Artists are now copyrighting AI art

How does this make you feel BOT?

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm cumming

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >How does this make you feel BOT?
    I no longer feel for the world. I never cared about copyright, either.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Its completely laughable that someone even considers that his uninspired AI prompt is even worthy of copyright to me.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Well, investigating further, you will find she trained the AI using her own IRL artworks.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Oh damn, thats a bit of a fail on my end. But im certain thats not something many “ai artists” can claim.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I agree. I bet the number is less than 1%.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        you can't copyright ai generated art. if you could, the rights would be given to the person that made the software/offered the service. much like how twitter/youtube/facebook/etc. claim copyright over everything uploaded to their sites.

        >Is artificial intelligence set to become art’s next medium?

        > AI artwork sells for $432,500 — nearly 45 times its high estimate — as Christie’s becomes the first auction house to offer a work of art created by an algorithm

        https://www.christies.com/en/stories/a-collaboration-between-two-artists-one-human-one-a-machine-0cd01f4e232f4279a525a446d60d4cd1

        > christies
        > known for creating fraudulent auctions with fantasy starting prices purely for media attention
        amazing.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >you can't copyright ai generated art
          maybe you can not, but artists and corporations can even make money with AI generated art

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >maybe you can not, but artists and corporations can even make money with AI generated art
            they can but nobody is buying when they can get a decent video card, stable diffusion and do it themselves for fricking FREE. when you freely admit to scraping the entire internet and stealing everyone's shit then you can kiss goodbye any ownership/copyrights. it's mostly the reason why this memeshit has gone nowhere very fast. nobody owns anything. what do we really have available to general public without computing power? poorly programmed chatbots that have been gimped so they aren't displaying "wrong think" and image generators. audio generators are still god damn awful. it's coming close to 4 years now since some of these algorithms appeared and we've gone nowhere.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >can get a decent video card, stable diffusion and do it themselves for fricking FREE
              so why don't you get one and make your own AI art? or at least use DALL-E?
              maybe a top gaming computer is not "for free" maybe installing stable diffusion and getting decent results is not something every idiot can do?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >if you could, the rights would be given to the person that made the software/offered the service.
          >I wrote The draft for my novel in Microsoft word, therefore Microsoft has copyright over my work even though I'm the one that wrote the book and sent it to I publishing house that is not Microsoft

          Do you understand how moronic that sounds? Using software or a tool to create something is very very different than posting something to a service where you agreed via their terms of service to allow them to use whatever you upload however they see fit. Never speak again. Mouth breathers like you need to be flogged for being so unwilling to use your brain

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    "Works" by ai should not be protected by copyright. 1) given how ai models work, all works are inherently derivative. 2) how would you enforce it in situations where two artists just happen to get the same output (perhaps with minor variations) because they used similar prompts. It's stupid if you ask me.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      if an artist trains their own model, nobody can copy it unless they share it.
      many people have painted their own versions of works of art.
      your points are moot.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >if an artist trains their own model, nobody can copy it unless they share it
        You can make a model off of everything they’ve ever posted and essentially get the same model

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >how would you enforce it in situations where two artists just happen to get the same output
      If you knew how it worked you would know that's damn near impossible. That would be like getting a bag of rice, dumping the rice on the floor, asking a kid to randomly pick up one grain of rice. Packing the rice up and dumping it on the floor again, and then asking a second kid to pick out a random grain of rice while expecting them to pick up the exact same grain of rice the other kid picked up. I can give you the exact model, vae, parameters, UI setting, Even identical hardware, and you would still get an output that is slightly different if you input all of those settings and parameters into an SD instance. The entire point is to make new shit from existing shit by learning what the existing shit actually was.

      t. I create miniature versions of these models on the regular.

      The only reason you cannot copyright any AI arch right now is because it is still very new technology and trying to make any laws around it is legally dubious because most normies refuse to actually sit down and learn how the thing they are afraid of works.

      You would only be violating someone's copyright if an output of yours matched in existing, non-AI generated work PERFECTLY, which literally never happens. Ever. Any tray picked example you've seen br "research" was just a shitty filter overlaid over an existing picture or an output that was overfitted on purpose (Even the overfitted pictures do not count as copyright in French mate because they aren't carbon copies...). This is why I can draw SpongeBob SquarePants art on a T-shirt and Paramount cannot sue me because the shitty drawing I made is derivative. It's when I copy paste a frame from a SpongeBob episode and put it on a shirt and then try to sell it on Amazon, THEN that is copywriting Frenchman. SD inherently cannot in front of anyone's copyright.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nah, that’s all horseshit. There’s no reason to copyright ai gens when everyone is capable of shitting out thousands a day from their devices. The ai community insisted that copyright needed to go, now don’t turn around and be hypocrites because you wanna copyright your shitty models lol

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        only because 999 777

        You enter copyright infringement area when you dont follow the license given by the work originator.
        There are currently 4 scenarios:
        a) declares to be public domain
        b) declares being creative commons
        c) declares having copyright
        d) does not declares any copyright

        Public domain is free for all, creative commons licenses state which they each cover, no copyright declaration means no use allowed by anyone, and copyright declares the issuer license. Each issuer holds their own right to give away whatever.

        The caveat is the source of the works used to train the "AI" model.
        The artist rage comes from webscrappers mass downloading their works, and claiming their style is theirs, without source attribution.
        Most websites state a license and allowed content usage.

        China does not care of any of the above, neither lots of places, and there is no way of enforcing takedowns... only at the auction level. Auction prices come from collectors that hunt for works with certain style and bootleg copies will damage the art scam.

        All art is derivative, but these collectors can spot who copied and stealed who. Which is the main game.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm actually in the process of copyrighting 1girl right now.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Eh I’ve seen very interesting stuff on your AI general. Copyrighting a character is not the same as just prompting a bunch of shit.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Blacks are back to being property now?

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    swarthy native american headshot done in the style of claudia milkowski watercolor 4k fine detail

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Wasn't there a court case like last year that concluded you couldn't do that?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Wasn't there a court case like last year that concluded you couldn't do that?

      Media claimed this, but some troll just tried to register an AI as author/artist , which is of course not possible since you need to be a person and AI is no person.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The copyright office in the US released a guideline stating that based on their interpretation of prior court cases (most notably that a monkey can’t have a copyright of a picture it took of its own volition), that AI generated content doesn’t meet the bar of being a persons expression fixed in a tangible medium required for it to be copyrightable. Proompting is at best like commissioning an artist for a work, and in that case it’s the artist that owns the copyright, not the commissioner, unless there’s an agreement to the alternative. Given the AI is not a person, it cannot claim copyright, therefore it cannot be transferred, therefore no copyright is possible. You could maybe claim copyright over the prompt?

      But basically it’s not set in stone, but given precedent it’s very unlikely AI generated content can be copyrighted

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Is artificial intelligence set to become art’s next medium?

    > AI artwork sells for $432,500 — nearly 45 times its high estimate — as Christie’s becomes the first auction house to offer a work of art created by an algorithm

    https://www.christies.com/en/stories/a-collaboration-between-two-artists-one-human-one-a-machine-0cd01f4e232f4279a525a446d60d4cd1

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, art sells, even a fricking banana taped to a wall.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Can you moronic AI troons get your own board already? Go troll /ic/ or something, moron.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Has whining ever worked for you?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It worked well enough to make you reply :^). Now frick outta my board, AItroon.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          im still here

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >AItroon
          >Everything I don't like is troony
          Kys you moronic Black person

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Everything I don't like is troony.
            NTA but that's a badass motto.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm against IP, but I'm for anything that makes artgays seethe. So this is okay.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    there is always at least one stable diffusion thread on this board, it's the worst thread full of trolls and "girl with boobs" pictures, maybe porn "artists" should be worried

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    As always your moronic asses did a false equivalence between actual artists and money laundering grifter and troons

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it's unenforceable in the united states and by extension every other country on the planet

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      apple usb c tho

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    this sums up my opinion

    https://app.suno.ai/song/d76004cf-4232-4789-87e2-518985a25fe2

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >.ai
      Not even once.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Artists
    ?

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If I decided to be a dumbfrick and pursue AI 8 years ago, I'd probably be livid.
    no fricks given.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Bid deal. Claudia's only prompt was 'Gigachink'.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I only agree with copyright laws when porn addicts are made upset by them. You are that bad.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >are made upset
      sweet mother of ESL, good morning saar

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Ecstatic cause I can prompt better than that

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Can proompt anything
    >Makes bland ugly art
    Normcattle proving they are little more than flesh automatons either afraid or incapable of producing anything beautiful or soulful even when they're given the entire art world at their fingertips.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      we get it you like cruelty squad

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Not a valid copyright. Courts determined this way before AI shit was a thing.
    You can copyright an algo you can't copyright the output.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >copyrighting
    Copyrighting isn't something you do, it's something you have.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      ayo watchu mean homie u got beef or sum?

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what's happening. I'm very, very, sorry, but I SIMPLY DON'T NEED YOUR ART FOR ANYTHING. Copyright it all you like, but I won't be using it, won't be buying it, likely won't even be looking at it. I have my own art generator, that makes anything I want, exactly how I want. Why would I even spend time on any other people, unless maybe it's something very impressive, which this is not. I DON'T NEED YOU, AND YOU DON'T NEED ME, and we better start considering this problem fast or the world is going to spiral violently into a narcissism vortex that we can never claw out of.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I hate to tell you this, but the people generating art were not commissioning art in the first place.
      Try to find any successful AI art proompteurs, there aren't any and I searched far and wide.
      Both new digital and traditional artists continue to blow up, different FOTM gimmicks on X.
      It has been a year, and it seems AI art is not at all affecting the existing art market, they exist in parallel, although AI art (and interest in it) stopping growing in Q4 2023.
      AI art has failed to replace or even affect professional digitial art.
      Check Artstation, hell, check bot sporadically, most art posted is not AI, BOT, BOT and the rest are largely the same. People call it slop and have become adept at spotting it.
      AI art is BOT's /GME/

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Time to make some money homie
    Be on that grind every day because I wasn't born into money yeah I was born into poverty tryna get independent every day yeah mate

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's currently accepted that AI generated shit can be copyrighted, but you somehow don't need a right holder's permission to train AI on someone's copyrighted data.
    It's so convenient for big corps.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Copyrighting sampled noise map
    t. AI gooner that wanks on shota elfs

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >feel
    "AI" are tools, same level tools as Photoshop or Blender. Those tools cannot claim rights from creations made on them, because intellectual rights are generated from the human creation. At least that is by the definition.
    First created first called the copyright.

    But 'art' is never in a vacuum. Always steals from somewhere. There is a chain of copyright, each claiming a step.
    The thing these pseuds claim as copyright is the right of static ownership, but all art is derivative. So it is OK they bark copyright because it is their right to do so.
    But the real issue with the claim is to be known as a style origin.
    >do not steal my style bro that I stole from previous

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Caring about laws

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *