Kickstarter Bans AI Art project

[overgeeked]

Not really. No one who prompted Midjourney to make a picture of a dragon that looked liek keith Parkinson painted it to use for the cover of their PDF adventure was going to hire Keith Parkinson anyway. If anything, they were going to hire some kid out of Bangladesh they found on Fivrr that paints like Parkinson and pay him next to nothing for that thing.

And that's still better than throwing money at AI that violates copyright by scraping millions of images to cobble something together. That kid in Bangladesh could use the money way more than the people behind Midjourney.

 

[Reynard]

And that's still better than throwing money at AI that violates copyright by scraping millions of images to cobble something together. That kid in Bangladesh could use the money way more than the people behind Midjourney.

I absolutely agree that commercial AI companies should have to actively license material outside of the public domain to train their networks. That's where the unethical and potentially criminal activity happens.

But that kid in Bangladesh, or Keith Parkinson, is no more deserving of the fee than the AI art company if it gives me the results I, as the customer, want. Because that part is up to me.

 

[Sacrosanct]

If anything, they were going to hire some kid out of Bangladesh they found on Fivrr that paints like Parkinson and pay him next to nothing for that thing.

This scenario doesn't exist. Not sure why folks keep making comments like this as something that happens. Anyone with that skill charges like a typical western artist.

The actual typical Fiverr experience is one of the following:

1. pay typical rates
2. reach to an artist who says on their site they charge $80 for a character illustration, the tells you it's $300 after you reach out to them
3. are using someone else's work in their portfolio to sell themselves, then provide work that is much, much worse (that's against the ToS for Fiverr, but doesn't stop them and is a pain to get refunds).

I tried the Fiverr thing and 99% of the time it was one of the bottom two. This "cheap kid in Bangladesh who paints like Parkinson" is a unicorn. Never saw it. Doesn't really exist.

 

[Reynard]

This scenario doesn't exist. Not sure why folks keep making comments like this as something that happens. Anyone with that skill charges like a typical western artist.

The actual typical Fiverr experience is one of the following:

1. pay typical rates
2. reach to an artist who says on their site they charge $80 for a character illustration, the tells you it's $300 after you reach out to them
3. are using someone else's work in their portfolio to sell themselves, then provide work that is much, much worse (that's against the ToS for Fiverr, but doesn't stop them and is a pain to get refunds).

I tried the Fiverr thing and 99% of the time it was one of the bottom two. This "cheap kid in Bangladesh who paints like Parkinson" is a unicorn. Never saw it. Doesn't really exist.

I think you're swinging wide of the point, intentionally so.

 

[overgeeked]

I absolutely agree that commercial AI companies should have to actively license material outside of the public domain to train their networks. That's where the unethical and potentially criminal activity happens.

But that kid in Bangladesh, or Keith Parkinson, is no more deserving of the fee than the AI art company if it gives me the results I, as the customer, want. Because that part is up to me.

The first and second paragraphs are at odds. As current AI art functions they do not license the art their AI is trained on. They literally violate hundreds or thousands of artists’ copyright to train their AI. So yes, the humans making the art deserve the money infinitely more than the AI company.

 

[Aeson]

Damn, AI's are trying to start their own projects on Kickstarter now?

But can they match Morrus' output?

 

[Aeson]

I'm not that familiar with the AI art debate. I am aware of it, but that's about it. Are they able to identify pieces from other artists? If not, then who's to say it's stolen? Artists are influenced by others all the time. Why can't it be an original piece influenced by other artists? Would giving contribution credit solve the issue?

 

[MarkB]

When will we reach the point where AIs can sample tens of thousands of RPG PDFs and churn out new bespoke rulesets by the dozen?

 

[Aeson]

When will we reach the point where AIs can sample tens of thousands of RPG PDFs and churn out new bespoke rulesets by the dozen?

And can they do it faster than 1 million chimps with typewriters?

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think you're swinging wide of the point, intentionally so.

It seemed your point was to say AI isn't really stealing, because no one was going to hire an artist like Parkinson anyway, and if they were, they would get one just as good for cheap on Fiverr. I.e., "free AI or super cheap alternative for same quality". If that's not correct, then can you clarify?

Cuz I'm saying they won't just go to Fiverr because what you said doesn't actually exist. If they want the art, they do have to pay a typical rate. so it's not "free AI or cheap alternative", it's "free AI or you pay a typical rate." And seeing as how companies are already using AI art (art that uses the artists work), then yeah, it's pretty much stealing their art and not paying them for it. How is using AI art that is relying on Keith Parkinson's art and not paying his estate for it any different than using Keith's art directly and not paying his estate for it? Because AI just mix-mashed it all together? It's still his art being used without compensation.