AI Art Seething General

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Status
Not open for further replies.
llama_aquisition said:
And at the same time, these types don't see any irony at all when they paint something based on a reference, and by that, they mean tracing.
Click to expand...
Or when their entire output is commissions of defiling other people's intellectual property with repulsive porn.
 
The Thinking Abacus said:
The "training rights reserved" notice at the end of the movie is void in certain jurisdictions anyway, including Singapore. AI companies aren't gonna give a shit.
Click to expand...
"I can eliminate fair use and the First Amendment by just saying so." No, you can't, fuck off nigger.
 
AnOminous said:
Or when their entire output is commissions of defiling other people's intellectual property with repulsive porn.
Click to expand...
Which is ironic because it seems the copyright fanatics think so-called intellectual property can be "defiled" -- by stuff they do not like, that is -- when in reality the only one who can "defile" a series is the one who makes it. Anything else is fan works or parody.

(BTW I recall a copyright cultist claiming that merely modifying a work is "criminal copyright infringement", and removing watermark is always "falsely claiming ownership".)

AnOminous said:
"I can eliminate fair use and the First Amendment by just saying so."
Click to expand...
If typical deviantART copyright fanatics had their way with copyright law, Fair Use would be thrown out, and copying would be prosecuted as physical theft (if not worse) ...
 
Last edited:
Billow Riley said:
"This work may not be used to train AI"
Click to expand...
Like I said, if the AI uses portions which are not unique nor substantial, it is either de minimis or most likely "transformative" Fair Use, meaning that cannot be copyright infringement, meaning that such a claimed restriction cannot hold up in courts: it has no power. And if substantial and unique portions are used, such may still be Fair Use.

"You have no power here!" - Video Memes
 
Last edited:
ToroidalBoat said:
If typical deviantART copyright fanatics had their way with copyright law, Fair Use would be thrown out, and copying would be prosecuted as physical theft (if not worse) ...
Click to expand...
And then they'd all be immediately hauled off to prison for infringing on copyrighted characters. Like post-Steamboat Willie Mickey Mouse. Or the ponies they usually make porn of.
Billow Riley said:
"This work may not be used to train AI" is a stance against AI in the same way "Unauthorized broadcasts of this work are prohibited" is a stance against people watching their movies. It means "Pay us or fuck off."
Click to expand...
Yeah whatever, and your mom cannot be used as a cocksleeve by me.
 
ToroidalBoat said:
(BTW I recall a copyright cultist claiming that merely modifying a work is "criminal copyright infringement", and removing watermark is always "falsely claiming ownership".)
Click to expand...
These are the same people who throw a fit when someone posts a meme on social media and doesn’t explicitly link to the original creator. And yet their Spongebob gifs somehow aren’t required to say “©️1999 Viacom”.

On that note, what about the people who think copying and pasting the entire Fair Use Act in their YouTube description somehow makes them free from legal action?
 
Two Dollars said:
On that note, what about the people who think copying and pasting the entire Fair Use Act in their YouTube description somehow makes them free from legal action?
Click to expand...
A lot of online shit in general is a game of chinese whispers. People overhear shit and misinterpret it, other people just see others doing it and it's some sort of anti survivor bias. 'well this video hasn't been copy claimed and it has this thing in the description so if i do it then i will also not have to worry'. Kinda herd mentality. They're hopefully :optimistic: not expecting that it will actually repel copyright shit. It's kinda like the 'no bullying' signs at a school, they're not going to magically stop bullying but it's more about sending a message of 'this is something i am aware of', that or they're just fucking autistic which does fit most youtubers.
 
sex haver said:
Developing an indie game? Great! Programmers work for free until the game is complete and hopefully sells, but if you want art assets? That's right, you have to pay for it first with money you don't have. Absolutely no way any 3D modeler or even a sprite artist is going to put in even a minute of work without pay. And if you ask, that's rude because uh sorry sweatie, artists need a living wage.
Click to expand...
Internet artists should be forced to do 10-years hard, unpaid labor in the salt-mines of Wieliczka before discussing economics or ethics.
 
Runch said:
The ROM sites in the 2000s, every one with headers saying "you can only legally download these games if you actually own a physical copy!!!"
Click to expand...
There were rom sites with English text? Not some fucking moon rune asian shit or russian?
 
AnOminous said:
And then they'd all be immediately hauled off to prison for infringing on copyrighted characters.
Click to expand...
I recall the one who claimed that "modifying a copyright" is "criminal copyright infringement" also claimed that anyone is "taking a big risk" with fanart, which she posted.

femboy fart huffer said:
There were rom sites with English text?
Click to expand...
Way back around the year 2000 there was a number of them. Nintendo started cracking down after that though.
 
I’ve been making AI art for about a year now, though I don’t even really consider it “art.” I don’t just type a text prompt into an AI and take whatever it gives me. I actually create my images first and use AI more like a filtering tool.

What I do is use Bing to make assets for my images. Or I downloaded them from chrome. Then I piece those assets together into a single image. Almost similar to making a collage. Or the modern art movement where they would just take stuff they find and make it into a sculpture. I forgot the name of it. After that, I’ll ask the AI to put it into a style I want. Of course I ask it to fix shadows. Sometimes have it fix placement. Occasionally I’ll ask it to add or remove elements. But in the end, I’m the one making the images myself.

I’ve even been told by some artists that I’m using AI in the "right way". Honestly, I don’t have a horse in this race. I’m not trying to make a name for myself. I do it for fun because I enjoy the images.

I do understand the arguments against AI, especially when it comes to writing and literature. That’s where I get concerned, since I’m a bit of a writer myself. I’ve written two books, though I haven’t published them yet. I must say though. The most vocal artists against AI art. Seems to be the most unskilled annoying ones. They're so up their own ass. It really turns everybody against them.

But anyway, that’s just my tw
o cents.
 
Mad Hunter said:
AI BAD AI BAD AI BAD
Click to expand...
Mad Hunter said:
NOW, NOW, NOW.
Click to expand...
BlueSky, Tumblr, and Furries: *clap clap clap clap*

More to the point, you bringing up those mangakas reminded me of a video I posted twice in this thread: since mangakas have to be working essentially every second of the day (even when in bed wi their spouses), AI s a desperately-needed relief to them.
The only problem is that I also saw a video that claims that industry higher-ups a replacing workers with AI nstead of giving the mo relaxed working conditions. (I do not remember wha that video was, and searching m YouTube history left me with nothing.)

A more important aspect you brought up is those indie creators that have a lot of their own costs. This ultimately is the makings of basic economics: everyone has their own eeds but cannot have them provided from each of their own ability due to the finity of resources, hence 'the invisible hand'. Conversel, you brought up 'character designers, storyboard writers, coders, riggers, animators, editors and voice actors'; would those not be replaced by generative AI, too? Not helping is the claim that industry rates of paying illustrators go into the hundreds of dollars.

An interesting irony comes from you mentioning that AI s actually weeding ou the weak. If you listen to the communit, you would hear non-stop that AI-users are weak because they would not even pick up a pencil, something that even amputees can do. To them, AI s no different from buying from a restaurant, maybe addin garnishes o reheating, and claiming tha the meal was yours. Meanwhile, you mention tha the anti-AI crowd is psychologically weak because they have a very small idea of what art should be. I also find ironic that you brought up the hate against Corporate Memphis to be an example of their weaknes, since Corporate Memphis is considered a 'soulless ugly corporate artstyle'; I wonder wh you find the hate a form of weakness.

Other interesting parts are you bringing up tha they insist on making everything political and claiming that AI-generated art i 'soulless'. I wonder if they believe tha the politics, which they woul deny strongly are politics, are a way tha they are giving their art 'soul'.

By the b, you rant would make great 'dramatic reading' material.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom