this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2024
541 points (95.6% liked)
Comic Strips
12478 readers
3865 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't mind people making and sharing AI pictures for fun, but if you sell those pictures, that's kinda cringe tbh.
Everyone can write a prompt. Not everyone can write a prompt that gets around vulgarity filters and outputs an image of Jesus twerking. That's where the real value is IMHO.
Imagine writing a prompt for ChatGPT to generate the prompt to get around vulgarity filters.
And if that person can manage to find a market that will purchase that Image, they deserve to sell it
I can't imagine there's a market for it. AI art isn't copyrightable, and even if they just post a low res preview then that allows anyone to simply use an AI upscaler on it to get a satisfactory output
Here's what the US copyright office says about when AI art is or isn't copyrightable:
So if an image looks like AI and you decide to just take it, legally that could be a risky proposition if you don't know the artist's workflow and the situation doesn't exactly match up with settled case law. Afaik most of the market is for custom images, so in practice most of the time it's not going to be a situation of just putting in a prompt and handing over the result but rather a multi step process and a hybrid of different techniques, which could weigh more towards generated content or more towards traditional drawing or image manipulation. The reason to pay someone for that instead of just using AI yourself would be the same as the reason for paying for non-AI art; they have the skills to get better results than you easily can on your own. The reason an artist might use AI is that it improves quality and/or reduces the amount of work.
I honestly think if an artist makes their own model based on only their own work and then use that model to create more of their work, then it's completely fine if they want to sell it. I imagine if there's future for AI art then that's probably the best future, one where the AI creates most of the image and then the artist does some touching up where AI wasn't good enough.
I sort of agree, but I think it depends on effort.
Type one word in and try and sell the easiest generated image? Low value.
But typing the right combo to create assets to create something larger than the model is capable of? That's more valuable.
Criticizing AI or artists that leverage AI is like criticizing an artist for using a printer instead of drawing by hand
Or saying someone's digital work is inferior because they used a tool to help make their image...
On that note, when working on a large project, is an AI artist as pretentious as the artist in the comic because they got some help generating the project from an AI instead of another human? Or is someone's work ethic less credible for Google searching instead of asking a person? Are works of art valuable because they're entirely original and uninfluenced by anything else but the artist themself? Because with that metric no artists are valuable since nothing is entirely original anyways
If AI prompting is the only tool involved I agree. If it's being used as just another tool in the artists toolkit it's a different matter. For example I've seen people combining their photography with AI via masking and it's about as respectable as collage art in my opinion.
I don't oppose AI pictures at all. However, considering that all generative image models have been trained on human generated data, it is only fair that these models and art created by them be under copyleft licenses.
In the US under federal law only a human being may own copyright over a piece of artwork. Even a monkey that takes its own picture can't legally own the picture, so neither can an AI. The only thing you can own is the access to the artwork.
Honest question: how does this work for corporations? Does that mean a particular employee of a corporation holds the copyright, or can the corporation itself (e.g. Disney) as a legal "person" hold a copyright?
Nobody can hold the copyright unless it's deemed to be created by a human. Disney owns the copyright because under US law, corporations are also people, and their employees create the work for Disney.
What's more cringe though? Selling off the wall AI generated images or selling pictures of your butthole? (Asking for a friend.)
How much would your friend charge for a 12'x12' oil painting of their butthole?