it’s a double edged sword but it’s just gonna get stronger as time goes on and that’s an understatement, 1:50 great point I’m sure there will be new laws implemented
Tried asking this on odysee but everything was blocked. how do you think ai art compares to someone that uses several references from other artists and possibly samples from them as well? At what point and to what degree does fair use come into it?
I think it is fundamentally different. In the case of an artist using references from other artists and even past knowledge they gained from instructors at art school, let's say, the artist is using their artistic skill to create the art. Painting, for example, the artist is actually applying paint to a canvas to create an image. Typing a few lines of text into a computer keyboard might take some level of thought but it is far different than drawing or painting by hand. Also, a person who types in a prompt to AI is not creating the art. The AI is creating the art. And it is learning how to create the art based upon images from other artists (who actually physically made art by painting, drawing, etc) that were uploaded to the Internet. Furthermore, current US copyright law would support my assertion that AI created art is fundamentally different from human created art. This is because AI art is considered public domain. Anything a human creates by hand (ie painting, drawing, etc) is not public domain; the human owns the copyright to their work. But any art a person generates using AI is public domain, not protected by copyright, and free for anyone to use, sell, or whatever.
Not sure if I followed. You said only applying paint on canvas is art. So digital art isn’t art? This is not what you mentioned in the video. Your second argument is that it’s “too easy” for those people to create art so it’s not art. So the definition of an art is the effort you spent? If an artist draws a cartoon cat with a few strokes, is that art? If a person studied machine learning to fine tune the model to create better style of painting, is that art? I just found that definition a bit difficult to take. Not gonna go to the legal part since laws are made by people and it can changes without any good reason. Again, I’m not here to pick on any artist. I just want to learn fundamentally is there a good argument besides “ai took my work so I don’t like it”
I think its very similar to what has happened countless of times. Machines now do most of the furniture but some people still do them handmade. Same with things out of clay and 3D printing. I dont think it will ever replace truly talented artirsts because it can't. Same reason why if you have enough money youll get furniture handmade by someone whos been doing it for years and not just buy a basic generic set.
It's not that easy to come up with really good AI art. You have to know how to use the tools, just like other forms of art (anything from digital to painting to sculpture). Some people know how to provoke mood and emotion with these art tools more than others. I use it to generate package art for my seed company, and I don't have the time or money to come up with as much as I have without AI. I also respect that what is "good" art to one person is un-inspirational for others. Digital art is looked down to by classical artists the same way some current artists diss on AI. It's definitely not going away, and will only progress. I think it's cool that you're addressing this. It reminds me of when we started to download music, and artists feeling cheated.
I definitely agree with you with regard to coming up with good AI art with knowing how to use the tools. Knowing how to write good prompts is crucial it will be interesting to see how AI art progresses in the future, how good AI actually gets.
thanks for sharing your opinion on this. i have to agree with you on the points you made. plus, i had no idea that some people are now assuming that all digital art is made by AI. that sounds kinda frustrating! not their fault but it just goes to show the vast impact that AI art is having on the art community and people’s perceptions of art in general
One of the problems, is that people have been tricked into calling, AI images “art “. It’s not art. It’s a software generated image. Art is made by human beings.
I think just about everyone is in agreement that AI generated imagery isn't "art" so if a person is an actual artist they should have nothing to worry about and the big thing to actually worry about is when it's used for generating propaganda
@@ElliottWoodward Eh , maybe if this was some kind of debate but it isn't. To be clear anyone who wants to call themselves an artist is free to do so, as far as I recall there was no standard definition of what an artist is and I'm going on what I would consider to an artist which involves the motivation for creating. I like what Robert Culp had to say when ask to give advice to someone who wanted to become an actor, and I'll have to paraphrase here, "If you want to become an actor don't , go do something else, but if you have to become an actor you'll figure it out."
Isaac Newton remarked in a letter to his rival Robert Hooke: 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.' So, maybe, an AI art is just a baby that ready to make a first steps forward
A random, cute and funny thing I noticed is that at 2:02 it looked like you scratched the cat's chin in the background from all the way in the foreground. I'm a sort of AI artist and I just wanted to say that I'm comfortable with hearing opinions from respectable artists such as yourself. You know, from stencils being labelled as cheating to photography being labelled as cheating, this debate isn't new at all, it's ancient in fact. Giotto was an ancient artist who broke the mold of stencil art. We must keep the debate up in a respectable manner. It's practically a vital organ if not the heart of art because it forces us to consider and reconsider what we personally add to our art. If we stand on the backs of giants, we should be contributing. The main reason that I'm not intimidated by such arguments is because I know that as a voice talent, I work hard to make my vocal syntheses of the AI written words, like a painter painting with a reference photo. I learned from "The Intonation Systems of English" by Paul Tench. I'm always thankful for your opinions.
I really liked what you said about how each person should be considering and reconsidering what we personally add to our art. And that if we stand on the backs of Giants, we should be contributing. I totally agree! What's the point of creating something if it's not adding something new to the conversation, culture, art world, etc.
Exactly. My take exactly as well. AI "Art" is really muddying the waters, But I'm glad to hear that copyright is accurately flagging this stuff. Great video.
You seem having a more neutral position so maybe you can help me with my confusion. Not trying to be on either side nor being offensive. Say if a person, who never went to an art school. He or she have seen many art work including yours during the time they grew up. They then learned the art style like yours but they never pay you a cent. Would you be upset about their work which obviously somewhat has your style (let’s assume like 10% likeness).
Maybe I’m biased. I saw a great amount of artists against ai work saying they spent tons of time perfecting their skill and ai just took it for free. But for example, now you can also ask ai to help you write a website or a small app in few secs. There aren’t many developers there saying ai stealing their work which obviously was trained from their work too. Not trying to justify ai and I absolutely disagree on training on unauthorized work (art or code). I’m just wondering if you look at the other perspective, you now can do coding too or other things ai can do. Isn’t this demarcation a good thing?
I think AI is a great tool for a lot of uses. What I am against is companies using anyone’s creations whether that’s art, websites, writing, anything to train the AI without having our permission, whether that be paid or just opt in or opt out option.
Aren't you doing derivitive art?? I mean, you can see behind you that you are taking a picture of a cat, and changing colors. So what's the difference from taking a picture and using it to create AI art with. It's not copying, it's using a base to start, like you are. So either you are cheating, or no one is.
It is completely different. I look at a photo of an animal while I paint by hand in acrylics. This is so I can get my portrait to look exactly like the animal I am painting. I make custom pet portraits. Additionally, I have permission to use those reference photos either because I took them myself or a customer provided them to me to make a portrait of their pet. So I am not basing my work off of a stolen copyrighted work of another artist or photographer. That is what AI is doing. beyond this, a person who types in a prompt to an AI to create art, is not creating art. They are typing in prompts. The AI is the one who is creating the art for them. Obviously, you do not know what the actual process of creating handmade paintings entails. It is so completely different than how AI art is created that it is ridiculous to even compare them.
We can't let corporations put a price tag and patent "creativity" as a trademark. If you could perfect your skill everyone can. Art is about the process of creating, not creation itself. You can't be an artist if you omit process of actually creating something. Having an idea doesn't really count since we are all full of ideas.
Love ❤ your style. No, they are not really artists.
You're a great artist! You deserve everything and more!
awe, thank you :)
it’s a double edged sword but it’s just gonna get stronger as time goes on and that’s an understatement, 1:50 great point I’m sure there will be new laws implemented
Tried asking this on odysee but everything was blocked.
how do you think ai art compares to someone that uses several references from other artists and possibly samples from them as well?
At what point and to what degree does fair use come into it?
I think it is fundamentally different. In the case of an artist using references from other artists and even past knowledge they gained from instructors at art school, let's say, the artist is using their artistic skill to create the art. Painting, for example, the artist is actually applying paint to a canvas to create an image. Typing a few lines of text into a computer keyboard might take some level of thought but it is far different than drawing or painting by hand.
Also, a person who types in a prompt to AI is not creating the art. The AI is creating the art. And it is learning how to create the art based upon images from other artists (who actually physically made art by painting, drawing, etc) that were uploaded to the Internet.
Furthermore, current US copyright law would support my assertion that AI created art is fundamentally different from human created art. This is because AI art is considered public domain. Anything a human creates by hand (ie painting, drawing, etc) is not public domain; the human owns the copyright to their work. But any art a person generates using AI is public domain, not protected by copyright, and free for anyone to use, sell, or whatever.
Not sure if I followed. You said only applying paint on canvas is art. So digital art isn’t art? This is not what you mentioned in the video. Your second argument is that it’s “too easy” for those people to create art so it’s not art. So the definition of an art is the effort you spent? If an artist draws a cartoon cat with a few strokes, is that art? If a person studied machine learning to fine tune the model to create better style of painting, is that art? I just found that definition a bit difficult to take. Not gonna go to the legal part since laws are made by people and it can changes without any good reason. Again, I’m not here to pick on any artist. I just want to learn fundamentally is there a good argument besides “ai took my work so I don’t like it”
I think its very similar to what has happened countless of times. Machines now do most of the furniture but some people still do them handmade. Same with things out of clay and 3D printing. I dont think it will ever replace truly talented artirsts because it can't. Same reason why if you have enough money youll get furniture handmade by someone whos been doing it for years and not just buy a basic generic set.
It's not that easy to come up with really good AI art. You have to know how to use the tools, just like other forms of art (anything from digital to painting to sculpture). Some people know how to provoke mood and emotion with these art tools more than others. I use it to generate package art for my seed company, and I don't have the time or money to come up with as much as I have without AI. I also respect that what is "good" art to one person is un-inspirational for others. Digital art is looked down to by classical artists the same way some current artists diss on AI. It's definitely not going away, and will only progress. I think it's cool that you're addressing this. It reminds me of when we started to download music, and artists feeling cheated.
I definitely agree with you with regard to coming up with good AI art with knowing how to use the tools. Knowing how to write good prompts is crucial it will be interesting to see how AI art progresses in the future, how good AI actually gets.
To be good with AI art you have to know how to use prompts
thanks for sharing your opinion on this. i have to agree with you on the points you made. plus, i had no idea that some people are now assuming that all digital art is made by AI. that sounds kinda frustrating! not their fault but it just goes to show the vast impact that AI art is having on the art community and people’s perceptions of art in general
Perfect coverage of the issue. This video is art 🎨 Other creators should just have an AI version of themselves read this exact script cause its 💯
Sounds like todds chemistry skills haha
One of the problems, is that people have been tricked into calling, AI images “art “. It’s not art. It’s a software generated image. Art is made by human beings.
Its more artistic and creative than any humans work.
I think just about everyone is in agreement that AI generated imagery isn't "art" so if a person is an actual artist they should have nothing to worry about and the big thing to actually worry about is when it's used for generating propaganda
Isn't that a No True Scottsman fallacy?
@@ElliottWoodward Eh , maybe if this was some kind of debate but it isn't. To be clear anyone who wants to call themselves an artist is free to do so, as far as I recall there was no standard definition of what an artist is and I'm going on what I would consider to an artist which involves the motivation for creating. I like what Robert Culp had to say when ask to give advice to someone who wanted to become an actor, and I'll have to paraphrase here, "If you want to become an actor don't , go do something else, but if you have to become an actor you'll figure it out."
Isaac Newton remarked in a letter to his rival Robert Hooke: 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.'
So, maybe, an AI art is just a baby that ready to make a first steps forward
A random, cute and funny thing I noticed is that at 2:02 it looked like you scratched the cat's chin in the background from all the way in the foreground. I'm a sort of AI artist and I just wanted to say that I'm comfortable with hearing opinions from respectable artists such as yourself.
You know, from stencils being labelled as cheating to photography being labelled as cheating, this debate isn't new at all, it's ancient in fact. Giotto was an ancient artist who broke the mold of stencil art. We must keep the debate up in a respectable manner. It's practically a vital organ if not the heart of art because it forces us to consider and reconsider what we personally add to our art. If we stand on the backs of giants, we should be contributing.
The main reason that I'm not intimidated by such arguments is because I know that as a voice talent, I work hard to make my vocal syntheses of the AI written words, like a painter painting with a reference photo. I learned from "The Intonation Systems of English" by Paul Tench. I'm always thankful for your opinions.
I really liked what you said about how each person should be considering and reconsidering what we personally add to our art. And that if we stand on the backs of Giants, we should be contributing. I totally agree! What's the point of creating something if it's not adding something new to the conversation, culture, art world, etc.
Exactly. My take exactly as well. AI "Art" is really muddying the waters, But I'm glad to hear that copyright is accurately flagging this stuff. Great video.
Thanks!
You seem having a more neutral position so maybe you can help me with my confusion. Not trying to be on either side nor being offensive. Say if a person, who never went to an art school. He or she have seen many art work including yours during the time they grew up. They then learned the art style like yours but they never pay you a cent. Would you be upset about their work which obviously somewhat has your style (let’s assume like 10% likeness).
Maybe I’m biased. I saw a great amount of artists against ai work saying they spent tons of time perfecting their skill and ai just took it for free. But for example, now you can also ask ai to help you write a website or a small app in few secs. There aren’t many developers there saying ai stealing their work which obviously was trained from their work too. Not trying to justify ai and I absolutely disagree on training on unauthorized work (art or code). I’m just wondering if you look at the other perspective, you now can do coding too or other things ai can do. Isn’t this demarcation a good thing?
I think AI is a great tool for a lot of uses. What I am against is companies using anyone’s creations whether that’s art, websites, writing, anything to train the AI without having our permission, whether that be paid or just opt in or opt out option.
AI art is a cheap alternative to real human talent.
agreed
Aren't you doing derivitive art?? I mean, you can see behind you that you are taking a picture of a cat, and changing colors. So what's the difference from taking a picture and using it to create AI art with. It's not copying, it's using a base to start, like you are. So either you are cheating, or no one is.
It is completely different. I look at a photo of an animal while I paint by hand in acrylics. This is so I can get my portrait to look exactly like the animal I am painting. I make custom pet portraits. Additionally, I have permission to use those reference photos either because I took them myself or a customer provided them to me to make a portrait of their pet. So I am not basing my work off of a stolen copyrighted work of another artist or photographer. That is what AI is doing. beyond this, a person who types in a prompt to an AI to create art, is not creating art. They are typing in prompts. The AI is the one who is creating the art for them. Obviously, you do not know what the actual process of creating handmade paintings entails. It is so completely different than how AI art is created that it is ridiculous to even compare them.
We can't let corporations put a price tag and patent "creativity" as a trademark.
If you could perfect your skill everyone can.
Art is about the process of creating, not creation itself.
You can't be an artist if you omit process of actually creating something.
Having an idea doesn't really count since we are all full of ideas.