Matthew Allen’s AI art won first prize at the Colorado State Fair. But the US government has ruled it can’t be copyrighted because it’s too much “machine” and not enough “human.”

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

  • raoulraoul@lemmy.worldEnglish
    19·
    1 year ago

    As I’d just written in another reply here, there is a world of difference in describing an illustration and creating an illustration.

    • Uriel238 [all pronouns]English
      8·
      1 year ago

      I have to say that when I focused on computer-aided graphic design, my instructors who had done that kind of work with material supplies totally felt my work was invalid.

      And when I was writing essays in high-school English and getting downgraded for poor penmanship, my teacher refused to let me word-process my work, lest I write a whole essay with the touch of a button.

      So yes, creators have had their efforts minimized from the dawn of time, especially as new technology makes output better or easier.

      Still, this isn’t about the art, it’s about the capitalism. If we had a society where no-one had to toil for a meager existence, then artists could do their thing for the sake of creating beauty and not to earn a buck. I believe post-war social programs in the UK drove the Rock-&-Roll revolution in the 1960s (advancements in electric guitars also did some heavy lifting).

      So… feed our artists?

    • Asafum@feddit.nlEnglish
      7·
      1 year ago

      But you are creating the image as it’s often never what you intended on the first try. If anything they are editors, and last I checked we aren’t taking any rights away from editors. Someone else made the material and “you” manipulated it into a better product or into what your vision actually was.

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      1 year ago

      Even if I were to grant you that generative AI is just “describing an illustration”: other people say there is a world of difference between painting something with your hands and using a mouse, yet I think digital illustration is as real as physical illustration. Yet other people say there is a world of difference between creating something from the ground up and using store-bought materials and tools, yet I don’t discount artists who do just that.

      But I don’t grant you that, because if I simply describe an illustration, the generative AI will not give me anything close to what I want. I have to learn the prompting language of the model (what words and phrases result in what?), I have to learn the influence the many different parameters have on the output, and I have to learn how to use things like prompt weighting, negative prompts and the like to get what I want. It’s something completely different from describing an illustration.

      And that’s ignoring things like variant generation, inpainting, outpainting and the many different things that are completely removed from just “describing an illustration”.

      • ParsnipWitch@feddit.deEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        Learn how to make a digital illustration, learn to make an oil painting and learn to make an AI image. Then we can talk.

        I can do all three (worked on comission basis as a digital illustrator and did make Sci-Fi illustrations with acrylics and ink in the past). Generating AI images is not even in the same universe as the ballpark where digital illustration and traditional painting are playing.

        It’s like saying watching someone’s Let’s Play of playing GTA is “kinda similar” to driving a Formel1 sports car yourself. Because you still have to turn on your computer and find a good streamer.

        • FooBarrington@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          Learn how to make a digital illustration, learn to make an oil painting and learn to make an AI image. Then we can talk.

          Done. What do you want to talk about?

          Generating AI images is not even in the same universe as the ballpark where digital illustration and traditional painting are playing.

          And what ballparks are there? How many ballparks exist in the realm of illustration, and where are the borders?

          I just spent literally 31 seconds making this image:

          According to what you write, this has a much higher artistic value than the header image of the linked article. Now please, explain to me: what value does this view bring to any discussion?

          • ParsnipWitch@feddit.deEnglish
            2·
            1 year ago

            It brings value to the discussion if the discussion revolves around whether artists should be paid and how much. Whether AI images should be committed to art contests. Whether someone using AI to create an image should have copyright on that image. How much value we put on the time and effort it takes to learn artistic skills. Whether we want people to continue to take on that endeavour. Etc.

            Actually I think discussing the differences and similarities between AI image generation and other forms of creating art is quite central to the issue.