Technology

59689 readers

3168 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

309

Why This Award-Winning Piece of AI Art Can’t Be Copyrighted (www.wired.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

120 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Why This Award-Winning Piece of AI Art Can’t Be Copyrighted::Matthew Allen’s AI art won first prize at the Colorado State Fair. But the US government has ruled it can’t be copyrighted because it’s too much “machine” and not enough “human.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

BTW, do you consider Photoshop/Krita/GIMP artists “scammers”? Blender/Maya/Cinema4D artists? Who are these “actual artists” of which you speak?

This comparison automatically invalidates any point you may have made.

You say our thinking is not so different, and then defend machine-generated art as legitimate creation?

To be clear, when I say AI tools, I mean for collecting references, making poses and future enhanced basic transform/select/etc tools. I don't mean generating entire complete peices of art.

Selling AI art on platforms that actual artists sell their work on, is a scam. Since illegitimate work is flooding human creations. NFTs are often scams too.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

I still think we are more or less on the same page. I also agree with your position on NFTs. Nevertheless, "machine-generated art" as you've called it IS legitimate creation, just like canned baked beans is legitimate creation, just like the act of making scrambled eggs is creation. Notice that I never mentioned anything QUALITATIVE about the process. I've never referred to these works as "art" (however you'd like to define that) but "illustrations" which is all they are and again, for the most part, they are visibly AI...but there are exceptions, rarely without human intervention (retouching). If someone wants to sell their AI-generated illustrations, what's the problem? Same with NFTs. What do I or you care? It's your moral obligation to part a fool from their money.

That said, since we've veered way off course of the original question, MY PERSONAL OPINION is there is next to no expression of the human condition (define that as you will) in StableDiffusion/Midjourney/whatever-engine "art" and is merely ("merely," he says!) putting the "infinite monkeys theorem" into practice. While chance and chaos is good (and not only in art), a foundation is always necessary. If "you", untrained in composition, art history and materials, you think describing images using a certain language/method is "art", become a writer. We're all waiting for your bestseller.

Have a wonderfull day and thanks for the chat!