Quicksand Fans

cerberus wrote:

MadMax359 wrote:i bet i'm not the only one hoping you're going to experiment with O Girl in a swamp

Well yes, but this sent my mind off in a completely different direction and highlighted a massive opportunity missed, seemingly, by two studios. How about Kendra James as Red Sonja! Have we missed out, has the opportunity gone or is there still hope? We can but dream ...

... and, maybe play with AI:

tmps7_x0b4s.png

Apologies for posting an image here, I don't usually post images on other people's threads unless invited, but it seemed the right place!

Oh, and I liked the latest Vera picture, nicely done.

My concern with using images of real people (even public figures) to create new AI images is that their right to control the use of their own likeness is being usurped, even if the intent is complimentary. I suspect that Kendra or any other model might feel leery about their likeness being used this way without their permission and outside of their control.

JSample wrote: ....My concern with using images of real people (even public figures) to create new AI images is that their right to control the use of their own likeness is being usurped, even if the intent is complimentary. I suspect that Kendra or any other model might feel leery about their likeness being used this way without their permission and outside of their control.

That depends on who is doing it. Most model releases specify that the 'photographer' has the right to do whatever he or she wants to do with the images/footage after the fact.

Something like - ...the irrevocable right to use my ... picture, portrait, or photograph in all forms and in all media and in all manners, without any restrictions as to changes or alterations (including but not limited to composite or distorted representations or derivative works made in any medium)....

Back in the day, this usually meant basic photographic stuff like cropping and color alterations etc. But it does obviously allow for runs through an AI environment. However, for anyone without a proper model release, there would be potential liability.

dlodoski wrote:

JSample wrote: ....My concern with using images of real people (even public figures) to create new AI images is that their right to control the use of their own likeness is being usurped, even if the intent is complimentary. I suspect that Kendra or any other model might feel leery about their likeness being used this way without their permission and outside of their control.

That depends on who is doing it. Most model releases specify that the 'photographer' has the right to do whatever he or she wants to do with the images/footage after the fact.

Something like - ...the irrevocable right to use my ... picture, portrait, or photograph in all forms and in all media and in all manners, without any restrictions as to changes or alterations (including but not limited to composite or distorted representations or derivative works made in any medium)....

Back in the day, this usually meant basic photographic stuff like cropping and color alterations etc. But it does obviously allow for runs through an AI environment. However, for anyone without a proper model release, there would be potential liability.

Dave is correct that model releases typically have such language. Mine do as well. With the 2024, I plan to alter the release we use so as to say such rights may not be delegated to other parties.

Fred588 wrote:

dlodoski wrote:

JSample wrote: ....My concern with using images of real people (even public figures) to create new AI images is that their right to control the use of their own likeness is being usurped, even if the intent is complimentary. I suspect that Kendra or any other model might feel leery about their likeness being used this way without their permission and outside of their control.

That depends on who is doing it. Most model releases specify that the 'photographer' has the right to do whatever he or she wants to do with the images/footage after the fact.

Something like - ...the irrevocable right to use my ... picture, portrait, or photograph in all forms and in all media and in all manners, without any restrictions as to changes or alterations (including but not limited to composite or distorted representations or derivative works made in any medium)....

Back in the day, this usually meant basic photographic stuff like cropping and color alterations etc. But it does obviously allow for runs through an AI environment. However, for anyone without a proper model release, there would be potential liability.

Dave is correct that model releases typically have such language. Mine do as well. With the 2024, I plan to alter the release we use so as to say such rights may not be delegated to other parties.

Not being a photographer or producer myself I am unfamiliar with the minutiae and allowable legalities of such model releases. I'm speaking more from an awareness of how AI can be used and abused in ways that were not possible until only recently. For example, if a model's legally released image is run through AI processing but then further adaptations are made from the processed image and not the original, does the model's original release cover what is being produced beyond what she or he agreed to? What legal protections would the model have against these later, potentially photo-realistic images being used to present him or her in a negative light?

To me, AI seems like a wild, wild west of potential abuse that could cause genuine harm to people while the law struggles to keep up with something moving far faster than legislative processes can. Something can be legally allowable while also not being morally or ethically right.

JSample wrote: ....Not being a photographer or producer myself I am unfamiliar with the minutiae and allowable legalities of such model releases. I'm speaking more from an awareness of how AI can be used and abused in ways that were not possible until only recently. For example, if a model's legally released image is run through AI processing but then further adaptations are made from the processed image and not the original, does the model's original release cover what is being produced beyond what she or he agreed to? What legal protections would the model have against these later, potentially photo-realistic images being used to present him or her in a negative light?

To me, AI seems like a wild, wild west of potential abuse that could cause genuine harm to people while the law struggles to keep up with something moving far faster than legislative processes can. Something can be legally allowable while also not being morally or ethically right.

The technology may be new, but the issues you are raising are not.

'Fakes' have been around for 30 years or so now, including celebrity porn fakes and so on. It just depends on how far one sticks his neck out.

My personal observation is that a lot of guys have fiddled with the tools and have been taken back by what they can do. There is kind of a 'shock guilt' as it were. Some context is needed. First of all, it's just one guy sitting alone, looking at his PC. Even if shared within a small community, it's not going to set the world on edge.

JSample wrote:

Fred588 wrote:

dlodoski wrote:

JSample wrote: ....My concern with using images of real people (even public figures) to create new AI images is that their right to control the use of their own likeness is being usurped, even if the intent is complimentary. I suspect that Kendra or any other model might feel leery about their likeness being used this way without their permission and outside of their control.

That depends on who is doing it. Most model releases specify that the 'photographer' has the right to do whatever he or she wants to do with the images/footage after the fact.

Something like - ...the irrevocable right to use my ... picture, portrait, or photograph in all forms and in all media and in all manners, without any restrictions as to changes or alterations (including but not limited to composite or distorted representations or derivative works made in any medium)....

Back in the day, this usually meant basic photographic stuff like cropping and color alterations etc. But it does obviously allow for runs through an AI environment. However, for anyone without a proper model release, there would be potential liability.

Dave is correct that model releases typically have such language. Mine do as well. With the 2024, I plan to alter the release we use so as to say such rights may not be delegated to other parties.

Not being a photographer or producer myself I am unfamiliar with the minutiae and allowable legalities of such model releases. I'm speaking more from an awareness of how AI can be used and abused in ways that were not possible until only recently. For example, if a model's legally released image is run through AI processing but then further adaptations are made from the processed image and not the original, does the model's original release cover what is being produced beyond what she or he agreed to? What legal protections would the model have against these later, potentially photo-realistic images being used to present him or her in a negative light?

To me, AI seems like a wild, wild west of potential abuse that could cause genuine harm to people while the law struggles to keep up with something moving far faster than legislative processes can. Something can be legally allowable while also not being morally or ethically right.

First, i am not a lawyer. My understanding is that anything creative that one makes use of, that was created by someone else, violates the original creator's copyright, with certain narrowly defined exceptions. That is about the copyright, however, not about the model's rights. I THINK (but am not certain) that the model has additional rights related to privacy, protection of the ability to make a living, and so on. The model release gives the videographer (photographer, painter, sculptor, etc) authorization to do certain things. It does not matter how many layers of processing take place, except perhaps when the original source becomes unrecognizable. Something like a pose is something anyone can do and is not unique to the specific model.

Some of the exception mentioned above are things such as making a spoof or parody, using very small parts of a work for an academic purpose or in a review, and even then the original source MUST be properly cited (acknowledged). Failing to properly cite is basically negligence if accidental and not flagrant, but is called plagiarism otherwise.

Perhaps there are some lawyers in the group who will correct any errors here.

Whilst the discussion of what is and isn't acceptable usage of non-original material in an AI generated image is a worthy one, it probably shouldn't be in Jim's "Trying out this AI thing" thread and justifies a thread of its own. I feel a bit guilty about this as, I think, it was my image posts that triggered the discussion. I feel these images probably infringed Jim's copyright, irrespective of my statement revoking any claim I may have had and assigning my putative rights to Jim, I've now removed the images and apologise for any offence caused. This does not affect my offer of help and suggestions and, should Jim wish to take advantage of it, I'll be glad to help in any way possible.

Thank you for separating this from the original thread, it is much appreciated.

I think what I want to see come out of this thread is a set of guidelines on what is and isn't OK on this forum. At the moment it is all a bit "anything goes" and there've been a few things that made me wince. But the moderators didn't act and I couldn't help wondering if we were putting the forum in jeopardy. We should also bear in mind that things posted here may be reposted elsewhere.

cerberus wrote:Thank you for separating this from the original thread, it is much appreciated.

I think what I want to see come out of this thread is a set of guidelines on what is and isn't OK on this forum. At the moment it is all a bit "anything goes" and there've been a few things that made me wince. But the moderators didn't act and I couldn't help wondering if we were putting the forum in jeopardy. We should also bear in mind that things posted here may be reposted elsewhere.

I would need specific examples of wince inducing posts to comment with any real meaning. But I will say that I have been following the threads here pretty closely and other than a few (intentional as it turns out) age related images, I haven't seen anything that caused concern.

Again, celebrity based work is nothing new. On the one hand, it could be considered flattering. But not everyone will see it that way. Such is life. The board, and by extension, the management is pretty much protected from liability by 'Section 230'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230

If that is ever taken away, it's likely that this and many, many, many interesting places on the internet will shut down overnight.

We recently had an episode where someone used MPV Copyrighted work to generate AI images. It was so obvious that he even kept the names of the ladies involved. Normally I drop a DMCA bomb right away on anything. Realizing that this was new territory I messaged him directly and explained that anytime he uses our work to create his it was going to lead to trouble. He removed the offending material. Right now I can't tell you precisely where the dividing line on that is or what certain platforms will do about it but I'll know it when I see it. And when I see it I'll pursue it as a copyright violation the same way I would anything else. I suspect something broadly similar will be the new standard until someone figures out anything better.

Being a fan of the potential of AI for our interest here, I used some photos I'd taken to experiment with. After a few months I've learned that if you can learn to use the AI engines with modest skill it often produces a better result by itself than working from something else.