this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
309 points (94.5% liked)

Technology

60086 readers
5161 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Why This Award-Winning Piece of AI Art Can’t Be Copyrighted::Matthew Allen’s AI art won first prize at the Colorado State Fair. But the US government has ruled it can’t be copyrighted because it’s too much “machine” and not enough “human.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FooBarrington 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

"He didn't create it. He moved a mouse."

"He didn't create it. He put commands into a keyboard."

"He didn't create it. He pressed the camera trigger."

"He didn't create it. He threw store-bought paint at a canvas."

"He didn't create it. He cleaned some dirt off the wall."

"He didn't create it. He was inspired by gods."

Where you see a categorical difference, I see a qualitative one. AI-generated art can be nothing more than putting words into a blackbox, but it can also be a day-long process of tweaking dozens of parameters to get what you want from the words you put into the box. A child can slather paint onto a canvas without much thought - but that doesn't mean great artists drawing complex, intricate paintings isn't art, does it?

Generative AI is a tool. It can do more than most tools, but still, it is something wielded by an artist.

[–] raoulraoul 13 points 1 year ago (4 children)

As I'd just written in another reply here, there is a world of difference in describing an illustration and creating an illustration.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

I have to say that when I focused on computer-aided graphic design, my instructors who had done that kind of work with material supplies totally felt my work was invalid.

And when I was writing essays in high-school English and getting downgraded for poor penmanship, my teacher refused to let me word-process my work, lest I write a whole essay with the touch of a button.

So yes, creators have had their efforts minimized from the dawn of time, especially as new technology makes output better or easier.

Still, this isn't about the art, it's about the capitalism. If we had a society where no-one had to toil for a meager existence, then artists could do their thing for the sake of creating beauty and not to earn a buck. I believe post-war social programs in the UK drove the Rock-&-Roll revolution in the 1960s (advancements in electric guitars also did some heavy lifting).

So... feed our artists?

[–] realherald 3 points 1 year ago

Same goes for lightning a fire without and with a lighter.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But you are creating the image as it's often never what you intended on the first try. If anything they are editors, and last I checked we aren't taking any rights away from editors. Someone else made the material and "you" manipulated it into a better product or into what your vision actually was.

[–] WhitePaintIsEvil 6 points 1 year ago

Editors also don't have copyright protections on what they edit

[–] FooBarrington 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Even if I were to grant you that generative AI is just "describing an illustration": other people say there is a world of difference between painting something with your hands and using a mouse, yet I think digital illustration is as real as physical illustration. Yet other people say there is a world of difference between creating something from the ground up and using store-bought materials and tools, yet I don't discount artists who do just that.

But I don't grant you that, because if I simply describe an illustration, the generative AI will not give me anything close to what I want. I have to learn the prompting language of the model (what words and phrases result in what?), I have to learn the influence the many different parameters have on the output, and I have to learn how to use things like prompt weighting, negative prompts and the like to get what I want. It's something completely different from describing an illustration.

And that's ignoring things like variant generation, inpainting, outpainting and the many different things that are completely removed from just "describing an illustration".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Learn how to make a digital illustration, learn to make an oil painting and learn to make an AI image. Then we can talk.

I can do all three (worked on comission basis as a digital illustrator and did make Sci-Fi illustrations with acrylics and ink in the past). Generating AI images is not even in the same universe as the ballpark where digital illustration and traditional painting are playing.

It's like saying watching someone's Let's Play of playing GTA is "kinda similar" to driving a Formel1 sports car yourself. Because you still have to turn on your computer and find a good streamer.

[–] FooBarrington -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Learn how to make a digital illustration, learn to make an oil painting and learn to make an AI image. Then we can talk.

Done. What do you want to talk about?

Generating AI images is not even in the same universe as the ballpark where digital illustration and traditional painting are playing.

And what ballparks are there? How many ballparks exist in the realm of illustration, and where are the borders?

I just spent literally 31 seconds making this image:

According to what you write, this has a much higher artistic value than the header image of the linked article. Now please, explain to me: what value does this view bring to any discussion?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

It brings value to the discussion if the discussion revolves around whether artists should be paid and how much. Whether AI images should be committed to art contests. Whether someone using AI to create an image should have copyright on that image. How much value we put on the time and effort it takes to learn artistic skills. Whether we want people to continue to take on that endeavour. Etc.

Actually I think discussing the differences and similarities between AI image generation and other forms of creating art is quite central to the issue.

[–] EndlessApollo -2 points 1 year ago