AI/LLMs AI art bans are going to ruin small 3rd party creators

[Retros_x]

I think they did not publish and sell nearly as much as they do now. The ones I know personally certainly didn't.

At the costs of the artists losing money. If you can't pay artists and you dont want to use free-art - you don't have the resources to be a publisher. Your business plan failed. If your business plan only succeeds when using AIs that are trained on copyright protected art, you don't deserve to succeed and honestly shouldn't even be able to legally. Unfortunately, legislation is behind, so I support the platforms themselves taking action and banning AI products.

Seriously, this discussion is bonkers. I cant wait for this bubble to burst.

 

[Older Beholder]

I'm sorry you have difficulty understanding that my premise that Andy Warhol used AI art tools wasnt literal. I will be much clearer and lay out the logic below...


In our universe, Andy Warhol traces a soup can and uses stamps, and other tools to produce a canvas that features an altered version of someone else's artistic output to craft his inner mental image of that work in a new context and calls it art.

In an alternate universe without an Andy Warhol, Evilguy Cringe uses iterative AI software, a silk screen printer, and a stolen base image of a soup can to produce a canvas that features an altered version of someone else's artistic output to craft his inner mental image of that work in a new context and calls it art.

Both canvases hang in a gallery and are indistinguishable from each other. How do you identify which one is art and which one is not?

Counter argument: an alternate reality where David Bowie is Andy Warhol

 

[Morrus]

A repository of AI art (not "slop", thanks)

Are you worried about ChatGPT’s feelings?

I’m going to have to get used to the plagiarism slopbots destroying the environment and my friends’ careers. You are going to have to get used to the unimaginable horror of hearing it called slop.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm sorry you have difficulty understanding that my premise that Andy Warhol used AI art tools wasnt literal. I will be much clearer and lay out the logic below...


In our universe, Andy Warhol traces a soup can and uses stamps, and other tools to produce a canvas that features an altered version of someone else's artistic output to craft his inner mental image of that work in a new context and calls it art.

In an alternate universe without an Andy Warhol, Evilguy Cringe uses iterative AI software, a silk screen printer, and a stolen base image of a soup can to produce a canvas that features an altered version of someone else's artistic output to craft his inner mental image of that work in a new context and calls it art.

Both canvases hang in a gallery and are indistinguishable from each other. How do you identify which one is art and which one is not?

1) Warhol’s soup cans were based on a product label that was not copyrighted, but trademarked (and possibly service marked)- IOW, different laws are involved. He projected, traced and hand painted those images in a way to mimic mass production (not someone else’s art). Over time, he used more machines to aid his production. If Evilguy Cringe does likewise via some kind of automation (including AI), it’s technically no different.

Artists like Mark Kostabi took Warhol’s methods and ultimately entirely removed himself from creating the physical art by hiring others to do it for him, instead becoming a performance artist who insulted his customers.

And Christian Seidler- creator of matricism (an evolution of pointillism)- also removed himself one step from the process by having UT create machines that would put onto canvases what he designed.

IOW, using mechanical processes is not the problem.

2) if, OTOH, Evilguy Cringe’s process involves copying from copyrighted material without permission, he runs the risk of legal action under those statutes. If he goes further and actually emulates another artist’s distinctive style, that’s going to earn another layer of backlash (not necessarily lawsuits, but reputational harm).

 

[BookTenTiger]

Even if that were the case--why should anyone work with one if they don't want to and most importantly, don't really need to anymore?

Because the community might hate them if they don't?

When faced with that, the creators might as well do what they want--whatever makes them happiest in terms of creation. And they should be able to do that without having morality and ethics they don't agree with crammed down their throats.

You seem to be seeking some kind of moral absolution for using AI in your work. You're not going to get that here.

If using AI makes you happy, go out and use AI. But don't expect folks to support you financially while doing so.

 

[Morrus]

And they should be able to do that without having morality and ethics they don't agree with crammed down their throats.

That’s not how morality and ethics work.

 

[BrokenTwin]

Just one thing I do want to point out, since I've seen it mentioned a few times now: AI art isn't actually free. The companies making these services are currently loss-leading the heck out of them to try to get enough market saturation that they can then start charging subscription fees to theoretically recoup their investment.

And that's not even including the environmental costs that these companies are offloading onto society as a whole.

I have friends who use AI art/music for private works (like character art for our games), and while I don't think it looks great, I'm not against that use per say (any more than I am grabbing random artwork off the internet). But for a published product you expect me to pay for? I'm good, thanks.

 

[bsss]

Seems Foundry wants to do the reverse, though, and force their morals and ethics on to their users.

Why, from an objective viewpoint, is one of these OK and the other not?

1) Not how those words work.
2) The owners of the Foundry marketplace are entitled to do with it as they please, as it is theirs. They get to decide how it is used.

Huh, where did we just hear about that concept of creators owning the right to choose how something is used? Must have been some other thread.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Seems Foundry wants to do the reverse, though, and force their morals and ethics on to their users.

The Foundry is only deciding what gets to happen on their site. They aren't forcing anything on anyone. You can do whatever you like, just not in their place of business.

 

[Morrus]

1) Not how those words work.
2) The owners of the Foundry marketplace are entitled to do with it as they please, as it is theirs. They get to decide how it is used.

Huh, where did we just hear about that concept of creators owning the right to choose how something is used? Must have been some other thread.

Apparently nobody is allowed any rights. Platforms aren’t allowed to decide what content they want to host, artists aren’t allowed to control who plagiarises their work, nobody gets any rights except the people who want free stuff and some billionaire techbros. We all serve the machine!