A.I. Generated Art

Sink Into On-Topic Discussions
klib21
Posts: 271
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:50 am

Re: A.I. Generated Art

Postby klib21 » Fri Sep 16, 2022 4:01 am

Aiko wrote:Doing so is actually and then publishing the resulting art is a bit of a legal gray area. A lot of the images used in the training sets have been included without the artists' permission. Whether that sort of use violates copyright is still being debated.

But... since we are at this point now. Would any producer or artist here object to having their work used in AI training?
Personally I would not mind unless the resulting artwork looks too much like a rip-off of something I created.


As I've heard it explained, these AI-generated images are not simple "remixes" of existing art. They are fully original creations, even if the "creator" is just an algorithm. All a training model does is inform the code what something is, objects, people, etc. Think of them as knock-offs. Disney can't claim copyright over Rickey the Rat just because it's a knock-off Mickey.

Now, everything I just said applies to the (in)famous Dalle 2, but I'm not sure how exactly other AI image generators work exactly, they may be different.

Fred588
Producer
Posts: 16650
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:37 pm
Location: Central Arkansas (At Studio 588)
Contact:

Re: A.I. Generated Art

Postby Fred588 » Fri Sep 16, 2022 12:47 pm

Aiko wrote:
klib21 wrote:I've got decades worth of quicksand artwork and photography saved, maybe I'll use it all to train a fetish model.


Doing so is actually and then publishing the resulting art is a bit of a legal gray area. A lot of the images used in the training sets have been included without the artists' permission. Whether that sort of use violates copyright is still being debated.

But... since we are at this point now. Would any producer or artist here object to having their work used in AI training?
Personally I would not mind unless the resulting artwork looks too much like a rip-off of something I created.


Yes, I would object if the result was published or otherwise shared.
Studio 588 currently offers more than 2200 different HD and QD quicksand videos and has supported production of well over 2400 video scenes and other projects by 13 different producers. Info may be found at:
http://studio588qs.com
http://quicksandland.com
http://psychicworldjungleland.com

User avatar
dlodoski
Wizard of Ooze
Posts: 9607
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:10 am
Location: The Land of Ooze
Contact:

Re: A.I. Generated Art

Postby dlodoski » Sat Sep 17, 2022 6:04 pm

Fred588 wrote:
Aiko wrote:...But... since we are at this point now. Would any producer or artist here object to having their work used in AI training?
Personally I would not mind unless the resulting artwork looks too much like a rip-off of something I created.

Yes, I would object if the result was published or otherwise shared.

I would object also.

The objection would be for the usual reasons. But for me personally, why start with something real, when the results are going to be artificial? AI should be able to figure out what quicksand - as well as pretty subjects, look like.
The Wizard of Ooze stays behind the curtain!

https://allmylinks.com/dlodoski

Stay signed up to Club MPV and bank 10 free download tokens every month!

User avatar
Nessie
Producer
Posts: 2865
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 2:30 am

Re: A.I. Generated Art

Postby Nessie » Sat Sep 17, 2022 10:24 pm

Aiko wrote:Would any producer or artist here object to having their work used in AI training?


I used actual paper and pencils to create my quicksand artwork. I am not very open to AI messing with it.

As for my video work, by now it's probably considered vintage, but still, I'll keep that under my copyright.

Nessie

Fred588
Producer
Posts: 16650
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:37 pm
Location: Central Arkansas (At Studio 588)
Contact:

Re: A.I. Generated Art

Postby Fred588 » Sat Sep 17, 2022 10:44 pm

Using the work of another without permission is a form of theft, regardless of the purpose. Imagine if someone tried to colorize an early, black and white, Mickey Mouse flick.
Studio 588 currently offers more than 2200 different HD and QD quicksand videos and has supported production of well over 2400 video scenes and other projects by 13 different producers. Info may be found at:
http://studio588qs.com
http://quicksandland.com
http://psychicworldjungleland.com

ghostofmyeyes
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:07 pm

Re: A.I. Generated Art

Postby ghostofmyeyes » Sun Sep 18, 2022 4:23 am

dlodoski wrote: AI should be able to figure out what quicksand - as well as pretty subjects, look like.


Machine learning, popularly called "AI", literally cannot figure out anything without reference to huge amounts of clearly-labelled example input. Most of the output from these things makes it very clear that it only periodically /appears/ to have 'figured out' the request. We are far from having machines make genuine creative decisions; all they can do is try to mimic the patterns they picked out from the training input.

Fred588 wrote:Using the work of another without permission is a form of theft, regardless of the purpose. Imagine if someone tried to colorize an early, black and white, Mickey Mouse flick.


Fair use exists as a type of purpose. What we're looking at is a highly-automated equivalent of a technically-capable but not very creative savant intensely studying your works, plus non-fetish material of "women" and "quicksand", and then trying to depict the common threads off of all of it.

When photography became widespread, artists who had been into realism switched to creating unrealistic styles like cubism etc. to do things photography couldn't. Artists will surely learn the weak spots of the AI models and gravitate to those spots. That's life in a market economy - unless you guys are seriously advocating for an expansion of copyright so insane that everyone will be afraid to post anything on the internet on the off chance someone did something similar before.

User avatar
dlodoski
Wizard of Ooze
Posts: 9607
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:10 am
Location: The Land of Ooze
Contact:

Re: A.I. Generated Art

Postby dlodoski » Sun Sep 18, 2022 10:56 am

ghostofmyeyes wrote: .....Fair use exists as a type of purpose.

Ok, so which exemption category do you think applies here?
The Wizard of Ooze stays behind the curtain!

https://allmylinks.com/dlodoski

Stay signed up to Club MPV and bank 10 free download tokens every month!

Fred588
Producer
Posts: 16650
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:37 pm
Location: Central Arkansas (At Studio 588)
Contact:

Re: A.I. Generated Art

Postby Fred588 » Sun Sep 18, 2022 12:23 pm

ghostofmyeyes wrote:
dlodoski wrote: AI should be able to figure out what quicksand - as well as pretty subjects, look like.


Machine learning, popularly called "AI", literally cannot figure out anything without reference to huge amounts of clearly-labelled example input. Most of the output from these things makes it very clear that it only periodically /appears/ to have 'figured out' the request. We are far from having machines make genuine creative decisions; all they can do is try to mimic the patterns they picked out from the training input.

Fred588 wrote:Using the work of another without permission is a form of theft, regardless of the purpose. Imagine if someone tried to colorize an early, black and white, Mickey Mouse flick.


Fair use exists as a type of purpose. What we're looking at is a highly-automated equivalent of a technically-capable but not very creative savant intensely studying your works, plus non-fetish material of "women" and "quicksand", and then trying to depict the common threads off of all of it.

When photography became widespread, artists who had been into realism switched to creating unrealistic styles like cubism etc. to do things photography couldn't. Artists will surely learn the weak spots of the AI models and gravitate to those spots. That's life in a market economy - unless you guys are seriously advocating for an expansion of copyright so insane that everyone will be afraid to post anything on the internet on the off chance someone did something similar before.


Fair use is very tightly defined and does not come even close to anything discussed here. A single wannabe artist, privately studying another's work would not be a problem but the second that artist publishes or shares something derivative the line has been crossed. If I started with one of Dave's stills and used photoshop to add some effects, it would be piracy whether I was studying the original or not. Also, if someone wants to use another's pictures in the context of teaching an AI system something it is simple enough to ask for written permission. That permission will likely have limits and there may be a fee involved but it is the RIGHT way to do things. Before I retired seven years ago I was a professor. We were given guidance from the university that said, in essense, that fair use allowed us to use something ONCE if we had too little time to seek permission, but there was always plenty of time to seek, and get, permission before the second time.
Studio 588 currently offers more than 2200 different HD and QD quicksand videos and has supported production of well over 2400 video scenes and other projects by 13 different producers. Info may be found at:
http://studio588qs.com
http://quicksandland.com
http://psychicworldjungleland.com

User avatar
Aiko
Posts: 932
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 9:43 pm
Location: The Great Swamp
Contact:

Re: A.I. Generated Art

Postby Aiko » Sun Sep 18, 2022 1:29 pm

Fred588 wrote:
ghostofmyeyes wrote:
dlodoski wrote: AI should be able to figure out what quicksand - as well as pretty subjects, look like.


Machine learning, popularly called "AI", literally cannot figure out anything without reference to huge amounts of clearly-labelled example input. Most of the output from these things makes it very clear that it only periodically /appears/ to have 'figured out' the request. We are far from having machines make genuine creative decisions; all they can do is try to mimic the patterns they picked out from the training input.

Fred588 wrote:Using the work of another without permission is a form of theft, regardless of the purpose. Imagine if someone tried to colorize an early, black and white, Mickey Mouse flick.


Fair use exists as a type of purpose. What we're looking at is a highly-automated equivalent of a technically-capable but not very creative savant intensely studying your works, plus non-fetish material of "women" and "quicksand", and then trying to depict the common threads off of all of it.

When photography became widespread, artists who had been into realism switched to creating unrealistic styles like cubism etc. to do things photography couldn't. Artists will surely learn the weak spots of the AI models and gravitate to those spots. That's life in a market economy - unless you guys are seriously advocating for an expansion of copyright so insane that everyone will be afraid to post anything on the internet on the off chance someone did something similar before.


Fair use is very tightly defined and does not come even close to anything discussed here. A single wannabe artist, privately studying another's work would not be a problem but the second that artist publishes or shares something derivative the line has been crossed. If I started with one of Dave's stills and used photoshop to add some effects, it would be piracy whether I was studying the original or not. Also, if someone wants to use another's pictures in the context of teaching an AI system something it is simple enough to ask for written permission. That permission will likely have limits and there may be a fee involved but it is the RIGHT way to do things. Before I retired seven years ago I was a professor. We were given guidance from the university that said, in essense, that fair use allowed us to use something ONCE if we had too little time to seek permission, but there was always plenty of time to seek, and get, permission before the second time.


The problem is that AI training requires a huge amount of data. The Stable Diffusion AI was trained with the set namen LAION-5B, and the "5B" stands for 5 billion. That is the number of images being referenced all across the internet and in most cases without their creator's knowledge. Asking for permission to use each and every one of these images as AI training data is not a task anybody could hope to complete within one's lifetime.

EDIT: You can use this search engine to see what is in the training data (and maybe find some of your own content): https://haveibeentrained.com
Visit me at the Great Swamp, but watch your step on the way there!

Fred588
Producer
Posts: 16650
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:37 pm
Location: Central Arkansas (At Studio 588)
Contact:

Re: A.I. Generated Art

Postby Fred588 » Sun Sep 18, 2022 2:00 pm

Aiko wrote:
Fred588 wrote:
ghostofmyeyes wrote:
dlodoski wrote: AI should be able to figure out what quicksand - as well as pretty subjects, look like.


Machine learning, popularly called "AI", literally cannot figure out anything without reference to huge amounts of clearly-labelled example input. Most of the output from these things makes it very clear that it only periodically /appears/ to have 'figured out' the request. We are far from having machines make genuine creative decisions; all they can do is try to mimic the patterns they picked out from the training input.

Fred588 wrote:Using the work of another without permission is a form of theft, regardless of the purpose. Imagine if someone tried to colorize an early, black and white, Mickey Mouse flick.


Fair use exists as a type of purpose. What we're looking at is a highly-automated equivalent of a technically-capable but not very creative savant intensely studying your works, plus non-fetish material of "women" and "quicksand", and then trying to depict the common threads off of all of it.

When photography became widespread, artists who had been into realism switched to creating unrealistic styles like cubism etc. to do things photography couldn't. Artists will surely learn the weak spots of the AI models and gravitate to those spots. That's life in a market economy - unless you guys are seriously advocating for an expansion of copyright so insane that everyone will be afraid to post anything on the internet on the off chance someone did something similar before.


Fair use is very tightly defined and does not come even close to anything discussed here. A single wannabe artist, privately studying another's work would not be a problem but the second that artist publishes or shares something derivative the line has been crossed. If I started with one of Dave's stills and used photoshop to add some effects, it would be piracy whether I was studying the original or not. Also, if someone wants to use another's pictures in the context of teaching an AI system something it is simple enough to ask for written permission. That permission will likely have limits and there may be a fee involved but it is the RIGHT way to do things. Before I retired seven years ago I was a professor. We were given guidance from the university that said, in essense, that fair use allowed us to use something ONCE if we had too little time to seek permission, but there was always plenty of time to seek, and get, permission before the second time.


The problem is that AI training requires a huge amount of data. The Stable Diffusion AI was trained with the set namen LAION-5B, and the "5B" stands for 5 billion. That is the number of images being referenced all across the internet and in most cases without their creator's knowledge. Asking for permission to use each and every one of these images as AI training data is not a task anybody could hope to complete within one's lifetime.

EDIT: You can use this search engine to see what is in the training data (and maybe find some of your own content): https://haveibeentrained.com


If they are using millions of others' images and not searching them for copyright notices they are inviting a class-action suit that will bankrupt them. That they say it is impossible to request permission does not relieve them of the obligation to do so.
Studio 588 currently offers more than 2200 different HD and QD quicksand videos and has supported production of well over 2400 video scenes and other projects by 13 different producers. Info may be found at:
http://studio588qs.com
http://quicksandland.com
http://psychicworldjungleland.com


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest