Three visual artists are suing artificial intelligence image-generators to protect their copyrights and careers.

Visual artists fight back against AI companies for repurposing their work::Three visual artists are suing artificial intelligence image-generators to protect their copyrights and careers.

  • FooBarrington@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    1 year ago

    I absolutely approve of AI tools as a way for artists to empower themselves. Because there is human input.

    Why does that “fix it” for you? Earlier you stated that AI cannot create anything new by its very nature. Why does the status of the output change if an artist uses it? Why is it art when an artist does it, but not if a non-artist does it?

    • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      I’m not talking about “artists” who fiddle with prompts until they got something pretty and then treat the result as a finished piece.

      I’m talking about people generate a nose, a hand, a set of abs, a piece of clothing, a texture for a set of clothing, and then combine these with their “traditional” digital art skills.

      They are using the AI like a brush, not a printer.

      • FooBarrington@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        And why is only that “art”? Why is it not art when I use in-painting to generate individual parts of the image? Where is the magical border where it turns from not-art to art?

        • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          The magical border is whether it originated in a human mind. What tools were used to get it out and into world don’t matter.

          A lot of AI content out there right now, isn’t the result of that process. The AI generated something the artist liked, rather than the artist bending the AI into realising what they could already see in their mind.