👉Try EverBee Product Research Tool for FREE - brandcreators.com/everbee Join our FREE community for weekly Etsy tips - brandcreators.com/group Download My FREE $64k Etsy Roadmap - brandcreators.com/64k Sign up for my FREE Etsy Traffic class - brandcreators.com/webclass
The point is simple. Its legal and theres nothing anyone can do about it wether we like it or not. I just saved you 25 minutes. Not knocking the video theres some nuances but other than an outright copy its totally legal which is just the same as its ever been.
Right, other than cases where the entire image is ripped off and a minor detail changed, it is really not any different than 'sampling' that musicians do. The end product never looks like the source. I know personally, I WANT my stuff to be unique. I don't want what I create using AI to be a replica of someone else's art. Nothing is new under the sun, we are all influenced by other things.
Nice, unbiased point there. Maybe you should also try and copyright your works at your store, without such store getting reported, or getting its whole content stolen. Because similarly, since all AI works are same as public domain, it is perfectly legal for me to take your ai poop and sell it on my store as well. And tell my friend and the friend of my friend to do that. Try to DMCA me later on without any claim, to which I would hilariously send that DMCA back at you and get you fined for the lols, since you do not own what you """created""".
Bottom line: Make sure Midjourney creates the images 100% from your prompts & make sure you're paying for one of their subscriptions. Then you can use the images for commercial purposes.
So I’m new to MJ, just to clarify, if u do use an image from them, u absolutely have to have a subscription to use the images it generates for ur business?
I'm a professional artist, I have the highest tier subscription that hides all my creations, and I mess with what AI made on my wacom so not really worried about much.
I really appreciate that it's free content and that you've invested time and energy to develop the content, however, please either get to the point or at least provide markers so I can skip to the necessary parts. Thanks for the info, much appreciated.
Cheating? That's a pretty dumb argument people are using. Art is about the end result, not how it was created. If someone connects with a piece of artwork, whether a human painstakingly created it over many hours, or a monkey threw paint on a wall or ai came up with it in a few seconds... it's legitimate artwork. Period. And I'm saying this as a professional artist for 25 years.
I have a bachelors in design and am certified in 3D design. Since using midjourney I am able to create new works that have never been created nor imagined. Why would I want to wait 3 hours for a 3D render when I can use midjourney and get more done in those 3 hours. I feed the Ai my own art and have published several books that are copyrighted bc I used my own art to generate the final result assisted w a.I
"I feed it my own art to learn from, that took me years and years and years to learn how to do. Why should I have to wait?" That right there is a MAJOR difference when compared to average Joes who just type a "award winning CGI character with cinematic light that looks super cool" prompt and then want to make money. You basically just proved the point of the whole issue. Someone using AI to augment what they're already doing is not the same as every Tom, Dick or Harry pumping out dime-a-dozen renders.
Btw, you can use an image prompt with your art in midjourney but you are not feeding it your art. For that you need to train your own model. That is a different story.
@@ellenripley4837 you can copyright • as I have• I fed my own art in and that can be copyrighted. You have to explain and show documentation of your process to be approved
Could you just imagine for a second if something written "In the style of" in any type of artistic expression could had been copyrighted? How many great songs in the case of music, that were inspired by many great artists wouldn't have been made
I don’t know if the explanation for taking others work is as accurate. I’m a graphic designer at a design agency and we have been looking at the AI image generators and using certain phrases like, ‘trending on’ or ‘inspired by’ and the results are stepping into that grey area, where it does look very similar to the artists original. They are more derivative than inspired by. I think most people using these generators will get results that are different enough, but for some prompts the results are too close in our view to the originals. We as a studio wouldn’t want to present those ideas or images as they aren’t different enough. Would like to hear your thoughts.
I've seen great success with Playground AI for certain artistic styles, and when it comes to stylizing public domain images into essentially a new piece. Also using something like photoshop to take objects from other images into your own scene, uploading that image as reference to the AI, and it does magic in bringing together your photoshopped picture into a cohesive style.
It's like creating a new song, and using autotune to make yourself sound better because your voice isn't great. People say that's 'cheating'. Songs are a collection of chords and scales, most of which can be found countless times in other songs, but unless you are reproducing a large section, it's a different song, IMHO.
Surely if the same prompt can produce almost infinite variations the variation that your using is unique to you meaning that no one else is likely to create the same design without copying the image you’ve created.
Here's my two cents on the subject. If someone used AI to alter a picture or make something that uses copywritten material (for instance Disney, DC, Picaso...to name a few) that should be illegal. BUT if you're having an AI, make original content then it should be legal and here's why. If I have a friend whose artistic draw a picture for me and they say "if you sell this, you can keep the money" that's legal so if an AI company says a person can sell the original content that it makes then people should be able to do it. Artists may not like it because these people are not using a pencil, paint, for instance but that's just their opinion. If I tell an AI to make a cartoon cat picture, it's me giving the AI the idea that's in my head. I may not be drawing it myself, but it is my idea. A friend of mine once said "Ideas don't mean anything, it making them come to life that means something." If someone doesn't know how to draw or code and they can use AI as a tool to get their ideas out there, then their ideas do mean something. So as long as people aren't plagiarizing, using copywritten material or making deepfakes, using AI to help bring ideas to reality shouldn't be illegal.
Midjourney isn't a "tool". It's a 'personal team of artists that interpret what it is that you want'. No different than say an Art Director that has a team of artists working under him and he tells them his 'prompt' of what he needs from them, and they get to work creating something that they interpret is what their boss wants created. I see so many people trying to call AI a "tool" and it's just categorically incorrect.
What I do for my commercial work is to create art in the style of artist who have been deceased for over 95 years. This way if the algorithm takes in images actually created by the artist for generation, than all of those images are fair use at this point anyway. (There may be exceptions to the 95-year rule, but I specifically only use artists not subject to those exceptions, like Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo.)
Like who wants to go learn photoshop and figure all these nagging little details…people just want to put out what they see in their mind. the point is humans envision things and it should openly be allowed for one to express that in whatever way possible. Embrace change, we don’t need to go about everything in life with such complexity…
That's fine, but the AI is creating the art, you're basically commissioning it. Unless you make substantial changes to it. When people look at AI art, assuming they know it's AI, they're wowed by. the technology, not the talent of the person who came up with the prompt. Also, the resulting work is not copyrightable (again, unless you make significant changes to it). Which is also fine, if you are okay with other people using it however they like. AI is like a massive museum filled with every conceivable piece of artwork for you to enjoy.
Rarely does Midjourney actually produce what you imagine. Sure, it is getting better and with the added features of generative fill you can control the output much better.
Great video! You just answered all of my questions. I was using a program, although I can't remember which one. It brought back images that seemed to have artist signatures or stamps resembling a signature block, which made me very uncomfortable. Consequently, I stopped using that program. Even though I contacted their helpdesk to inquire about the images and uploaded them for review, they confirmed that the program inserted signatures as needed, which still made me uneasy. Therefore, I believe it's crucial to trust your instincts and avoid using content with copyright or signature type markings.
People shouldn't type name of artiste or well knowed creation cause they should get like royal-tee for that in my opinion. But we can't blame someone who use a regular prompt & get as result a copycat of a style we didn't aware of before. Develloper who collect data should ask/ paid for this kind of authorization to avoid theese legal issue.
This all said in the video is debatable, and you can go against styles are not registered, registered drawings, trademarks and patents can be discussed in your National institute of industrial property . Lawsuits are rare and need be be proven that is a copy
Some people argue that using AI is stealing since it uses art and pictures from the internet as a source. How many successful artists can say that they are not inspired from other artist's work? What do you learn at art-school if not other artist's techniques and how to create your own art from that? ;)
It's theft, because the AI relies 100% on humans to produce the images. Humans do not depend on other humans. The references are just an inspiration. Human beings are capable of abstracting reality in two-dimensional forms. In the first cave paintings there were no artists for previous references. Human beings do not depend on references, AI depends 100% on human references.
It's not stealing, but it's also not very original. It's not going to come up with an easily recognizable, unique style like, say Modigliani, Al Hirschfeld, or Moebius. Then again, the same can be said of many human artists.
So beyond the painting called "Blue", do all other artists that paint have to make their own Canvas? Grow their own hemp, to then break it down to make their own fibers & spin their own yarn, to then build their own Loom in order to make the canvas, and then grow their own trees for the wood to make the frame, and stretch their hand made canvas over their self-grown tree wood of the frame before they then can go into all the details of making their own paint, and grooming their own horses to make their own paintbrush all before making their crappy blue painting worth almost nothing? Why not? In the physical world, almost Every store buys inventory from a wholesaler, marks up the price, and resells it. Walmart doesn't create anything they sell, nor does Amazon. And if you don't have a creative bone in your body you can always hire someone else to create your artwork. How are you to know if they did it all by hand or if they had AI do it? You probably wouldn't know, but you'd mark it up and sell it and you'd have a perfectly legal right to do that! Lawyers and politicians, They are the problem with everything! Get rid of all of them and the world would be better off, A LOT! ;))
How does this apply to having Mid-journey finish an Image? like, I create the line art, then upload it to Mid-journey ? i own the Ip for the Lineart, and midjourney has access to the color profiles?
The big law suit is based on it being other peoples work originally, and applications which do this ... have used the clause of material is available on the net being free generally but it's based on 'fair' use. So it isnt so much what artists/designers are doing with it now, but the means the AI company has acquired the material. Theyre not paying for the use if it.
I think the summary beginning around 18:00 is not entirely correct. Basically nobody has a copyright to anything created with AI - that is why it can be used by everybody. When you start to mix with other AI generated content you get a copyright to that specific mix. So you get the cake but not the ingredients.
I was hoping the above video would have addressed my following question but it did not: Can I say on my Etsy Digital Download Pattern for sale page, that "I'm selling the commercial rights along with the digital download pattern"? I create all of my digital patterns using MidJourney. Thanks in advance.
If you have the right to sell the images created (like in the case of the stuff created on a midjourney paid plan), yes you can sell them without an issue for your account.
@@ChristopherShaffer1 youre not 100 percent right even though midhourney has a commerical lucense in their paid plan. Yoy have to check the distribution ToS on AI. Right now Amazon has a AI detection festure for both books and illstration and accounts are getting banned for using AI genersted content. Same with etsy they are also using AI detection to ban accounts so while midjourny and chatgpt say its OK they cant guarenttee it due to Amazon etsy or sny other distribution company own ToS
@@ChristopherShaffer1 So if we cancel our mid journey subscription at some point then does it mean we have to remove all the items on Etsy that we created using mid journey?
I think an additional thought weather midjourney is legal or not is, that it might be legal to use is, as the result alters the images used for initial training to a point, where they arent recognizable anymore, but that's actually not the critique here. The real question is, was it legal for midjourney to use those images without permission to create their product. Bc one of those images might just be a small percentage of the data pool, but they didn't have permission to use the vast majority of images. Coming back to your example of the dog house (?), it might be legal for you to buy and resell a dog house made of stolen wood, but what if it wasn't legal for the company that sells it to you to build it, is it then the right thing to use it and pay the thieves? People will often argue that artists have to simply adapt to the new technology and tend to compare it with the rise of photography. But they forget, that the workers who bild the cameras, the ones that create the raw materials and even the people modeling for those photos are being compensated. Not only the company that sells the cameras and the photographer. So yes, using it is legal, but is it right?
At least in the US "capital gains tax" refers to a tax that is paid when you sell an investment and make a profit. I'm not an accountant, but I'm not sure how that would be relevant to a standard retail or ecom transaction, since the price of the thing being sold is a fixed price and not a "store of value". You would however be subject to any other business tax requirements that you are normally subject to.
All of the images generated in these spaces are present for everyone to view and download (save) in the chat; unless done with stealth. Can you use the images that were already created, that someone else prompted, thats present in the chat? The only reason I think you can, is because anyone can save or download the images…
there actually is. many companies now are using reverse search from the meta data the image you upload has. in the case of KDP Amazon Has AI detection and if it comes out a certain percentage, they will terminate your Account
but how can Etsy figure out some arts are ai generated? are they THAT obvious? do artwork files have some unique metadata that indicate its been made with ai algorithm?
@@joemartin7451 he didn't have the store taken down for using ai to create images, that's perfectly allowed (as long as you own the rights), the likely situation is that he violated other rules of the platform (namely copyright violations) which is something Etsy has been MASSIVELY cracking down on lately.
@@ChristopherShaffer1 yeah but that will still lead us back to the first point. and it would be helpful if op elaborated on what items their friend was selling with ai. was it a random generic art produced with ai? or a micky mouse look alike?
Key point: stay away from likeness. Create unique works. For instance, a prompt for a cat drinking tea with glasses on the beach. NO: Person, places, things, businesses etc. Laws state that AI art is not copyrightable. It has no human contribution. It made by algorithms. NOT an attorney do you own research.😮
I would like for the creators pf this video to creat a video related to my following question that nobody seems to know the answer of: If you want to sell Ai image generated images and clipart, what licence should i offer to my clients? Can I offer commercial licence? Or personal one? Pls answer. Thanks!
According to Midjourney’s policy, as a paid user I have commercial tights to the items I create in Midjourny but I don’t own them. So then, how can Ai sell it if I don’t have owner rights? My possible future clients will want to know what rights they are buying. This I don’t understand. I would highly appreciate if you could answer this to me pls! 🙏🏻
I'm literally taking pics and editing them, also inserting my art into Midjourney to get more rendered art. Midjourney is requiring money from you while you train their generator for them, and they also take art which has nothing to do with them to train it. They should charge less, and the idea they are the ones who give you copyrights is bullshit. Even in their terms and conditions they mention that some of their ridiculous terms are not enforceable. Luckily other generators are catching up and will be giving them competition.
Midjourney doesn't assert copyright for you or MJ, only commercial rights. Since you fed your own art as a starting point, you likely could assert your own copyright, but MJ has nothing to do with that, and MJ still retains commercial rights even if you insert your own art to begin with.
So, basically, we can spend the life of the Universe, and we won't see again the same generated image (I guess we can assume only so many generators per second are working and not the whole population of Humanity is dedicated to AIG, though we can keep adding images to AIG at will to exhaust several universes s lives with the whole of Humanity generating images every second [33 s/i for me] and the statement will still be true).
You mean copyrighted, but yeah, AI work won't be able to be copyrighted under any circumstance, currenlty both in US and Spain, and will go for the rest of the world. If you think you can copyright a work, to which you contribution is none other than one of a "director" or a "commissioner", go educate yourself on subjects of copyright. Or help yourself by saving off some time, seeing the news with the prime example, the donkey herself, Kashtanova, going full in with her campaign with Midjourney lawyers trying to get copyright and failing hard.
@@notcornelius123 no I meany what I said, trademarked and that includes copyright as well. only the work as a whole can be trademarked. IE; if you write a book and use AI art or other AI content the AI content or art cannot be trademarked itself but the book as a whole can be.
@@carlosfaught You can't trademark a book! It comes under copyright. This is really basic IP stuff. According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), trademarks are “a word, phrase, symbol or design that identifies your goods and services” and distinguishes your brand from competitors.
@@begriddled you can trademark the name of the book and those things associated with it. and lay off the exclamation points that's just rude. read my comment first too.
So it is ok to take millions of images created by living or dead persons without permission from the original creators and make it available for use by the general public. The original creators/artists are the people that put in real effort to create those images. Would the original artists seek compensation from the AI companies? So did Mid Journey get written permission from all the original creators whose images it used to train its AI systems? If not, when does it intend to request permission and officially acknowledge and share the inventory list of all the images it used? The same for AI Text generation did they get written permission from the original writers? If not, when will the request permission? When will it publicly acknowledge all the sources of writings that were used to train the model? The original writers are the people that put in real effort to pen their thoughts. Would the original writers seek compensation from the AI companies? So as members of the public we just accept this situation? Why don't these AI companies take all the intellectual property and trade secrets and train an AGI model and make it available for the "greater good" of humanity? The "greater good" of humanity is based on the AI companies definition that protects itself and the companies that work for the greater demise" of humanity.
I do agree that stealing the exact same art from someone is beyond dick move... but to actually be able to sue AI art is kind of long stretched... people will always try to find ways to improve stuff. But specifically in America everything seems to be Sue(able). Cheating or not ethical or not either you move with technology or technology moves with out you.
Wouldn't most photography then be unable to be copyrighted? All I'm doing is holding a piece of technology and pressing a button. I'm not creating the image, the camera is. The person is in control of the camera but with technology today I can take 50 pictures in seconds, capturing something that I could not with older cameras. Today, you don't need to know that much to operate a camera and take stunning photos. I have captured really nice photos with a disposable. And what about companies who use ai to create things that humans could never? Like new forms in car suspensions and body design? And everyone is talking about these ai systems using billions of images for references. How do you think humans learn a skill? They copy from those before. An artist will look at art and find what they like. A singer/ musician will listen to other music and find inspiration. When I write most of my inspiration comes from movies and books I've seen and read. If people could not use other works of art for inspiration there might only be a small handful of creative people in the world. I think this is more of a tool for those who have ideas but not the skill to do it themselves. Or the money to pay an artist. I just think that the biggest focus is on art when no one is talking about how many jobs in driving, retail and warehouses that are going to be lost in the next 5-10 years.
People have to study art and practice other peoples styles to create their own but ultimately its a combination of other peoples styles together, ai is literally the same thing artists just like to cry about its ease but hey welcome to the future.
So if you went to art school for 4 years, paid $100K+ in tuition to learn drawing skills and design fundamentals, practiced for decades to perfect your artistic ability, it's okay to take your artwork and mix it up with another person's artwork in minutes, then call it your own creation and profit from it? Sounds very unethical to me. Eventually there will be no original work for AI to steal from because artists that put in the hardwork will not be incentivized to do so.
Here’s my quandary; regarding copyright and trademarks. Prior to AI, I could go to a plethora of DIY sites, and through a few clicks create a logo and some art work. I would then be given the option of purchasing exclusive rights to these pieces, as in the copyright and to create a trademark. NO human made these. I could also buy a font and exclusive rights to it. Again, no human made the font. In either of these cases the machine intelligence that did hadn’t risen to the level of AI, but the machine definitely created them. I could snap a cell phone picture, and apply automated filters in photoshop, even set up a macro to run them. Again I’d get copyright, even though I wasn’t even looking when I took the picture. That is, the phone took the picture and decided how to compose it, with zero involvement from me. I think our elderly powers that be are using oil paintings and the 1700’s as a comparison here. IMO using digital tools such as photoshop illustrator is much easier than writing the prompts necessary to produce precisely what you want using AI such as midjourney. While part of me am glad they are placing the art in public domain, I don’t get why these tools should be treated any different than those available in the last 30 years. This would change I suppose once we get to “millennium man” level AI, but for now these are just tools. I think the copyright office has a total lack of understanding of the subject here, just like they did when the internet was made available. Thoughts?
@@ellenripley4837 that's the whole point. We are able to purchase a license, up to and including derivative rights from a human artist. I can see all sorts of legal challenges thrown at people when we use AI to create products, digital branding etc. If you are not in the ecommerce realm, you may not know that non-valid IP violations are used as a tool to push people off the platforms, for example. All this will only get worse with the copyright counsel's ruling. They are making the same mistake as they did when the internet was released, where it was exempt from the rules applied to print media. There are laws on the books which could easily be utilized. As in let people buy exclusive rights when used commercially. As it is now, you do not get copyright. It is public domain. This is fine to tinker and play, but not so much when you are using the art in your livelihood. AI is just a tool, like any other tool used to create digital content. Just my 2 cents.
What AI is doing is nothing else what we do, and its call taking inspiration of something. If you as a kid have drow a house, its becouse you saw with your eyes a house, and put it on paper. House owner or better say someone who build it couldt say, now is your art illegal couse its made based on their house you saw.
When it’s inspired by a combination of artists it’s hard to pin point where the plagiarism is 😂 so it’s technically yours because you have to pay to use the Ai program
It's not plagiarism, but it's not a creation he made using personal talent and skills. Anyone could create their own. At some point, there will be laws against this. Probably not good laws, but if someone with more power than brains decide you can't sell AI-generated art, that'll be the end of that so I guess do it while you can.
I wish there was an AI that would annihilate amateur presenters who continuously end a sentence with 'right or 'OK''. I just woke up, the batteries ran out of a mouth and I heard Scott......
If I use the MidJourney subscription service, that lets me own the images, to create Inspiration images and turn them into coloring book pages, drawing my own lineart from the generated images, is it legal to do that and sell them? Would I need to list MidJourney as a creator or resource? I can draw but an AI image as a resource I can trace would make the process much faster.
I would think not only could you sell it, you could actually copyright it. Sounds like a good process to me. I don't recall seeing any such legal restriction from Midjourney that you would have to credit Midjourney, even if it is just straight output. So logic would follow you would be completely in the clear on that. But, I'm not an attorney.
Everyone is 'trained' on Picasso. If you ever saw one, you are trained on it as a human. You will knowingly or unknowingly incorporate a bit or more of that style to your work, just like how you will incorporate from a million other works you saw 'were trained on' in your life. People are scrambling to go against AI art from every angle, its pathetic, the tech is here to stay and people need to sit down i swear.
Absolutly agree two! The same way, "traditional artists" are trained, seeing a lot of other art pieces, and using them as references to make their own pieces. It's the same! The truth point of all this situation is the artist's vanity, they want to be better than others because of "hability".
I agree with your first point but not your second. It is sensible and logical to question disruptive new technologies and to understand how things are going to change.
On the part about creating in a public space, the Midjourney discord - does that change when you've built a private room and brought in the Midjourney bot, so it's just you who has eyes on what you're making? I've been on Midjourney for a grand total of 3 days, a couple of TH-camrs I listened to recommended that just to cut out the noise. But now I can see that as further protection from getting your creations sniped and sold. Would love to hear your thoughts on this.
The only time you are the only one who can see what you are creating on midjourny is if you have "stealth mode" turned on (currently only available in the pro plan). Otherwise, even though you arent' actively seeing what others are creating inside of your feed, you still have all of your images saved inside of your "library" which is a publicly accessible page.
in that case you should have to sue midjourney, according midjourney's terms, you have 100% ownership about the image you process WHILE YOU PAY THE SUB.
The original artwork that Mid Journey used has been digitally altered to remove the artists signature. If there is any honesty & transparency in these AI companies they should at minimum publish an official catalog of the source, original person that created the work, name of art piece, year etc. It seems that as individuals you don't have rights, but as a company you are well protected. E.g. how would Coca-Cola react if their drink recipe was published and its particular logo font used, etc., etc. They would take legal action. but these AI companies have cannibalized human creativity in the name of 'human progress'.
Can I take a picture of say a famous rapper, put it on a shirt and sell it? Or make a design with Ai that looks like someone famous and sell it legally?
The anti-AI folks argument seems ridiculous to me. If their thought of not using existing images to create new forms of art/images then that would mean no artist could ever look at any existing art. If they do, then using their argument they are infringing on trademark laws because they looked at another existing piece(s) of art to come up with their new artwork. Most of the arguments are coming from artists and graphic designers based on job security reasons. I am a software engineer and AI can write code as well. Should I complain? I welcome AI for making things easier. Why were tools invented? To make things easier for crafters.
They are uploading my images. I can tell you exactly which image they copied. They are my paintings. They are using Mid-Journey. Don't pretend you don't know this. After hearing this, I am going to take it directly to a copyright attorney and nail the whole bunch of you. I can not even believe what I am hearing. Do you not understand that when I create something you cannot take it to an AI format and have it copied? I can prove they are mine. They are copying a number of my creations. You need to tell us how to be ahold of Mid-Journey.
Nobody creates art using AI. The software creates the art. Giving the software a prompt is like asking an artist to paint you a picture. You can’t ask an artist to paint you a picture and then claim that you created it (well, you can, but you’d be lying). All you can claim is that you placed the request, which is fine, but but don’t confuse placing the request with having created anything yourself.
17:01 One more objection to the laws and the stupidity of the copyright office here. Let’s say I am a toy maker. I want to sell the toys 3D print-on-demand, on an e-commerce platform. Or perhaps I have a factory, and sell them on Amazon. If I were to use 3D software, or industrial design tools such as CADRA, I could have that barn and chicken in a few clicks. I get copyright, I can trademark. Arguably, the machine made the design, and the 3D printer, not me-converted it to a toy. I did not chisel it by hand. Likewise, I could use a service online, and with a few clicks have both. Again-I could purchase exclusive rights to it. As for trademarking, manufacturing, marketing it etc; I will have no problem as I have copyright and trademark to the product and its design. The world hums along, the kids enjoy my toys. But if I DARE use AI in the creation of it….. Now I risk being tossed off Amazon, suffer legal consequences etc etc… I maintain that what the copyright office is doing is a HUGE problem here. We need to be able to buy exclusive rights both to the art and the prompts. We did not create the art or the products-but neither have we in the last 30+ years. I argue that these are tools just as a design macro in your favorite software is, not the toil of millennium man, and therefore we should get rights. Very good to know element combination in a solution like Canva can help things though. It is just disheartening to not be able to safely use this amazing tool in commerce. The copyright office is not solving any problems here, it is creating them IMO. If Midjourney is reading, I would love the option to purchase exclusive rights. And hopefully you, Microsoft, Google etc have enough pull to get the copyright office to see the error of their ways. What do you all think? Would you like to use these designs in commerce? Do you agree with the copyright authority here?
This argment is stupid. I can alter the image with photoshop or GIMP to make it my own creation. ITS MINE! Seriously. How does a lawyer argue against that?
Not to mention its not all machine. YOU the user had to input to create an output. How is it any different than how i use my words like an artist uses a paint brush to create the canvas. I have to be creative in what and how ask for something. Thats 50% me there. Sure it gives me a result but if you asked for something similar your not going to get the same result. I equate the machine like the paint. My words are the brush. You guys are asses. The ppl who are fighting this battle against creativity.
Im working on a book using this. Im figuring out I'm just going to LIE and say it was 100% me using photoshop and other electronic mediums to create what I created. Ill make no mention of AI. Thanks a lot. And how would anyone say otherwise? You go down that path and you have to ask for EVERYONE's digital thumbprint on how they made X. I highly doubt the resources are there. Say you do do that no one will want to create anything anymore. God you guys are assholes.
And ill do it. Ill just say the new author pen name's profession was an Adobe Professor with 15+ years of experience teaching digital creations. BOOM!!! Take that! No one will ever know except me and you. ;)
@@aurorajones8481 I hope you learn that image files have something called metadata with binary code that says how the file was created. Just like how there's ai that detect ChatGPT text. There's also tools that detect images generated by ai. Plus, a trained aye can tell when the image is AI.
My proposal to the artists… adapt to the market tends. If you find your way to use it as well to f.e. get concept ideas for our artwork. The current development is something that happened a thousand times in the past 100 years and before. Just beeing against the development and complaining will wipe you out. In addition i assume that AI cannot replace good artwork.
It’s not cheating. It can take hours of trying diffreent text entries to get exactly what you are looking for. Art is only successful if people like it and are willing to buy it. So I see that the skill set is different to that of an actual artist. The only thing I would stay away from are stuff like Disney.
Let me just ask people here whom did Mozart give a permission to copyright and play his music in orchestras that making millions and he died penniless? Or maybe Vincent Van Gogh? Why so many leeches are making millions out of his art today?
Was beginning to think scott was mute. Loll takes too long to get to point. Intro is repetitive and too many words used throughout. Lost me at some point. Sorry thought u might like to know a truncated intro is way better
You are commissioning AI to create the art. The same way you commission a designer to make you a logo. How much you pay depends on subscription or designer's fee. Once you pay the designer for the logo, it is yours to do as you please.
The lawsuits will fail. You cannot sue someone for getting inspiration from an artwork and then creating a different artwork in a similar style. Midjourny does not copy artworks sufficiently enough to be sued by anyone. Sale away and dont worry about the bs claims that its illegal.
Actually, I read online reviews of MidJourney before using it to sell AI art on Etsy. After reading the reviews of MidJourney, I decided not to use it.
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA Finals D2 | Fall | ต้องรักษาฟอร์ม อย่ายอมให้ใครแซง](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/x38QsGn7A3M/mqdefault.jpg)
👉Try EverBee Product Research Tool for FREE - brandcreators.com/everbee
Join our FREE community for weekly Etsy tips - brandcreators.com/group
Download My FREE $64k Etsy Roadmap - brandcreators.com/64k
Sign up for my FREE Etsy Traffic class - brandcreators.com/webclass
The point is simple. Its legal and theres nothing anyone can do about it wether we like it or not. I just saved you 25 minutes. Not knocking the video theres some nuances but other than an outright copy its totally legal which is just the same as its ever been.
Right, other than cases where the entire image is ripped off and a minor detail changed, it is really not any different than 'sampling' that musicians do. The end product never looks like the source. I know personally, I WANT my stuff to be unique. I don't want what I create using AI to be a replica of someone else's art. Nothing is new under the sun, we are all influenced by other things.
You are the MVP. Thanks!!
@@jessajupiter4271 facts
@@jessajupiter4271 are you sure about that? Since you are already not allowed to modify an artists work.
Nice, unbiased point there. Maybe you should also try and copyright your works at your store, without such store getting reported, or getting its whole content stolen. Because similarly, since all AI works are same as public domain, it is perfectly legal for me to take your ai poop and sell it on my store as well. And tell my friend and the friend of my friend to do that. Try to DMCA me later on without any claim, to which I would hilariously send that DMCA back at you and get you fined for the lols, since you do not own what you """created""".
Bottom line: Make sure Midjourney creates the images 100% from your prompts & make sure you're paying for one of their subscriptions. Then you can use the images for commercial purposes.
saved me 10 min thanks
Thanks
So I’m new to MJ, just to clarify, if u do use an image from them, u absolutely have to have a subscription to use the images it generates for ur business?
hero
Exactly what I was thinking when I read the title and heard their first 90 second intro. Thanks for confirming.
OMG just get to the point! I can't take it.
I agree - Just get to the point!
You can always fast forward 🤣🤣🤣
L Response
@@brandcreators or not watch
@@brandcreatorsto what minute?
I'm a professional artist, I have the highest tier subscription that hides all my creations, and I mess with what AI made on my wacom so not really worried about much.
Same here. Mostly reworking hands/legs, faces, and some weird bits here and there
I really appreciate that it's free content and that you've invested time and energy to develop the content, however, please either get to the point or at least provide markers so I can skip to the necessary parts. Thanks for the info, much appreciated.
This man never stops talking!!!
Cheating? That's a pretty dumb argument people are using. Art is about the end result, not how it was created. If someone connects with a piece of artwork, whether a human painstakingly created it over many hours, or a monkey threw paint on a wall or ai came up with it in a few seconds... it's legitimate artwork. Period. And I'm saying this as a professional artist for 25 years.
To those who can’t bother watch the entire vid. The answer is *drum roll* *extended pause*
It depends
I have a bachelors in design and am certified in 3D design. Since using midjourney I am able to create new works that have never been created nor imagined. Why would I want to wait 3 hours for a 3D render when I can use midjourney and get more done in those 3 hours. I feed the Ai my own art and have published several books that are copyrighted bc I used my own art to generate the final result assisted w a.I
"I feed it my own art to learn from, that took me years and years and years to learn how to do. Why should I have to wait?" That right there is a MAJOR difference when compared to average Joes who just type a "award winning CGI character with cinematic light that looks super cool" prompt and then want to make money. You basically just proved the point of the whole issue. Someone using AI to augment what they're already doing is not the same as every Tom, Dick or Harry pumping out dime-a-dozen renders.
Simple. Anything that you generate with AI is not yours. It's basically everyone's therefore you can monetize it but so does anyone else.
Btw, you can use an image prompt with your art in midjourney but you are not feeding it your art. For that you need to train your own model. That is a different story.
@@ellenripley4837 you can copyright • as I have• I fed my own art in and that can be copyrighted. You have to explain and show documentation of your process to be approved
@@AmberCox85 I can understand that exception to a degree since you are using your art as a base. But you are not really feeding your art to the ai.
Could you just imagine for a second if something written "In the style of" in any type of artistic expression could had been copyrighted? How many great songs in the case of music, that were inspired by many great artists wouldn't have been made
I don’t know if the explanation for taking others work is as accurate.
I’m a graphic designer at a design agency and we have been looking at the AI image generators and using certain phrases like, ‘trending on’ or ‘inspired by’ and the results are stepping into that grey area, where it does look very similar to the artists original. They are more derivative than inspired by.
I think most people using these generators will get results that are different enough, but for some prompts the results are too close in our view to the originals. We as a studio wouldn’t want to present those ideas or images as they aren’t different enough.
Would like to hear your thoughts.
I've seen great success with Playground AI for certain artistic styles, and when it comes to stylizing public domain images into essentially a new piece. Also using something like photoshop to take objects from other images into your own scene, uploading that image as reference to the AI, and it does magic in bringing together your photoshopped picture into a cohesive style.
Some People are just scared and jealous of what the AI can do. Period.
Wouldn't you be worried too?
If you have an MJ premium subscription you’re good.
It's like creating a new song, and using autotune to make yourself sound better because your voice isn't great. People say that's 'cheating'. Songs are a collection of chords and scales, most of which can be found countless times in other songs, but unless you are reproducing a large section, it's a different song, IMHO.
Love this! That makes so much sense.
Surely if the same prompt can produce almost infinite variations the variation that your using is unique to you meaning that no one else is likely to create the same design without copying the image you’ve created.
I view Midjourney as the tool. I'm still thinking up the concept and having to spend crazy amts of time getting something close. But, that's just me.
Here's my two cents on the subject. If someone used AI to alter a picture or make something that uses copywritten material (for instance Disney, DC, Picaso...to name a few) that should be illegal. BUT if you're having an AI, make original content then it should be legal and here's why. If I have a friend whose artistic draw a picture for me and they say "if you sell this, you can keep the money" that's legal so if an AI company says a person can sell the original content that it makes then people should be able to do it. Artists may not like it because these people are not using a pencil, paint, for instance but that's just their opinion. If I tell an AI to make a cartoon cat picture, it's me giving the AI the idea that's in my head. I may not be drawing it myself, but it is my idea. A friend of mine once said "Ideas don't mean anything, it making them come to life that means something." If someone doesn't know how to draw or code and they can use AI as a tool to get their ideas out there, then their ideas do mean something.
So as long as people aren't plagiarizing, using copywritten material or making deepfakes, using AI to help bring ideas to reality shouldn't be illegal.
the problem is taking existing artwork and putting it in the AI system itself without the artist consent and compensation.
Midjourney isn't a "tool". It's a 'personal team of artists that interpret what it is that you want'. No different than say an Art Director that has a team of artists working under him and he tells them his 'prompt' of what he needs from them, and they get to work creating something that they interpret is what their boss wants created. I see so many people trying to call AI a "tool" and it's just categorically incorrect.
What I do for my commercial work is to create art in the style of artist who have been deceased for over 95 years. This way if the algorithm takes in images actually created by the artist for generation, than all of those images are fair use at this point anyway. (There may be exceptions to the 95-year rule, but I specifically only use artists not subject to those exceptions, like Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo.)
Skip to 5:10 that’s where things actually start lol
thanks for your help 😅
@@domdrone6766 😂😂😂I usually watch the intros but this was kinda long😂
Thanks bro
Like who wants to go learn photoshop and figure all these nagging little details…people just want to put out what they see in their mind. the point is humans envision things and it should openly be allowed for one to express that in whatever way possible. Embrace change, we don’t need to go about everything in life with such complexity…
jeesh man, you want the cake for just existing xd at least put some effort.
That's fine, but the AI is creating the art, you're basically commissioning it. Unless you make substantial changes to it. When people look at AI art, assuming they know it's AI, they're wowed by. the technology, not the talent of the person who came up with the prompt. Also, the resulting work is not copyrightable (again, unless you make significant changes to it). Which is also fine, if you are okay with other people using it however they like. AI is like a massive museum filled with every conceivable piece of artwork for you to enjoy.
Rarely does Midjourney actually produce what you imagine. Sure, it is getting better and with the added features of generative fill you can control the output much better.
Great video! You just answered all of my questions. I was using a program, although I can't remember which one. It brought back images that seemed to have artist signatures or stamps resembling a signature block, which made me very uncomfortable. Consequently, I stopped using that program. Even though I contacted their helpdesk to inquire about the images and uploaded them for review, they confirmed that the program inserted signatures as needed, which still made me uneasy. Therefore, I believe it's crucial to trust your instincts and avoid using content with copyright or signature type markings.
Thank you for this video, it was very clarifying!
People shouldn't type name of artiste or well knowed creation cause they should get like royal-tee for that in my opinion.
But we can't blame someone who use a regular prompt & get as result a copycat of a style we didn't aware of before.
Develloper who collect data should ask/ paid for this kind of authorization to avoid theese legal issue.
This all said in the video is debatable, and you can go against styles are not registered, registered drawings, trademarks and patents can be discussed in your National institute of industrial property . Lawsuits are rare and need be be proven that is a copy
Stop putting doubt in peoples minds,just go with it.
Some people argue that using AI is stealing since it uses art and pictures from the internet as a source. How many successful artists can say that they are not inspired from other artist's work? What do you learn at art-school if not other artist's techniques and how to create your own art from that? ;)
It's theft, because the AI relies 100% on humans to produce the images. Humans do not depend on other humans. The references are just an inspiration. Human beings are capable of abstracting reality in two-dimensional forms. In the first cave paintings there were no artists for previous references. Human beings do not depend on references, AI depends 100% on human references.
It's not stealing, but it's also not very original. It's not going to come up with an easily recognizable, unique style like, say Modigliani, Al Hirschfeld, or Moebius. Then again, the same can be said of many human artists.
So beyond the painting called "Blue", do all other artists that paint have to make their own Canvas? Grow their own hemp, to then break it down to make their own fibers & spin their own yarn, to then build their own Loom in order to make the canvas, and then grow their own trees for the wood to make the frame, and stretch their hand made canvas over their self-grown tree wood of the frame before they then can go into all the details of making their own paint, and grooming their own horses to make their own paintbrush all before making their crappy blue painting worth almost nothing?
Why not?
In the physical world, almost Every store buys inventory from a wholesaler, marks up the price, and resells it. Walmart doesn't create anything they sell, nor does Amazon. And if you don't have a creative bone in your body you can always hire someone else to create your artwork. How are you to know if they did it all by hand or if they had AI do it? You probably wouldn't know, but you'd mark it up and sell it and you'd have a perfectly legal right to do that!
Lawyers and politicians, They are the problem with everything!
Get rid of all of them and the world would be better off, A LOT! ;))
How does this apply to having Mid-journey finish an Image? like, I create the line art, then upload it to Mid-journey ? i own the Ip for the Lineart, and midjourney has access to the color profiles?
The big law suit is based on it being other peoples work originally, and applications which do this ... have used the clause of material is available on the net being free generally but it's based on 'fair' use. So it isnt so much what artists/designers are doing with it now, but the means the AI company has acquired the material. Theyre not paying for the use if it.
I’m a graphic designer who is obsessing over AI. AI is only as good as the person behind it. I encourage everyone interested in AI to dabble with it.
I agree. It can be a very useful tool
Thanks for the info!
I think the summary beginning around 18:00 is not entirely correct. Basically nobody has a copyright to anything created with AI - that is why it can be used by everybody. When you start to mix with other AI generated content you get a copyright to that specific mix. So you get the cake but not the ingredients.
Also please be aware that copyright law differs from country to country. The EU for example doesn’t have a fair use rule.
Great valuable information thank you so much for sharing 🎉
It’s pretty funny to hear you talk about dog’s house, as French word for dog’s house is « niche » thus the origin of the word, maybe.
I was hoping the above video would have addressed my following question but it did not: Can I say on my Etsy Digital Download Pattern for sale page, that "I'm selling the commercial rights along with the digital download pattern"? I create all of my digital patterns using MidJourney. Thanks in advance.
Thanks for the vidéo. But i don't ear the answer : Can WE sell AI art without a risk of termination on our seller account ?
Yes and No it depends on the licensing agreement and the policy of the service you're using to sell the Art
If you have the right to sell the images created (like in the case of the stuff created on a midjourney paid plan), yes you can sell them without an issue for your account.
@@ChristopherShaffer1 youre not 100 percent right even though midhourney has a commerical lucense in their paid plan. Yoy have to check the distribution ToS on AI. Right now Amazon has a AI detection festure for both books and illstration and accounts are getting banned for using AI genersted content. Same with etsy they are also using AI detection to ban accounts so while midjourny and chatgpt say its OK they cant guarenttee it due to Amazon etsy or sny other distribution company own ToS
@@ChristopherShaffer1 So if we cancel our mid journey subscription at some point then does it mean we have to remove all the items on Etsy that we created using mid journey?
Is this a re-upload of a previous video?
Do you know if the photos everyone is using on Facebook (smile game AI photos) is public domain?
Fair use - transformative use - case closed
I think an additional thought weather midjourney is legal or not is, that it might be legal to use is, as the result alters the images used for initial training to a point, where they arent recognizable anymore, but that's actually not the critique here. The real question is, was it legal for midjourney to use those images without permission to create their product. Bc one of those images might just be a small percentage of the data pool, but they didn't have permission to use the vast majority of images. Coming back to your example of the dog house (?), it might be legal for you to buy and resell a dog house made of stolen wood, but what if it wasn't legal for the company that sells it to you to build it, is it then the right thing to use it and pay the thieves? People will often argue that artists have to simply adapt to the new technology and tend to compare it with the rise of photography. But they forget, that the workers who bild the cameras, the ones that create the raw materials and even the people modeling for those photos are being compensated. Not only the company that sells the cameras and the photographer. So yes, using it is legal, but is it right?
You are using the terms copyright and trademark as interchangeable they are two completely different areas of law and cannot be used interchangeably
May I ask when selling AI art do you have to pay capital gains tax or no while selling on Etsy Digital images?
At least in the US "capital gains tax" refers to a tax that is paid when you sell an investment and make a profit. I'm not an accountant, but I'm not sure how that would be relevant to a standard retail or ecom transaction, since the price of the thing being sold is a fixed price and not a "store of value". You would however be subject to any other business tax requirements that you are normally subject to.
The prompt generator should be the owner of the art
All of the images generated in these spaces are present for everyone to view and download (save) in the chat; unless done with stealth. Can you use the images that were already created, that someone else prompted, thats present in the chat? The only reason I think you can, is because anyone can save or download the images…
There's basically no way to figure out what content were used in the designing process.
there actually is. many companies now are using reverse search from the meta data the image you upload has. in the case of KDP Amazon Has AI detection and if it comes out a certain percentage, they will terminate your Account
Except people literally say things like "Donald Trump in the style of Picasso" for example
What about selling AI Art of a certain sports car brand?
what if i edit ie add saturation clarity color ect... would that be the same as compiling ie more copyright ?
Think of software generators as ELECTRICITY. That s what s been changing.
Buddy got his store taken down after using AI idk exactly what he did wrong but that sucks so much, he had just hit like 95k 96k in 2022
but how can Etsy figure out some arts are ai generated? are they THAT obvious? do artwork files have some unique metadata that indicate its been made with ai algorithm?
@@joemartin7451 he didn't have the store taken down for using ai to create images, that's perfectly allowed (as long as you own the rights), the likely situation is that he violated other rules of the platform (namely copyright violations) which is something Etsy has been MASSIVELY cracking down on lately.
@@ChristopherShaffer1 yeah but that will still lead us back to the first point. and it would be helpful if op elaborated on what items their friend was selling with ai. was it a random generic art produced with ai? or a micky mouse look alike?
@@joemartin7451 good point. Hopefully he replies.
Lemme grab my incredibly small violin for that.
Key point: stay away from likeness. Create unique works. For instance, a prompt for a cat drinking tea with glasses on the beach. NO: Person, places, things, businesses etc. Laws state that AI art is not copyrightable. It has no human contribution. It made by algorithms. NOT an attorney do you own research.😮
I would like for the creators pf this video to creat a video related to my following question that nobody seems to know the answer of: If you want to sell Ai image generated images and clipart, what licence should i offer to my clients? Can I offer commercial licence? Or personal one? Pls answer. Thanks!
You can offer it for whatever type of use you want, as long as you own the rights to it
According to Midjourney’s policy, as a paid user I have commercial tights to the items I create in Midjourny but I don’t own them. So then, how can Ai sell it if I don’t have owner rights? My possible future clients will want to know what rights they are buying. This I don’t understand. I would highly appreciate if you could answer this to me pls! 🙏🏻
How would anyone know where you made the image?
I'm literally taking pics and editing them, also inserting my art into Midjourney to get more rendered art. Midjourney is requiring money from you while you train their generator for them, and they also take art which has nothing to do with them to train it. They should charge less, and the idea they are the ones who give you copyrights is bullshit. Even in their terms and conditions they mention that some of their ridiculous terms are not enforceable. Luckily other generators are catching up and will be giving them competition.
Midjourney doesn't assert copyright for you or MJ, only commercial rights. Since you fed your own art as a starting point, you likely could assert your own copyright, but MJ has nothing to do with that, and MJ still retains commercial rights even if you insert your own art to begin with.
So, basically, we can spend the life of the Universe, and we won't see again the same generated image (I guess we can assume only so many generators per second are working and not the whole population of Humanity is dedicated to AIG, though we can keep adding images to AIG at will to exhaust several universes s lives with the whole of Humanity generating images every second [33 s/i for me] and the statement will still be true).
I dont use midjourney , i use another AI thats just as good and it says all images are mine to use as i please, i created them, so i have 0 worries.
Just an FYI court rule about a week ago that AI art for Works cannot be trademarked
Yeup, we talked about that a bit in the video :)
You mean copyrighted, but yeah, AI work won't be able to be copyrighted under any circumstance, currenlty both in US and Spain, and will go for the rest of the world. If you think you can copyright a work, to which you contribution is none other than one of a "director" or a "commissioner", go educate yourself on subjects of copyright. Or help yourself by saving off some time, seeing the news with the prime example, the donkey herself, Kashtanova, going full in with her campaign with Midjourney lawyers trying to get copyright and failing hard.
@@notcornelius123 no I meany what I said, trademarked and that includes copyright as well. only the work as a whole can be trademarked. IE; if you write a book and use AI art or other AI content the AI content or art cannot be trademarked itself but the book as a whole can be.
@@carlosfaught You can't trademark a book! It comes under copyright. This is really basic IP stuff. According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), trademarks are “a word, phrase, symbol or design that identifies your goods and services” and distinguishes your brand from competitors.
@@begriddled you can trademark the name of the book and those things associated with it. and lay off the exclamation points that's just rude. read my comment first too.
So it is ok to take millions of images created by living or dead persons without permission from the original creators and make it available for use by the general public. The original creators/artists are the people that put in real effort to create those images. Would the original artists seek compensation from the AI companies?
So did Mid Journey get written permission from all the original creators whose images it used to train its AI systems? If not, when does it intend to request permission and officially acknowledge and share the inventory list of all the images it used?
The same for AI Text generation did they get written permission from the original writers? If not, when will the request permission? When will it publicly acknowledge all the sources of writings that were used to train the model? The original writers are the people that put in real effort to pen their thoughts. Would the original writers seek compensation from the AI companies?
So as members of the public we just accept this situation?
Why don't these AI companies take all the intellectual property and trade secrets and train an AGI model and make it available for the "greater good" of humanity?
The "greater good" of humanity is based on the AI companies definition that protects itself and the companies that work for the greater demise" of humanity.
I'm here !
What about adobe express AI images ?
Last I looked, images generated by Adobe AI are not licensed for commercial use
I do agree that stealing the exact same art from someone is beyond dick move... but to actually be able to sue AI art is kind of long stretched... people will always try to find ways to improve stuff. But specifically in America everything seems to be Sue(able). Cheating or not ethical or not either you move with technology or technology moves with out you.
Wouldn't most photography then be unable to be copyrighted? All I'm doing is holding a piece of technology and pressing a button. I'm not creating the image, the camera is. The person is in control of the camera but with technology today I can take 50 pictures in seconds, capturing something that I could not with older cameras.
Today, you don't need to know that much to operate a camera and take stunning photos. I have captured really nice photos with a disposable.
And what about companies who use ai to create things that humans could never? Like new forms in car suspensions and body design?
And everyone is talking about these ai systems using billions of images for references.
How do you think humans learn a skill? They copy from those before. An artist will look at art and find what they like. A singer/ musician will listen to other music and find inspiration.
When I write most of my inspiration comes from movies and books I've seen and read.
If people could not use other works of art for inspiration there might only be a small handful of creative people in the world.
I think this is more of a tool for those who have ideas but not the skill to do it themselves. Or the money to pay an artist.
I just think that the biggest focus is on art when no one is talking about how many jobs in driving, retail and warehouses that are going to be lost in the next 5-10 years.
People have to study art and practice other peoples styles to create their own but ultimately its a combination of other peoples styles together, ai is literally the same thing artists just like to cry about its ease but hey welcome to the future.
Sorryy, my english is not so good, I'm not shure I understood, is legal so sell AI generated art or not?
So if you went to art school for 4 years, paid $100K+ in tuition to learn drawing skills and design fundamentals, practiced for decades to perfect your artistic ability, it's okay to take your artwork and mix it up with another person's artwork in minutes, then call it your own creation and profit from it? Sounds very unethical to me. Eventually there will be no original work for AI to steal from because artists that put in the hardwork will not be incentivized to do so.
Here’s my quandary; regarding copyright and trademarks.
Prior to AI, I could go to a plethora of DIY sites, and through a few clicks create a logo and some art work.
I would then be given the option of purchasing exclusive rights to these pieces, as in the copyright and to create a trademark.
NO human made these.
I could also buy a font and exclusive rights to it. Again, no human made the font.
In either of these cases the machine intelligence that did hadn’t risen to the level of AI, but the machine definitely created them.
I could snap a cell phone picture, and apply automated filters in photoshop, even set up a macro to run them.
Again I’d get copyright, even though I wasn’t even looking when I took the picture.
That is, the phone took the picture and decided how to compose it, with zero involvement from me.
I think our elderly powers that be are using oil paintings and the 1700’s as a comparison here.
IMO using digital tools such as photoshop illustrator is much easier than writing the prompts necessary to produce precisely what you want using AI such as midjourney.
While part of me am glad they are placing the art in public domain, I don’t get why these tools should be treated any different than those available in the last 30 years.
This would change I suppose once we get to “millennium man” level AI, but for now these are just tools.
I think the copyright office has a total lack of understanding of the subject here, just like they did when the internet was made available.
Thoughts?
That art and those fonts were made by humans. You are just buying a type of license to distribute that art.
@@ellenripley4837 that's the whole point. We are able to purchase a license, up to and including derivative rights from a human artist.
I can see all sorts of legal challenges thrown at people when we use AI to create products, digital branding etc.
If you are not in the ecommerce realm, you may not know that non-valid IP violations are used as a tool to push people off the platforms, for example.
All this will only get worse with the copyright counsel's ruling. They are making the same mistake as they did when the internet was released, where it was exempt from the rules applied to print media.
There are laws on the books which could easily be utilized. As in let people buy exclusive rights when used commercially. As it is now, you do not get copyright. It is public domain. This is fine to tinker and play, but not so much when you are using the art in your livelihood.
AI is just a tool, like any other tool used to create digital content.
Just my 2 cents.
What AI is doing is nothing else what we do, and its call taking inspiration of something. If you as a kid have drow a house, its becouse you saw with your eyes a house, and put it on paper. House owner or better say someone who build it couldt say, now is your art illegal couse its made based on their house you saw.
everywhere i've read says that it's legal..
When it’s inspired by a combination of artists it’s hard to pin point where the plagiarism is 😂 so it’s technically yours because you have to pay to use the Ai program
It's not plagiarism, but it's not a creation he made using personal talent and skills. Anyone could create their own. At some point, there will be laws against this. Probably not good laws, but if someone with more power than brains decide you can't sell AI-generated art, that'll be the end of that so I guess do it while you can.
I wish there was an AI that would annihilate amateur presenters who continuously end a sentence with 'right or 'OK''. I just woke up, the batteries ran out of a mouth and I heard Scott......
I don't think that AI is avaiable yet, but in the mean time you can always not watch and listen to us amateur presenters...right? 🙂
How can you prove that you made something?
If I use the MidJourney subscription service, that lets me own the images, to create Inspiration images and turn them into coloring book pages, drawing my own lineart from the generated images, is it legal to do that and sell them? Would I need to list MidJourney as a creator or resource? I can draw but an AI image as a resource I can trace would make the process much faster.
I would think not only could you sell it, you could actually copyright it. Sounds like a good process to me. I don't recall seeing any such legal restriction from Midjourney that you would have to credit Midjourney, even if it is just straight output. So logic would follow you would be completely in the clear on that. But, I'm not an attorney.
Everyone is 'trained' on Picasso. If you ever saw one, you are trained on it as a human. You will knowingly or unknowingly incorporate a bit or more of that style to your work, just like how you will incorporate from a million other works you saw 'were trained on' in your life. People are scrambling to go against AI art from every angle, its pathetic, the tech is here to stay and people need to sit down i swear.
absolutley agree
Absolutly agree two! The same way, "traditional artists" are trained, seeing a lot of other art pieces, and using them as references to make their own pieces. It's the same! The truth point of all this situation is the artist's vanity, they want to be better than others because of "hability".
I agree with your first point but not your second. It is sensible and logical to question disruptive new technologies and to understand how things are going to change.
so ...as long as you pay you have the rights to sell the AI pictures?..
read the license agreement on midjourney, it's about a paragraph... very clear...better than watching this video for 25 mins...
On the part about creating in a public space, the Midjourney discord - does that change when you've built a private room and brought in the Midjourney bot, so it's just you who has eyes on what you're making?
I've been on Midjourney for a grand total of 3 days, a couple of TH-camrs I listened to recommended that just to cut out the noise. But now I can see that as further protection from getting your creations sniped and sold.
Would love to hear your thoughts on this.
The only time you are the only one who can see what you are creating on midjourny is if you have "stealth mode" turned on (currently only available in the pro plan). Otherwise, even though you arent' actively seeing what others are creating inside of your feed, you still have all of your images saved inside of your "library" which is a publicly accessible page.
in that case you should have to sue midjourney, according midjourney's terms, you have 100% ownership about the image you process WHILE YOU PAY THE SUB.
Yeah, that's kind of an important point.👍
No, you don't. They (Midjourney) have the 100% ownership
The original artwork that Mid Journey used has been digitally altered to remove the artists signature. If there is any honesty & transparency in these AI companies they should at minimum publish an official catalog of the source, original person that created the work, name of art piece, year etc.
It seems that as individuals you don't have rights, but as a company you are well protected. E.g. how would Coca-Cola react if their drink recipe was published and its particular logo font used, etc., etc. They would take legal action. but these AI companies have cannibalized human creativity in the name of 'human progress'.
Imagine the poor fool pooling his resources in some time wasting effort to sue someone over midjourney ai generated art...😂
U own it saved u time
Can I take a picture of say a famous rapper, put it on a shirt and sell it? Or make a design with Ai that looks like someone famous and sell it legally?
No that would be trademark infringement. Don’t do that
Are my creations going public if I run Midjourney locally on my rig without a paid Stealth license ?
Yes, they could be for sure.
@@brandcreators so I have no choice but to pay like $550 lol
The anti-AI folks argument seems ridiculous to me. If their thought of not using existing images to create new forms of art/images then that would mean no artist could ever look at any existing art. If they do, then using their argument they are infringing on trademark laws because they looked at another existing piece(s) of art to come up with their new artwork. Most of the arguments are coming from artists and graphic designers based on job security reasons. I am a software engineer and AI can write code as well. Should I complain? I welcome AI for making things easier. Why were tools invented? To make things easier for crafters.
They are uploading my images. I can tell you exactly which image they copied. They are my paintings. They are using Mid-Journey. Don't pretend you don't know this. After hearing this, I am going to take it directly to a copyright attorney and nail the whole bunch of you. I can not even believe what I am hearing. Do you not understand that when I create something you cannot take it to an AI format and have it copied? I can prove they are mine. They are copying a number of my creations. You need to tell us how to be ahold of Mid-Journey.
Nobody creates art using AI. The software creates the art. Giving the software a prompt is like asking an artist to paint you a picture. You can’t ask an artist to paint you a picture and then claim that you created it (well, you can, but you’d be lying). All you can claim is that you placed the request, which is fine, but but don’t confuse placing the request with having created anything yourself.
What if we generated Mickey Mouse doing something, and then we made art from there?
It would still be a trademarked design and you could get in trouble for sure.
tldr: its legal
So if you use a pencil, a tool, to make a drawing, others can use it? Of course not! AI is just a tool for drawing, like a pencil.
The tool can be used by anyone. The tool is not what makes the art. The pencil is just the medium.
17:01 One more objection to the laws and the stupidity of the copyright office here.
Let’s say I am a toy maker. I want to sell the toys 3D print-on-demand, on an e-commerce platform.
Or perhaps I have a factory, and sell them on Amazon.
If I were to use 3D software, or industrial design tools such as CADRA, I could have that barn and chicken in a few clicks.
I get copyright, I can trademark.
Arguably, the machine made the design, and the 3D printer, not me-converted it to a toy. I did not chisel it by hand.
Likewise, I could use a service online, and with a few clicks have both.
Again-I could purchase exclusive rights to it.
As for trademarking, manufacturing, marketing it etc; I will have no problem as I have copyright and trademark to the product and its design.
The world hums along, the kids enjoy my toys.
But if I DARE use AI in the creation of it….. Now I risk being tossed off Amazon, suffer legal consequences etc etc…
I maintain that what the copyright office is doing is a HUGE problem here.
We need to be able to buy exclusive rights both to the art and the prompts.
We did not create the art or the products-but neither have we in the last 30+ years.
I argue that these are tools just as a design macro in your favorite software is, not the toil of millennium man, and therefore we should get rights.
Very good to know element combination in a solution like Canva can help things though.
It is just disheartening to not be able to safely use this amazing tool in commerce.
The copyright office is not solving any problems here, it is creating them IMO.
If Midjourney is reading, I would love the option to purchase exclusive rights. And hopefully you, Microsoft, Google etc have enough pull to get the copyright office to see the error of their ways.
What do you all think?
Would you like to use these designs in commerce?
Do you agree with the copyright authority here?
Can we stop putting a clip from the middle to the beginning of the video? It’s so annoying. 🤨
This argment is stupid. I can alter the image with photoshop or GIMP to make it my own creation. ITS MINE! Seriously. How does a lawyer argue against that?
Not to mention its not all machine. YOU the user had to input to create an output. How is it any different than how i use my words like an artist uses a paint brush to create the canvas. I have to be creative in what and how ask for something. Thats 50% me there. Sure it gives me a result but if you asked for something similar your not going to get the same result. I equate the machine like the paint. My words are the brush. You guys are asses. The ppl who are fighting this battle against creativity.
Im working on a book using this. Im figuring out I'm just going to LIE and say it was 100% me using photoshop and other electronic mediums to create what I created. Ill make no mention of AI. Thanks a lot. And how would anyone say otherwise? You go down that path and you have to ask for EVERYONE's digital thumbprint on how they made X. I highly doubt the resources are there. Say you do do that no one will want to create anything anymore. God you guys are assholes.
And ill do it. Ill just say the new author pen name's profession was an Adobe Professor with 15+ years of experience teaching digital creations. BOOM!!! Take that! No one will ever know except me and you. ;)
@@aurorajones8481 I hope you learn that image files have something called metadata with binary code that says how the file was created. Just like how there's ai that detect ChatGPT text. There's also tools that detect images generated by ai. Plus, a trained aye can tell when the image is AI.
My proposal to the artists… adapt to the market tends. If you find your way to use it as well to f.e. get concept ideas for our artwork. The current development is something that happened a thousand times in the past 100 years and before. Just beeing against the development and complaining will wipe you out. In addition i assume that AI cannot replace good artwork.
No need to overstate your argument. No, there has been NOTHING to compare this with, not even close.
It’s not cheating. It can take hours of trying diffreent text entries to get exactly what you are looking for. Art is only successful if people like it and are willing to buy it. So I see that the skill set is different to that of an actual artist. The only thing I would stay away from are stuff like Disney.
Let me just ask people here whom did Mozart give a permission to copyright and play his music in orchestras that making millions and he died penniless? Or maybe Vincent Van Gogh? Why so many leeches are making millions out of his art today?
Was beginning to think scott was mute. Loll takes too long to get to point. Intro is repetitive and too many words used throughout. Lost me at some point. Sorry thought u might like to know a truncated intro is way better
You are commissioning AI to create the art. The same way you commission a designer to make you a logo. How much you pay depends on subscription or designer's fee. Once you pay the designer for the logo, it is yours to do as you please.
The lawsuits will fail. You cannot sue someone for getting inspiration from an artwork and then creating a different artwork in a similar style. Midjourny does not copy artworks sufficiently enough to be sued by anyone. Sale away and dont worry about the bs claims that its illegal.
Actually, I read online reviews of MidJourney before using it to sell AI art on Etsy. After reading the reviews of MidJourney, I decided not to use it.
Get to the point already! Geez!