all AI art is generated off of the STOLEN work of millions of artists. It puts artists out of business and decreases the amount of jobs.
AI art is morally and ethically indefensible.
say NO to AI art
all AI art is generated off of the STOLEN work of millions of artists. It puts artists out of business and decreases the amount of jobs.
AI art is morally and ethically indefensible.
>all AI art is generated off of the STOLEN work
Wrong.
Art is about beauty and joy, not about jobs or business or whatever other gnomish terms you want to use
Didn't read. Never will stop proomting.
i don't care about artists
But I don't care. I really, really don't care, and I'd rather that artists starve. they seem to get better that way.
>It puts artists out of business
THANK YOU BASED AI ART
>"please i need money please commission me more"
NOT SO FAST
Horrible bait do better gay
Artists owe me drawings
Why did you put it online?
Why did you make digital art at all?
You wanted to use the internet to your advantage.
Now it's time to pay the bills
>we gathered images from 1200 artists
OF ARTISTS RAPED
you'll never be a good artist
you'll never be a woman
No real art has been produced since 1880. Fuck "artists" - I hope they and their families become homeless and starve to death.
Real money was made since the prehistory, please understand.
I'ld just be stealing their art anyway so i don't care.
All good art was made either in low budget or without funding
This
now commission an artist on twitter/x, if the artist accepts you and will not block you.
who hurt you
the federal bankers and/or paypal staff
da jooos
The cat is out of the bag - adapt or die.
mate if i take a picture of pablo Picasso's and shit all over it, its still pablo Picasso's but who the fuck cares now ye get me?
>t. Mickey Mouse
Like, you all know that that's who any AI art-related laws are going to be written for the benefit of, right? The little guy will have a few useful idiots trotted out before the politicians for carefully planned testimony, and then tossed into the trash immediately afterwards. When the resulting laws have different real world impact than promised/suggested, their further complaints will be completely ignored.
That's not even the worst case. Worst case is the laws get written so broadly to "protect artists" that common strategies used by artists to learn how to art will become explicitly illegal and fiercely enforced. Trace some art? That's a paddlin'. Learn art techniques from a (digital) book without an explicit license? That's a paddlin'. Draw a fanart piece? You better believe that's a paddlin'.
all AI art is generated off of the STOLLEN work Just like crooked sleepy creepy Joe. It decreases the amount of jobs.
being an artist is about making art, not money
artwork copyright lasts throughout the author's life and for 50 years after their death
>being an artist is about making art, not money
objectivelly false
millions of profesisonal artists makes much money since centuries ago.
>artwork copyright lasts throughout the author's life and for 50 years after their death
in the US it's 90 years after the artist's death (or 120 years after publication if it's work-for-hire)
you're way too late for that trainwreck, "artists" are on their coping phase already.
>decreases the amount of jobs
why does everyone always assume that a vastly more efficient workforce displaces more job opportunities than it creates? Efficiencies open up opportunities that didn't exist before and industries that weren't possible because of human constraints. Do you think the invention of the computer was a net job loss just because it put some human calculators out of employment?
Fuck off garden gnome. The effect of more efficiency mostly is that a larger share of profits goes to stockholders. It used to be 1/3rd owners, 1/3rd taxes, 1/3rd employees.
Now it's 1/2 owners, 1/4th taxes and 1/4th employees.
>STOLEN
so they can't access their own work anymore?
doesn't make sense
almost like they published it publicly and anyone could see it including AI
corpos and government will take AI from the goyim so no need to worry
Kys chud
You first granny.
Inspiration is theft!
j/k, artgays on chudicide watch.
unfortunately is true
the world is not derived by the originality, only cliches.
get eaten
By your logic, no human who had viewed copyrighted material should be allowed to create art. Like AI, we also use stuff we've seen before as a source of ideas and patterns to put in what we create.
Didn't read
Seething inkcel
Go to bed and learn to read.
>le heckin STOLEN jpegs
They should've made their art into NFTs. Then it wouldn't be so fungible.
would you call the painter a creator and maker?
Certainly not.
Yet if he is not the maker, what is he in relation to the bed?
I think, he said, that we may fairly designate him as the imitator of that which the others make.
Good, I said; then you call him who is third in the descent from nature an imitator?
Certainly, he said.
And the tragic poet is an imitator, and therefore, like all other imitators, he is thrice removed from the king and from the truth?
That appears to be so.
Then about the imitator we are agreed. And what about the painter?-- I would like to know whether he may be thought to imitate that which originally exists in nature, or only the creations of artists?
The latter.
As they are or as they appear? You have still to determine this.
What do you mean?
I mean, that you may look at a bed from different points of view, obliquely or directly or from any other point of view, and the bed will appear different, but there is no difference in reality. And the same of all things.
Yes, he said, the difference is only apparent.
Now let me ask you another question: Which is the art of painting designed to be--an imitation of things as they are, or as they appear-- of appearance or of reality?
Of appearance.
Pay your dues first thief artists.
But there's hardly any real artists doing porn of my fetish.