• Chozo@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Don’t post the entire article in the OP, please. You’ll end up getting C&D’s sent to your instance admins if publishers keep seeing this, because it’s - ironically enough in this context - copyright infringement.

    Just post a snippet to stay within fair use. Don’t ruin Lemmy for all of us over something so silly.

  • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s great! It means artists can continue to use AI art for projects they don’t intend to sell, and Hollywood, which already has too much power, still relies on others.

    • Fisk400@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Artists can still make money and copyright their stuff. You just can’t use exclusively AI to create the images. Cleaning up an AI generated image count as artistic work. Color correct, add missing fingers, make the eyes point the same way, remove background monstrosities. It all adds up.

      Unfortunately this also goes for Hollywood. They can generate the bulk of the work and have one guy do the editing and suddenly they own the edit.

      The real losers in this are the people that generate images with no modifications and post it as is while pretending that they are doing art.

      • SkySyrup@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You are correct. Hollywood will simply change up a couple things and then use the assets.

        However, I‘m still undecided about how I think about whether generating AI art should count as Human-generated or not. On one hand, people can spend hours if not days or week perfecting a prompt with different tools like ControlNet, different promptstyles and etc. On the other hand, somebody comes up to midjourney, asks for a picture of a dragon wearing a T-Shirt and immediately gets an image that looks pretty decent. It’s probably not exactly what they wanted, but close enough, right? AI gets you 90% there what you want, and the other 10% is the super-hard part that takes forever. Anyway, sorry for dumping my though process from this comment chain on here xD

        • Fisk400@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sorry, I am firmly in the camp where that isn’t art. The prompt writing can be a literary work but the result isn’t a work of art. You set up the environment that allowed the image to exist but you didnt make the image.

          • El Barto@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I remember this artist who used a jet engine to throw paint onto a big canvas. Was the resulting artwork made by the jet engine, based on what you’re saying?

            I’m not confrontational. I just like the discussion. This whole topic is, well, fascinating.

  • randon31415@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hope: AI gets so good that people using a personal computer can produce full TV series with a single prompt, delare it uncopyrightable, and share the best results online as a alternative to corporate stuff.

    Fear: IP law becomes so disconnected from the current situation that it prompts governments start over from scratch. New IP law is written by the corporations for the corporations, and any form of creativity is restricted and monetized.