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

[Deset Gled]

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.

 

[Charlaquin]

View attachment 278679

Yes, that is explicitly commentary on the uniformity of commercial graphic design.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

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.

Though I often disagree with your stances (although I agree just as often), I always appreciate your rationality and your willingness to understand the views of those you are arguing with.

 

[Charlaquin]

Though I often disagree with your stances (although I agree just as often), I always appreciate your rationality and your willingness to understand the views of those you are arguing with.

Thanks! I try my best.

 

[Jadeite]

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.

Exactly, how dare those stock photos to copy Marvel's art?

 

[Charlaquin]

Exactly, how dare those stock photos to copy Marvel's art?

That’s just the same composition. It literally can’t be directly copied because they’re completely different media.

 

[tomBitonti]

So … the question here is whether using an image in training data is fair use. Generally, looking at another’s work to get ideas is fair use. Making a direct copy is not.

Then, is training from a work like a person looking over a work, or is it more like making a photocopy?

I would tend to say it is more like a person looking over a work .. except for two things. One is that training off of an image processes the image much more comprehensively and in more detail than a person looking over am image. Two is that training off of an image is a new kind of use which has a commercial value, and (I think) artists should be able to obtain a share of that value.

TomB

 

[tomBitonti]

As a follow up: I think keeping these two questions separate is important:

1) Is what computers produce art? is It very good? Poor? Can it evoke genuine responses from people interacting with it?

2) Is using art as training data a fair use? Must compensation be provided for such use?

TomB

 

[Charlaquin]

As a follow up: I think keeping these two questions separate is important:

1) Is what computers produce art? is It very good? Poor? Can it evoke genuine responses from people interacting with it?

2) Is using art as training data a fair use? Must compensation be provided for such use?

TomB

I agree! To be clear, I am making no claims about 1, and arguing that the answer to 2 is “it’s not, and compensation should be negotiated between the artist and whoever is training the AI.”

 

[FrogReaver]

I agree! To be clear, I am making no claims about 1, and arguing that the answer to 2 is “it’s not, and compensation should be negotiated between the artist and whoever is training the AI.”

I think there’s also 2 questions there.

Legally is it currently fair use?
Should it be fair use?