because the artists was paid by the producers, right? Maybe the company will buy the magazines, why not? Used magazines don't cost much, do they?

I think that you'd have a problem with that, which means that you actually have an issue with AI producing art, because it displaces jobs, Which is also a fine argument to make, but it's a different one.

 

[Charlaquin]

I appreciate that you want artists to get paid for their work, but this isn't the distinction you want to make. Here, let's make it simple-

By this logic, if the AI is simply fed scans of magazines ... ALL of the magazines, that's fine. Because the artists was paid by the producers, right? Maybe the company will buy the magazines, why not? Used magazines don't cost much, do they?

I think that you'd have a problem with that, which means that you actually have an issue with AI producing art, because it displaces jobs, Which is also a fine argument to make, but it's a different one.

I mean, I do have a problem with the fact that AI displaces jobs, yes. I also have a problem with the fact that AI is trained on stolen art. Using only public domain art, or art that was bought from or donated by the artists, would resolve the art theft issue in my mind, but not the job displacement issue. Implementing something like universal basic income would resolve the job displacement issue, but not the art theft issue.

 

[FrogReaver]

I mean, I do have a problem with the fact that AI displaces jobs, yes. I also have a problem with the fact that AI is trained on stolen art. Using only public domain art, or art that was bought from or donated by the artists, would resolve the art theft issue in my mind, but not the job displacement issue. Implementing something like universal basic income would resolve the job displacement issue, but not the art theft issue.

I keep being puzzled here. Is it okay in your mind for humans to use an image that they simply come across (no pay, no rights to, etc) as a part of the basis for a new image that’s sufficiently different from the old image (you can define sufficiently different to your liking)? And if not, what mechanism prevents that from occurring, even subconsciously?

 

[jasper]

Yes, and this is  precisely why people take an issue with what AI developers are enabling by using actual artists work without consent or compensation.

As said earlier, this should  not be a controversial issue. Get consent and compensate the artists if necessary.

Continuing to argue against that in any capacity whatsover says everything about the ethics you're operating on, vis a vis their total non-existence.

Remember Emberashh wants all you artists who sell your version of Spiderman to get permission and pay Marvel.
And any other mash of IP you are using without permission.

 

[Charlaquin]

I keep being puzzled here. Is it okay in your mind for humans to use an image that they simply come across (no pay, no rights to, etc) as a part of the basis for a new image that’s sufficiently different from the old image (you can define sufficiently different to your liking)? And if not, what mechanism prevents that from occurring, even subconsciously?

I mean, by making “sufficiently different” part of the framing of the question, I can only conclude that it must be acceptable, otherwise it wouldn’t be sufficiently different. I think what you might be trying to ask is, is there any degree to which an artist can transform another artist’s work that would make it sufficiently different to the source material as to render it an original work? And I would say yes, there is. Generally though, such transformation involves some sort of commentary on the source material.

 

[Charlaquin]

Remember Emberashh wants all you artists who sell your version of Spiderman to get permission and pay Marvel.
And any other mash of IP you are using without permission.

Not so. Rather, they want artists who make Spider-Man fan art by tracing or otherwise copying art from the comics (or, well, any other art of Spider-Man) and altering that copy get permission from the artist of the work they copied, and potentially pay that artist - that’s something they’d presumably have to negotiate.

 

[FrogReaver]

I mean, by making “sufficiently different” part of the framing of the question, I can only conclude that it must be acceptable, otherwise it wouldn’t be sufficiently different. I think what you might be trying to ask is, is there any degree to which an artist can transform another artist’s work that would make it sufficiently different to the source material as to render it an original work? And I would say yes, there is. Generally though, such transformation involves some sort of commentary on the source material.

Does it need to involve such commentary?

 

[Charlaquin]

Does it need to involve such commentary?

To qualify as Fair Use? Yes. Ethically, I confess I’m not sure. Its difficult to judge that in the abstract. I’d be more confident in assessing a concrete example.