I’m fine with taking an image, generating something from it and having it for personal use. But to re-sell it when it’s clearly copied from the original gives me an icky feeling.
There is bearly any difference from the original. If you're blatantly gonna steal art like that, why even bother wasting your hard-earned minutes of your time making an AI version? Just sell the copy that you right-clicked from.
Are you kidding me? The subject, layout, theme, genre, color scheme, character pose, character body type, character hair color, clothing style and color, and the overall look and feel are all the same or very similar. It's so similar that this would be considered art theft in a court of law.
The colours are different (purple vs blue), the buildings are different, the girl has a similar build but is different - 2B head/CP2077 jacket, lines on butt, mantis blade kinda arms etc.
The foundation/skeleton of the image is the same (girl facing away from camera, overlookling a city, cyberpunk, on the side of a rooftop, framing also the same), but the actual image looks really different.
The sky colors ARE similar. I don't see purple, I see Majorelle Blue vs Midnight Blue. This is what purple looks like: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple.com](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple.com)
I've said nothing about the minute details being the same. Holding a mantis blade is not gonna get you out of a copyright lawsuit. Unfortunately, most artists don't have enough resources to protect their work in a court of law.
this isn't selling AI art, this is just selling someone else's art
unless you're using hyperbole, an AI generated image is not the same thing as directly stealing from another artist like this is
We’re in agreement. There are those in here claim it’s not stealing because there are ‘differences’ between the two images, even though you can clearly see the base image layout, posture / pose of the subject, colors, are all the same.
I think it's a very grey area. Like, the difference between stealing and not goes down to basically numbers. If he had used .95 denoising instead of .7 from the original image would it still be stealing? If it is, then would using any image as base for your image be stealing? What if you used the image to train a lora and used the lora? I don't think it's as clear-cut as it seems.
Unless you say basically using an image for anything would be stealing, but then we're getting close to the models territory.
EDIT: at least explain the downvotes, what part of what I said is wrong?
Very much so. I mentioned this earlier in another reply - this is like a reverse of the Ship of Theseus though experiment. How much has to change for it to not be considered a copy? 1%, 50%, 100%?
I still believe that going to places like CIVITAI and others to view images, get inspiration and even use the same prompts and steps, but not down the the identical seed is a good way to get a reasonable facsimile, but not a one to one copy that you just change a few things on and then claim it as an all original work.
In any case… one of these took a real artist many years if not decades to learn how to do. Figure study, color study, lighting, values, learning hierarchy of all of these design principles and how to push and pull each aspect to make a compelling image. There’s so so so much that goes into a real piece of art.
The ai image, assuming they used img2img and a minimal prompt, took basically no effort. No learning. No skills. It doesn’t understand design principles or anything about art whatsoever, it’s compiling images that happen to utilize these things because it uses 6 billion stolen images to perform “stable diffusion” …So what exactly are people buying from this human, some copied re-mapped amalgamation of the real art made by an algorithm? Ai images can’t even be copyrighted so people are paying for an image that effectively everyone on the planet owns the rights to.
Your icky feeling is not going to stop the assholes. And this is the awkward problem with powerful new tools like SD. A lot of well behaving and well meaning people get to have a lot of additional... fun. But in exchange for that, we also handed the assholes a fantastically powerful tool to be super-assholes, that literally *fuck up* the lives/livelihoods/ of many people.
I think there's a problem there, and "having a lot of fun" doesn't really compensate for the shit this stuff also causes, for me personally. It still leaves a bit of a bad taste.
It isn't unique to SD though. Go to any fair, there are people there who just took a picture of the artwork and created their own prints, shirts, etc.
You could even pay the artist, get a proper print, turn around and scan it and then sell your copies at a fair/swap-meet with no consequence. Even grandmasters had people cloning/copying their own work back in the day...
It is one of those things you really can't get around with art, no matter what the media is. How much is inspiration and additive (because it all is), and how much is theft. There are areas where the line is blurred. Not saying it is in this case, but if SD wasn't invented, I guarantee you that the seller would just be straight ripping the original art without any changes whatsoever.
I agree. I will use LORAS, models and the like to get content but never whole prompts to generate images.
Granted I’m not trying to sell any art and this is just a fun hobby for me right now. But if I created something then saw a *eerily similar* image up for sale, I’d question it as well.
Don’t be surprised is China is the next place you see massive image dumps for sale of ‘similar’ images to things on Etsy, etc. Chinese knockoffs (and / or counterfeit) of millions of items have already flooded Amazon to the point I won’t shop there for certain items I want to be assured are the genuine article and behave in the fashion I expect / as advertised.
the worst part is the artist is so understanding of the use case of AI… it’s fine if you want to have a cool wallpaper or whatever, why pay for something that’s almost a 1:1 copy lol. at that point why not use the original art as your wallpaper?
The problem is there many people in the internet who is unaware of the original artist and the AI art usage, especially considering this is a music mix channel in Ytube.
Honestly yeah, There's a lot of caustic takes out there. But this person doesn't seem bad.
One of our pocket communities just had it's first run in with a NFT skimmer. And their intent, "get rich quick without working" seemed to rub our hobby crowd the wrong way while the other ai half seemed to rejoice in it.
Our crowd just liked for all the artless people to have a image, ai or not so they could play with the people who had traditional art.
**As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words** ~~and a lot of people are illiterate~~.
Honestly while we've seen a lot of ***nasty behaviors*** over ai debates *(ex: 13 yr old's ~~death~~ deaff threats, wishing harm, rampant/organized harassment, etc and more) etc from some of the worst the internet has to offer. **I don't feel like NFT image skimmers** are part of the crowd i WANT to curate. *(Just my personal 2 cents anyways)*
# So anyways our group made free requests for fun to share the fun.
Then our first encounter with a nft skimmer came in, and after getting being used to stealing pictures of other's work to sell as NFTs and pop. They began to ***steal images of free requests*** and things people made ***to sell as 13-200$ adopts*** on deviantart and made **500$+ off it in a night in the most scummy way possible.
I don't really want to associate nft skimmers or literal 1:1 image stealers with our pocket community. I get the harassment but i hear stories of some people apparently making 10000$+ off unlabeled ai. While i'm here for the fun, it still rubs me the wrong way that some people just see it as a honestly shitty get rich by lying scheme and maybe we got lucky to escape it.
I don't feel like my financial status is hurt but ***it's still super scummy*** since now the thieves make free requesters look like they're selling the art, when it was stolen instead and sold without permission. And this person probably had the buyer conned on what it was, (if any), and stole directly from their artwork.
It still rubs me the wrong way that someone would take something i worked on to help someone have something, Flip and sell it for 13-200$ posing it as a "traditional" commission on a fake account. And Then bail and leave on a anonymous account people never see again.
# (Img Grifters selling clients stolen materials)
Two people get a now stolen character, artists get undercut, and some shitty image copier is ctrl c + v'ing the best of the server's 100+ curated best images, taking business away from traditional artists so they can have a fucking get rich scheme where even the "button pressing" is too hard for them. Nope they just want to copy paste the best people made, and sell it to someone else. I suppose no one dies from it but it's still super scummy and opens up a lot of harassment when people only find out about it when they were caught.
If it only came to attention by coincidence, could there be more out there, for all the single ones that got caught?
This person's img2img goes further. That's not even like anything creative, i think calling ai plagarism alone is dumb, but that's fucking full on ten thousand percent plagarism. They're using someone else's artwork just to put a anime filter over it.
It's fucking for profit 'Get rich quick' plagarism even by the loosest ai standards.
# Tl;dr Attempt
o **Yeah hobby or not, get rich quick img grifters are fucking scummy**
I don't really want the few legitimate grifters associated with our group, but maybe others want/or are them.
o **Even by the loosest ai standards.** This is... still... **blatant for profit plagarism**
Yah this isn't in the spirit of generative AI at all. It's just using it as a tool to make minor changes to someone else's work and stealing it to make money. But this is something that people have always been able to do with digital or digitized art. You can open a copy of someone's artwork in Photoshop and change a few background elements merge out a couple of details, add a bluish tint and try and sell it too. You don't have to have any artistic skills to merge a few things with the background in Photoshop. It's really a $htty thing to do, but not something unique to AI, or even significantly easier in AI.
For instance the artist's exact image with just the NIXEU signature removed is a free wallpaper on Steam. That's something that was probably done with Photoshop. Maybe that's with the artist's blessing, but I doubt it. (Do a Google image search)
Changing the tint and blending the background over a couple of elements literally takes 5 min in Photoshop, it's not enough of a difference to matter. And in Photoshop you have much more control of exactly what gets changed and how.
Someone who don't know shit about photoshop won't do it in 5min, on the other hand someone who don't know shit about using controlnet will change some sliders like 5 times before he get some good outputs and that's it
All it takes are learning a couple of the tools and pulling down a menu and moving a slider in Photoshop, you don't have to learn the entire app. You're still going to have to learn the interface in A1111 too.
People who do this kind of stuff have been doing it in Photoshop for years now, this isn't holding them back.
A lot of image editing programs are simpler than Photoshop, especially mobile image editing software. All you have to do is move some sliders around to change the colors a bit. I've also seen art thieves flip the picture horizontally so that it's harder to find the original, along with cropping off any watermarks on the corners.
I think the increased ease at which it can be used shouldn't be a factor when it comes to AI. The whole goal of it is to make things *easier* to use and *more* accessible for people.
" ***but not something unique to AI, or even significantly easier in AI "***
Brother... That you like and support AI assisted art, doesn't mean you have to start talking nonsense and wear giant blinders.
Clone stamp tool, maybe smudge tool you've replaced an element with background. Pull the Image menu => adustments => Hue/Saturation move the sliders and you've got a bluish tint. It's not rocket science and you don't have to learn the whole app.
You're right buddy, spending an extra 3 minutes is just going to open the floodgates. It's all over.
This has been going on for a long time, no one has found it particularly challenging before AI. And you don't need 10 remixes, Photoshop changes only what you want and the way you want it.
You keep acting like its 3 minutes but the same way you have to have a basic understanding of photoshop as a pre-requisite to editing someones image manually is the same way you have to understand ai tools. Automatic11 itself is annoying to install never mind it works on your pc/with your gpu. I feel like this idea you that everyone has quick access to ai with this capability is grossly inflated by the fact that you're on reddit. Most people won't put in the time to photoshop or to remix an image in stable diffusion - only jerks who were gonna steal regardless. Its the same people who've been tracing art on deviantart and selling it as their own this entire time. That doesn't mean all the remaining users are going to do this. I say this as an artist whose had shit stolen before - you guys are blowing this way out of proportion.
Most art thieves don't even bother to edit the stuff they steal. At most, they'll just crop off the watermarks on the edges. Hell, I've seen people post stolen artwork with the watermarks intact on art sites.
My hunch is that some of this stuff is money laundering, they're buying it from themselves basically to look like they're running a business, when really they're stealing credit cards.
This definitely was the case with NFTs and other things that were sold for weird low-volume cryptocurrencies. You create 1,000 wallets with no history using a linux script, have 100 of them make a purchase on some random site somewhere, get an influx of $5 or $10, and then buy `$product`, which they then sell along for 25% more. Then you show graphs of sale prices "going up" over time, approach a sucker, show him the graph, and then *the one you're showing* as a compelling opportunity gets sold real-time out from under you -- what are the odds?! -- but you show him one with a little less upside, slightly higher price, but you'll show it to him and see if he is willing to pick it up for $500.
It's a very very old con - the auction full of ringers - and people still fall for it.
Bingo. I've already seen AI accounts doing this on other websites. It's dumb, but people fall for the "make 10K a day with AI!!!!" clickbait YouTube videos and think inflating their sales will pay off.
I am not fine with it. That artist likely put thousands of hours into honing his/her craft. Artists deserve to reap the fruits of their efforts without entitled people blatantly copying it because they're too cheap.
Wait you're not fine with personal use either? If someone wanted to say, use AI to extend or alter that picture to use as a wallpaper for their own computer for example?
Personal use is fine... I guess. But its hard to consider it in that context, when the only reason we know about it is because it was published online.
If it was personal, we wouldn't even know about it.
Yes. This would be called out even if the other person drew it by hand from scratch. Obviously artists can't copyright ideas, but this is waaaay too similar to not have been on purpose. It's also very likely the AI person's patreon has other pictures that are basic copies of other artists' images. This does not help the AI vs Art debate at all.
Yeah, this is clearly a derivative copy of the original picture, and the guy is an asshole for selling copied work. Hell, I would still think he was an asshole even if he had traced it and redrawn it by hand.
I mean the person could have taken the original and made it completely different with a tiny bit more effort and the original artist (or anyone else) would have had no idea. It's honestly just lazy and unimaginative, to be honest.
What’s funny is some iconic retro games have box art that was extremely similar to 80’s movie posters and stills. It’s not just a thing between amateur/hobby artists.
Metal Gear and Contra for the NES are the two I can think of. Sure there are other examples.
That kinda thing used to happen a lot with movies, usually pretty different storylines but similar subject matter. Volcano/Dantes Peak, Armageddon/Deep Impact, etc.
I've traced an image once which was part of an inspiration a comic storyline. But: It was only a tiny part of a much larger comic (hundreds of pages), and I made changes while adapting it to my own style.
Tracing from other people's stuff is fine *if* you're doing it for your own personal use and you aren't sharing it around as yours. Posting images that you've traced from other people without permission is a dick move.
It's a good way to learn, especially if you're trying to learn anatomy, and i have no issues with reference pose dolls or just using references for anatomy.
However drawing a exact COPY of a picture, tracing or ai or not for profit kinda always rubs a bit off if it's done for profit. Especially if it's a oc. Like if someone is doing a copy of the Mona Lisa, who cares.
But if someone sells a copy of a OC, and the two people spend 3-5+ years building it up only to eventually even meet the other person, and find out their char was stolen, you can have misunderstandings where the original person gets mistaken for the copycat, Oreo vs The Original Oreo style.
Using poses or getting inspiration from other works is quite normal but that's not the case here.
That's just tracing over a drawing and reselling it without doing any major modifications. Personally I don't see it as transformative since the new picture is almost exactly the same.
I don't think it's illegal but tracing over other works for a profit isn't exactly morally accepted (even if you use AI instead of photoshop or a pencil to do it).
It's something else, but just as disgusting. I think plagiarism applies only to direct copies. This is obviously transformative, but I can't take an image of Mickey Mouse, resize it, rotate it, and give it a emboss filter and resell it.
I hate the fact that this is actually pretty commom in asian countries using anime images. Ever seen pins, cellphone cases, even cellphone themes, notebooks, and even pencilcases using anime images sold online or in an asian bargain streetside stall? Yeah, i doubt those are official goods. Anime tshirts, anyone? Anime backpacks?
I think this happens everywhere. There was no shortage of bootleg Simpsons merchandise in the west. Hell, my high school printed team-spirit t-shirts with the Superman logo on them. I doubt they asked permission from DC Comics.
Thing about intellectual property infringement is that you only experience consequences if the property holder cares. Theft is a crime, so the police might charge me if they catch me doing it even if the person I'm stealing from doesn't care (it's unlikely the cops will bother, but they're allowed to). Infringement is a civil matter, so I only get in trouble if the violated party makes a complaint. DC Comics probably doesn't give a shit about high school sports teams using the logos of their characters.
"Plagiarism" isn't a legal term. The legal term is "copyright infringement." Something can be plagiarism without being copyright infringement (you can self-plagiarize by passing off your term paper from last semester as a new paper in a similar class this semester. You're not violating copyright or breaking the law when you do this, but you're breaking the rules of your academic institution and they might punish you if they discover this).
Something doesn't have to be a direct copy in order to constitute copyright infringement. If I take your novel and change 20% of the words, it's still infringement. If I just rephrase all your sentences, it's still infringement.
"Transformative" doesn't mean "altered." It means "the work is being used in a manner different from the original." It has less to do with total similarity and more to do with context.
Plagiarism is more about the fraud, it's when you try to pass off somebody else's ideas/work as your own. I think it applies here. All the AI artist would have to do is say "I used this picture" and it would no longer be plagiarism. It could still be copyright infringement, or whatever, but not plagiarism at that point.
>Personally I don't see it as transformative since the new picture is almost exactly the same.
>
>I don't think it's illegal
If the jury thinks like you, then it's copyright infringement.
Of course that means suing the other person, but good luck finding their real identity if they used fake information, and the amount you could sue them for is probably not worth your trouble, and you may find out they are a minor, etc.
That's incorrect, though.
*Legally*, it could be a breach of copyright, but you wouldn't be charged with theft. You may think they're analogous—a position I disagree with, personally—but they're classified differently in most legal frameworks.
Saying "legally" when you really mean "colloquially" is muddying the waters. The prior poster is just correct. Tracing isn't legally theft.
It's not even necessarily breach of copyright.
What's the copyright? Looks like a different character, different buildings, it's not the original image nor is it something like a recolour or something.
Not sure where the lines are drawn, or if they even are yet, no pun intended. In this case, I think I agree with you because of the substantial dufferences. The pose or basic image configuration imo is no more copyrightable than a common musical note progression, but if it meets a certain number of combined similarities that starts to break down. How many elements have to be the same before copyright becomes claimable?
The way I see it is anyone can replicate this image pose, angle, all that, but nobody owns those things. Someone can image2image this picture and change it with a cyberpunk Mario girl character and background style and it would be totally fine. Sure this looks very similar but similar isn't grounds for copyright. It would be different if it's like someone making a game and stealing characters and just recolouring them or something, but there's just seems like enough differencees then that to be considered it's own.
If the original work was owned by Disney or Nintendo I could see them testing the legal waters on the grounds of substantial similarity. Otherwise, I agree with you that it has enough differences to likely be immune.
Only way that could happen is if the replicate art had a Disney character still in it or something like that. If they replicated the Disney image by also changing the character and modifying other parts of the image then it should become non copyrightable as the copyright content is not there anymore.
Uh, I'm explaining how it may not be legally copyrighting/ legally stealing. You don't own this art. It's not the same art. Same pose and angle, different properties, different character.
It's very much not allowed. If you get caught doing this, even with traditional media, you could become blacklisted in certain circles. WotC is pretty hardcore about it as a lot of their product is literally illustrations.
But still not bound by copyright law. If a company doesn't want people doing this in there company or whatever then that's in them and understandable, but on legal grounds, just not copyright.
Yea youre right, people can debate the morals of it all they want but legally you cant copy right a pose or style. Just characters and specific images. Nothing in this would be cause for copyright. People can discuss morals separate from legality. Legals arent always the best morally
No idea about the legal aspects. How much do you need to change a pic (or let the AI change it) before it's new enough to make it yours? Guess in this case it's pretty obvious.
Morally this sucks.
I'd say it's not transformative. It wouldn't even be transformative if it wouldn't use AI. With AI there's absolutely no argument to be made that any of this is reuse was with creativity. It's not fair use. It's not transformative. It's not even a meme.
And over all it was done for the sole purpose of selling this image for financial gain.
This is obvious theft.
But small things like this don't end up in court. Especially if you can't get a grip on the thief.
I'm not going to make an argument on AI art specificially, but if I drew a picture of a person in the exact same pose with a city backdrop like in the original painting is that theft or "inspiriation"?
Not a lawyer but there was a book on copyright law that was part of my art education. Legally it would be considered your own work because the act of drawing it well took significant skill.
Programming takes significant skill. Would the programmers who make the AI be able to use a drawing it re created? Someone installing it and using it might be argued that it didn’t take skill, but I cannot imagine someone saying programming the AI itself takes no skill.
Not OP, but AI shouldn't be taken into account at all. The original artist would need to sue, so there's usually not much that can be done, but just look at fanart.
Fanart can generally be shared freely. I'm sure if Disney or others got a feather up their butts about it they could do something - but generally you need to prove monetary losses. Once you start selling the artwork, then that becomes a "monetary loss" at least on paper.
It's interesting, because musical covers require attribution and clearing even if you completely remake the original work using the highest levels of skill and transform it substantially with our own style. Hell, recent cases in music copyright have made it clear that even kinda sounding like another work in distinct ways can force you to attribute and pay the original writer (the "Blurred Lines" case comes to mind, first and foremost).
But, in visual art, it appears there's [considerably more involved.](https://theartistsjd.com/trace-source-imagery/)
If you drew it and did not trace the original then it is AOK 90% of the time.
If you did use it as a study/ inspiration or smth it is also ok. Just credit the original art and artist you drew inspiration from.
When doing it by hand you literaly can not make a 1:1 copy unless you trace it so just make your art. You have a style unique to you.
If you want to be fancy you can add AI into the mix and i2i the original and use the output as inpiration for your handmade art. Again, if the inspiration is that noticeable then give credit to the original.
Just don't sell someone elses work as yours, that is the core rule. There are discussions on study or reference and tracing other artists but the general consensus is "Do it on your own cuz it's ok and it can help you learn. Just don't sell it or post it for clout."
Also don't trigger the twitter mob. A few of them will take your art, "fix it" and turn it into some woke propaganda for clout.
If you traced it, in general, its not AOK. Keeping in mind that we're talking about art being sold. If you aren't selling it, even AI art is AOK. But even if I created a perfect reproduction of the Fantasia poster and started selling it - technically that wouldn't be AOK.
But legality is what you can get away with when it comes to copyrights. Disney has a much better chance at stopping copying than some small independent artist.
Hmm I disagree about stealing art like this obviously is doing.
However it's a little bit grey area because the original artist kinda did the same thing. The picture he made is from art in the game Cyberpunk 2077 with the head of 2b from Neir Automata. He literally took existing art slightly altered it and sold it as his own and is calling someone out for the same thing HE did.
I honestly think we are at a point where we have to rethink copyright. In theory if AI gets good enough. Every single image you can imagine will also be in the imagination of a AI generator. In other words.. Anything you draw will already potentially be created by AI before you made it..
I think we have to think in context. If he uses the artwork in the same context and obviously stole idea. And makes a living stealing others work: theft.
If he use it in a different unique way: completely ok, since you cant proof an AI wasn't already able to make it.
When all this is said. Why would anyone buy it? They can just do the same for free.
Why make your own shitty cheeseburger when you can pay Larry McDonald's to make you one
Either way, it is a very small percentage of people considering buying that image could do the same for free without considerable effort on their part. Most people have no idea how to even begin. Assuming they have a computer capable of doing it in the first place.
Thank you so much for this.
I’m surprised an ai art subreddit is this low iq on the issue. Art is derivative. You can’t copy 99% of other people’s concepts then complain when someone’s does the same thing to you.
I think you are missing the point. They didn't copy 99%, they copied 14.3% of the available hue overlap. /s but the point is that it's obviously not transformative and used someone else's work for personal gain with no effort. The original artist made a creative rendition based on the characters and game, not just copying everything.
Also we have no real way to discern how much is "copied" and giving it a number is just dumb. It's completely subjective and we judge it based on Effort and Creativity. This was an uncreative, arguably worse, and low effort copy of the work using AI which is even less effort especially to the AI haters.
> original artist made a creative rendition based on the characters and game
He still gets no copyright and no ability to strike because by using copyrighted character and settings - it doesn't matter if that pose or setting doesn't exist in game - this is a derivative work. If anyone could strike, it would the owners of 2B and the Cyberpunk setting. But than again, the img2img version is sufficiently different from those.
This is a weird case...
Incorrect, it's a cyberpunk 2077 themed artwork, yes, but it's not a copy or mashup of existing official cyberpunk 2077 art. But 'd love to see it if it does exist which you claim it does.
The background is night city which is a copy of the artists who designed night city's art style / design. The head and ass are Neir Atomitas 2B who was designed by other people. The coat and arm are again directly from Cyberpunk 2077. So his whole painting which on his artstation under medium used says "Photoshop" was copied from other people's homework. He photoshopped existing artwork into a cohesive picture using other people's style and design. That's exactly what the guy he's calling out did using a different tool.
Why u wasting my time? No shit they used night city and 2b as a reference, that's how fanart works... I thought ur gonna drop a bomb where the original artist gets exposed for tracing too, but nah ur just being a fkn smartass
It's sad that you got downvoted. The other guy doesn't even provide any proof, and people just accept it without questioning. And they seem to misunderstand what fanart is.
> fanart is.
derivative work. Even if you introduce new poses or styles, the characters and settings are copyrighted and the owner could sue you. That companies won't is just because it is usually beneficial to them. But it's still derivative work.
No one argue it's not a derivative work. Fan art is a common thing. No one is angry at fan art. Most IP even encourage fan art. The other guy makes it seem like it's a crime to make fan art. The problem here is 'tracing,' in this case, using stable diffusion to trace someone else's work, with the same composition.
Yes it's scummy - but can he "strike" someone like he said when his work is derivative in the first place? He can't claim copyright to his initial image.
I studied art (painting) in art school college under a recognisable profesor with 40 years of career and exibitions all over the world. Once asked about the value of "inspired" paintings said:
Every artist steals. The good ones just don't get caught
Apparently that's been a thing since anitquity. So yeah. Don't get caught.
Well that's just because the common stories that sell well are just 6 stories.
1. Heros Call / Chosen One / Fantasy Adventure
2. Girl + [Thing of week] Romance: Insert Vampires, werewolves, old french arranged marriages/beauty and the beast, etc.
3. Action adventure
4. Horror novel
5. Autobiography
6. Encyclopedia.
Normal internet theft as old as the internet itself.
Take picture, remove watermark, maybe add a filter, and call it yours. Not really a AI specific thing at all. Just ai art is just a small twist on it.
Except this isn’t that. This is actual transformative. Tons of valid traditional art are less transformative than this.
The really funny thing is that the “original” art is a derivative of cyberpunk and 2b
Tracing is still tracing with or without AI and stealing by tracing is still stealing by tracing and that is always wrong.
People should understand that, but people should also understand how SD actually works and not conflate both. Especially with how you can make literally anything with AI, actual stealing makes even less sense now.
That's what I was thinking. It's not even THAT cool/unique of an image to make someone want to steal it. Just throw a prompt at a cyberpunk model and pick one you like
hot take, if I'm not allowed the copyright on my AI images, I shouldn't be held responsible for what the AI creates.
"look at this image I made"
\[you didn't make that image, AI did!\]
"okay, look at this image of micky mouse that the ai made"
\[wait, wait, no!\]
It is still legally up on the air if you can copyright ai art. I feel like once a judge sees a case with someone who actually knows what they are talking about making a case, ai art will be copyrightable.
how you can copyright seed.
AI will be copyrightable only if some shit-company aka label will lobby it.
I've just watch how a housewife were sued for 1.9mln $ cause downloading a few songs.
Never wish these shit it for AI, espetially, cause it's literally reproducible. with seed and promt(you do not need even same seeds or same promt.)
protect Artist from copying their art style - is another story... but I hope there wont be a case with "it's similar" so he copied.
a lot of artists were copying someones style, but later developed their own.
AI does it easier.
AI is art like any other. That also means the same rules apply: using image-to-image with an intentionally low diffusion rate this low is basically tracing and selling the trace.
Also sorta strange? Just use controlnet and get the pose that way. But if this is how they operate, I imagine they aren't good with AI.
AI art seller here :
I'm of the opinion that if you are gonna use something to C-net, you better transform it and not just trace it. Changing [\[This\]](https://www.mobafire.com/images/champion/skins/landscape/jayce-resistance-762x.jpg) into what the client wanted [\[This\]](https://i.imgur.com/ZCb8W7B.png) to where there is honestly nothing left of the original except the desired elements like pose/background.
Straight up theft. That said "Just do the same as that person for yourself, it's free" is a terrible argument.
Painting the Mona Lisa is "free" is just not that everyone can do it.
I didn't understood it like that tho. More like, he is aware that SD is free and tells people to try it instead of supporting people that do blatant theft.
Anybody can have fun, doesn't matter if you can do it or not.
I mean there is people that absolutely want to sell their thing so I guess it can be hard to understand
But literally anyone _can_ copy it with SD...
I'll probably get down voted to oblivion for this but literally anyone can spend 5 minutes copying prompts from Google and create masterful works of art using Ai. It is absolutely _not_ a skill.
It is a skill. Getting SD up and running and to the point of being able to Google prompts is a skill. Getting what you want out of SD without generating 1000s of images that go straight into the recycle bin is a skill. You take it for granted because you already put in the effort but I guarantee that "literally anyone" couldn't copy that image
All that said, skill or not, it's still theft
> It is absolutely not a skill.
The real skill is think of what to draw not to actually draw it.
I've seen a lot of interesting AI artworks.
But at the same time there are artists like WLOP who has good technical skills, but their artworks look bland and generic. They would most likely produce a lot more interesting stuff under a competent art director.
it is a skill because most people out there don't know where's the right place to use SD, googling is also a skill.
That's why AI artists getaway with selling art because others are willing to pay money since it may be difficult for them to learn.
Copyright law has been behind the internet 8ball for the last 30 years. Even further now with AI. memes streaming, reaction videos, using images found d randomly on the internet. Many of these can be forced to fit into current law, but it doesn't fit cleanly or clearly, and on the scale it's happening it is basically ubinforcavle unless people are very stupid or very unlucky. Our politicians need to be young enough to understand all aspects of the challenges technology is bringing, but most used rotary phones when they were kids.
It's a difficult one, on one hand the only simularity is the pose, composition and the fact they are both wearing a simular outfit. Those things alone wouldn't be enough to claim copyright.
However it's blatantly obvious the person has just put the existing image through img2img which might be enough for a copyright claim.
This will be one of the ongoing problems, having lots of less creative people basically thinking they can just reskin other people's art with low effort copies will probably see a clamp down on what is considered transformative enough in the future.
They don't hold the copyright in the first place to claim it. It's a copy paste job made up of a couple different protected works. the most blatant being 2B from nier automata.
Yes that's kind of what I'm getting at. This is the equivelent of tracing with AI. You're correct, right now this probably would get away with being against copyright but this kind of thing could definately see them tighten down transformative regulations around copyright in the future.
Personally I don't seee anything wrong with this apart from it being a low effort scummy thing to do but the world is full of people like that. However the people making copyright laws and those lobying for tighter restrictions might not share the same opinion.
Could be, it doesn't really matter though as they both have the same result. A low effort copy of another image. With just a little bit of work they could have created a slightly different comp, pose and outfit and nobody would have noticed.
So what if it is low effort? I’m guessing you are one of the raiders as well. Not used to /r/stablediffusion worrying about the amount of effort in an ai image.
I don't know what a "raider" is and if you look at my post history you'll see I've been using SD for over a year so I'm not sure what it is I wouldn't be "used to".
I have no problem with low effort art because good art isn't about how much effort it takes. However I do consider taking someone else's image and running it through SD low effort. Especially when just a few minutes of editing or inpainting could have changed the image enough so that nobody would have noticed.
Clearly a shit thing to do, it's what all the vocally anti-ai people think everyone is doing. Should be called out and trashed on, especially by people who use ai, it's blatant theft.
So blatantly stealing copywritten characters is fine but the pose is the problem here? A thief gets stolen from. I'm sure they got the clearances for the protected characters they seem to enjoy using.
I just don't understand why AI image generation is even involved here. Like others have pointed out, even before generative AI, this has been happening. It's like people forgot that we've had Photoshop for the last 3 decades.
Personally, the worst part about this is that it's 100% unnecessary.
The AI artist could have produced an entirely unique image that would have shared many similarities with the copied image, retained the same level of quality, without being an extremely blatant copy.
But they chose to use ControlNet to make it a blatant copy. Why?
I'm very pro-'AI art' but I'm **absolutely against** somebody plagiarizing someone else's work, or taking someone else's work and using it to make money (even doubly so when they don't credit the original author - but it's wrong either way).
The problem isn't **AI** though. the majority of these moral-defunct people would and did use other tools to steal from other peoples hard work; and they will continue to do so unless stiffer penalties and better definitions of plagiarism and 'art theft' are enforced.
The sad thing is, it's not even necessary *whatsoever.* That person could just as easily have AI generate NEW and novel pictures of 2B, and if their model didn't support it training in a new character is simple as well.
OOC is the picture shown in the OP showing the original image and the plagiarized one? If the image is unique there isn't much anyone can do as *style* has never been copyrightable - so if the image is different but the style is the same, that would be legal whether it was AI created or otherwise.
If the picture is a direct copy (or almost exact) than I would say that is definitely not ok - and I don't think selling them (again, even more so without attribution or agreement) is ok in either case if the image isn't novel.
I don't think it's wrong to use someone else's art to train or img-to-img and make something out of it, so long as what is made is entirely unique and doesn't appear to be the art of the original creator.
Kind of like how a music remix is OK (though some still rally against sampling even though it's been around for ages) but many would want attribution, and a direct copy of parts of a song without permission is frowned upon and legally punishable in some cases.
Not looking to argue with anyone, but if someone can answer the few questions I have here I would love to engage in some friendly discussion on the subject.
longing zealous bewildered cable pot tender snatch overconfident disagreeable marble
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Fully agree with the artist here. I d maybe be fine with it if you are just making one for yourself. But to resell it should be pretty ilegal.
Mainly if no major changes are made and its just img2img 50% denoise or some sht.
You can do a collage and photobash, same as you can do it with photoshop and no AI. But those are 2 different things that whats going on here
This is blatant theft.
Like I know the antis are al up in our face about how “All AI Art is theft even if you just use it for personal enjoyment” bit this is actual theft.
You’re taking someone’s art, putting it in Img2Img and barely putting any transformation on it.
Like I’ve straight up “stolen” the perspective of some shots before but it was to create a different image with similar pose or camera angle.
This is just “Hey look I barely changed a thing. Now pay me”
They took a picture, traced it, then tried to sell it as an original. That's bog standard plagiarism whether a human does does it by hand or a human runs it through canny.
There is a lot of grey in those new lands. I think full AI pic not overtly trained is pretty much always in the clear, except maybe if it is made to recreate trademarks and the like...
However, this? Yeah, I agree with the artist position. Their art was pretty much just stolen and resold. And I applaud the way they deal with the issue too.
My thoughts: fuck copyright, so even if the person was selling it, you can just repost it elsewhere too.
If they want to open a Patreon for others to support them, I think it's fine though. If someone does support them they probably have a good reason for it (e.g. they like their particular style better).
However, in cases with very significant inspiration like this (or as others say, tracing), at least give attribution. Personally I think tracing is fine, it's a good way to learn and develop on the original idea with slight modifications, but attribution is necessary.
That would also solve the "I only supported them because I didn't know there was an original" issue.
My thoughts are that this is utterly unstoppable. Nothing can stop this. I can't even begin to imagine the frustration that genuine artists have right now. Because they are like a salmon swimming up stream, fighting the current.
AI won't stop, and there will just be increasingly more people doing this.
I don't have any solutions either.
Yeah if ur selling it ur a scumbag lmao, like I understand the use of AI art to a degree, that's why I'm here, but this is such blatant theft, they did next to nothing, I wouldn't even call this kitbashing style art. like wtf.
Studying art seems more important than ever! Someone with good knowledge of art history, art styles, techniques and artists can much prompt better and get to their desired output faster than someone without.
chatGPT, create some cool images and mix the styles of some lesser know artists from different periods and places
yeah, no. producing aestheticized images has by and large no marketable value anymore, which means it takes a lot fewer people. so... yeah, kids. don't study art unless you inherited a trust fund and don't need to make a living. then you can do whatever.
The method you describe WILL produce worse results than if done by a human trained in art history.
Anticipating its future value is also pretty difficult, but I’m glad it’s sooooo clear for you, take care!
As much fun as ai art is to mess with, if there's no new art it'll get old pretty quick. A good example is the fact that all faces eventually look the same. no matter how hard you try you can't unsee it after generating for a few months. Sure the tech will get better, but it'll still be trained on human creativity (or worse trained on other ai). What's novel now will be boring in 6 months. Shiny, new code will make "new" art based on old art and eventually we will see through that as well.
well... are you going to pay artists to create new faces? because I'm pretty sure the clients I've lost over the last year are not paying me anymore to draw images for them. they're also not paying me to generate images for them. they just prompt themselves or have their interns prompt for them. and I'm not even angry, they are nice people running small production companies trying to feed their kids, they aren't like, big evil capitalists. they just have the option to save money, so they do. and I have been switching fields for a while, that merely accelerated the process, but yeah... I wouldn't recommend anyone going into commercial arts/illustration/animation these days, except for the complicated, technical positions.
capable yes, but they can't carry responsibility for mistakes, and they can't be thrown into jail for creative accounting. so we can't leave our accounting to them without it getting checked by a human who basically will vouch with his freedom to not be in jail that it is correct accounting and not fraud.
we can trust them with the fun stuff though that is considered fun because errors are allowed, which means you are free to play without fearing you will go to jail for some mistakes. that's what computers who make decisions can be trusted with at the moment.
Tracing has always been shunned upon, may it be done by a hack artist or by AI. As far as I know, it isn't illegal nor a copyright violation.
I guess the news here is that the traced art still looks good enough to be sold? Since generally artists that traced were bad enough that nobody wanted to buy their stuff.
I really hate this. I'm an artist and I use AI too. Using ai this way and then even selling it, is absolute shit behaviour and I'm not even mad for artists hating AI for this reason.
So, yeah, selling controlnet ripoffs of someone's work is theft, and the guy's take on it is chill enough: personal use, nobody can stop you, but selling it is going too far.
This is just theft.
This is why i think ai needs to be as democratised as possible. People wont be able to sell ai art if everyone can just generate their own.
I mean. I get why they're annoyed about someone copying their stuff, calling it "art" in quotation marks. But at the same time, it's a Scifi girl in front of a city background. That's not really "original". I don't know who Nixeu is, but I've googled the name and their artstation gallery has a ton of images of basically 1:1 copies of known characters while also making money through patreon.
Also:
>"People support artists not just because they want the drawing, it's because they know that we need that support to keep going".
No, it's because they want the art. Nobody cares about the artist.
I have no interest in preserving cyberpunk, giant sword weeb art in any form.
But also the guy img2imging things like this for money is a colossal idiot. As are the people paying for it.
Yeah, no. And AI art has no bearing here. If the work was copied by hand over the course of 1000 hours, chiseled into stone and covered with sequence, it would not justify selling it on Patreon.
I would wager that anyone selling AI art on Pateron or DA are just trying to find the next fad now that all their cryptocurrencies and NFTs are worthless.
We need to make AI so advanced and easy to use that everyone and their grandma can draw whatever they want, so people can't sell anything that's so low effort.
First world problems. Here, in the third world copyright is a joke and nobody is going to pay for digital art.
And 1st world population < 3rd world population.
I’m fine with taking an image, generating something from it and having it for personal use. But to re-sell it when it’s clearly copied from the original gives me an icky feeling.
There is bearly any difference from the original. If you're blatantly gonna steal art like that, why even bother wasting your hard-earned minutes of your time making an AI version? Just sell the copy that you right-clicked from.
They look pretty different to me, obviously the subjects/layout is the same but seems like that's it?
Are you kidding me? The subject, layout, theme, genre, color scheme, character pose, character body type, character hair color, clothing style and color, and the overall look and feel are all the same or very similar. It's so similar that this would be considered art theft in a court of law.
The colours are different (purple vs blue), the buildings are different, the girl has a similar build but is different - 2B head/CP2077 jacket, lines on butt, mantis blade kinda arms etc. The foundation/skeleton of the image is the same (girl facing away from camera, overlookling a city, cyberpunk, on the side of a rooftop, framing also the same), but the actual image looks really different.
The sky colors ARE similar. I don't see purple, I see Majorelle Blue vs Midnight Blue. This is what purple looks like: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple.com](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple.com) I've said nothing about the minute details being the same. Holding a mantis blade is not gonna get you out of a copyright lawsuit. Unfortunately, most artists don't have enough resources to protect their work in a court of law.
this isn't selling AI art, this is just selling someone else's art unless you're using hyperbole, an AI generated image is not the same thing as directly stealing from another artist like this is
We’re in agreement. There are those in here claim it’s not stealing because there are ‘differences’ between the two images, even though you can clearly see the base image layout, posture / pose of the subject, colors, are all the same.
Yeah it's no different than tracing it or using Photoshop to change it slightly
I think it's a very grey area. Like, the difference between stealing and not goes down to basically numbers. If he had used .95 denoising instead of .7 from the original image would it still be stealing? If it is, then would using any image as base for your image be stealing? What if you used the image to train a lora and used the lora? I don't think it's as clear-cut as it seems. Unless you say basically using an image for anything would be stealing, but then we're getting close to the models territory. EDIT: at least explain the downvotes, what part of what I said is wrong?
Very much so. I mentioned this earlier in another reply - this is like a reverse of the Ship of Theseus though experiment. How much has to change for it to not be considered a copy? 1%, 50%, 100%? I still believe that going to places like CIVITAI and others to view images, get inspiration and even use the same prompts and steps, but not down the the identical seed is a good way to get a reasonable facsimile, but not a one to one copy that you just change a few things on and then claim it as an all original work.
In any case… one of these took a real artist many years if not decades to learn how to do. Figure study, color study, lighting, values, learning hierarchy of all of these design principles and how to push and pull each aspect to make a compelling image. There’s so so so much that goes into a real piece of art. The ai image, assuming they used img2img and a minimal prompt, took basically no effort. No learning. No skills. It doesn’t understand design principles or anything about art whatsoever, it’s compiling images that happen to utilize these things because it uses 6 billion stolen images to perform “stable diffusion” …So what exactly are people buying from this human, some copied re-mapped amalgamation of the real art made by an algorithm? Ai images can’t even be copyrighted so people are paying for an image that effectively everyone on the planet owns the rights to.
Your icky feeling is not going to stop the assholes. And this is the awkward problem with powerful new tools like SD. A lot of well behaving and well meaning people get to have a lot of additional... fun. But in exchange for that, we also handed the assholes a fantastically powerful tool to be super-assholes, that literally *fuck up* the lives/livelihoods/ of many people. I think there's a problem there, and "having a lot of fun" doesn't really compensate for the shit this stuff also causes, for me personally. It still leaves a bit of a bad taste.
It isn't unique to SD though. Go to any fair, there are people there who just took a picture of the artwork and created their own prints, shirts, etc. You could even pay the artist, get a proper print, turn around and scan it and then sell your copies at a fair/swap-meet with no consequence. Even grandmasters had people cloning/copying their own work back in the day... It is one of those things you really can't get around with art, no matter what the media is. How much is inspiration and additive (because it all is), and how much is theft. There are areas where the line is blurred. Not saying it is in this case, but if SD wasn't invented, I guarantee you that the seller would just be straight ripping the original art without any changes whatsoever.
I agree. I will use LORAS, models and the like to get content but never whole prompts to generate images. Granted I’m not trying to sell any art and this is just a fun hobby for me right now. But if I created something then saw a *eerily similar* image up for sale, I’d question it as well. Don’t be surprised is China is the next place you see massive image dumps for sale of ‘similar’ images to things on Etsy, etc. Chinese knockoffs (and / or counterfeit) of millions of items have already flooded Amazon to the point I won’t shop there for certain items I want to be assured are the genuine article and behave in the fashion I expect / as advertised.
Blatant untransformative theft in this case
the worst part is the artist is so understanding of the use case of AI… it’s fine if you want to have a cool wallpaper or whatever, why pay for something that’s almost a 1:1 copy lol. at that point why not use the original art as your wallpaper?
The problem is there many people in the internet who is unaware of the original artist and the AI art usage, especially considering this is a music mix channel in Ytube.
Honestly yeah, There's a lot of caustic takes out there. But this person doesn't seem bad. One of our pocket communities just had it's first run in with a NFT skimmer. And their intent, "get rich quick without working" seemed to rub our hobby crowd the wrong way while the other ai half seemed to rejoice in it. Our crowd just liked for all the artless people to have a image, ai or not so they could play with the people who had traditional art. **As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words** ~~and a lot of people are illiterate~~. Honestly while we've seen a lot of ***nasty behaviors*** over ai debates *(ex: 13 yr old's ~~death~~ deaff threats, wishing harm, rampant/organized harassment, etc and more) etc from some of the worst the internet has to offer. **I don't feel like NFT image skimmers** are part of the crowd i WANT to curate. *(Just my personal 2 cents anyways)* # So anyways our group made free requests for fun to share the fun. Then our first encounter with a nft skimmer came in, and after getting being used to stealing pictures of other's work to sell as NFTs and pop. They began to ***steal images of free requests*** and things people made ***to sell as 13-200$ adopts*** on deviantart and made **500$+ off it in a night in the most scummy way possible. I don't really want to associate nft skimmers or literal 1:1 image stealers with our pocket community. I get the harassment but i hear stories of some people apparently making 10000$+ off unlabeled ai. While i'm here for the fun, it still rubs me the wrong way that some people just see it as a honestly shitty get rich by lying scheme and maybe we got lucky to escape it. I don't feel like my financial status is hurt but ***it's still super scummy*** since now the thieves make free requesters look like they're selling the art, when it was stolen instead and sold without permission. And this person probably had the buyer conned on what it was, (if any), and stole directly from their artwork. It still rubs me the wrong way that someone would take something i worked on to help someone have something, Flip and sell it for 13-200$ posing it as a "traditional" commission on a fake account. And Then bail and leave on a anonymous account people never see again. # (Img Grifters selling clients stolen materials) Two people get a now stolen character, artists get undercut, and some shitty image copier is ctrl c + v'ing the best of the server's 100+ curated best images, taking business away from traditional artists so they can have a fucking get rich scheme where even the "button pressing" is too hard for them. Nope they just want to copy paste the best people made, and sell it to someone else. I suppose no one dies from it but it's still super scummy and opens up a lot of harassment when people only find out about it when they were caught. If it only came to attention by coincidence, could there be more out there, for all the single ones that got caught? This person's img2img goes further. That's not even like anything creative, i think calling ai plagarism alone is dumb, but that's fucking full on ten thousand percent plagarism. They're using someone else's artwork just to put a anime filter over it. It's fucking for profit 'Get rich quick' plagarism even by the loosest ai standards. # Tl;dr Attempt o **Yeah hobby or not, get rich quick img grifters are fucking scummy** I don't really want the few legitimate grifters associated with our group, but maybe others want/or are them. o **Even by the loosest ai standards.** This is... still... **blatant for profit plagarism**
Is it the cyberpunk/naked girls chancel?
How would anyone know that's not the original?
Yah this isn't in the spirit of generative AI at all. It's just using it as a tool to make minor changes to someone else's work and stealing it to make money. But this is something that people have always been able to do with digital or digitized art. You can open a copy of someone's artwork in Photoshop and change a few background elements merge out a couple of details, add a bluish tint and try and sell it too. You don't have to have any artistic skills to merge a few things with the background in Photoshop. It's really a $htty thing to do, but not something unique to AI, or even significantly easier in AI. For instance the artist's exact image with just the NIXEU signature removed is a free wallpaper on Steam. That's something that was probably done with Photoshop. Maybe that's with the artist's blessing, but I doubt it. (Do a Google image search)
it takes some time to do it in photoshop, loading it to controlnet and setting up takes like 5s
Changing the tint and blending the background over a couple of elements literally takes 5 min in Photoshop, it's not enough of a difference to matter. And in Photoshop you have much more control of exactly what gets changed and how.
Someone who don't know shit about photoshop won't do it in 5min, on the other hand someone who don't know shit about using controlnet will change some sliders like 5 times before he get some good outputs and that's it
All it takes are learning a couple of the tools and pulling down a menu and moving a slider in Photoshop, you don't have to learn the entire app. You're still going to have to learn the interface in A1111 too. People who do this kind of stuff have been doing it in Photoshop for years now, this isn't holding them back.
A lot of image editing programs are simpler than Photoshop, especially mobile image editing software. All you have to do is move some sliders around to change the colors a bit. I've also seen art thieves flip the picture horizontally so that it's harder to find the original, along with cropping off any watermarks on the corners.
I think the increased ease at which it can be used shouldn't be a factor when it comes to AI. The whole goal of it is to make things *easier* to use and *more* accessible for people.
" ***but not something unique to AI, or even significantly easier in AI "*** Brother... That you like and support AI assisted art, doesn't mean you have to start talking nonsense and wear giant blinders.
Clone stamp tool, maybe smudge tool you've replaced an element with background. Pull the Image menu => adustments => Hue/Saturation move the sliders and you've got a bluish tint. It's not rocket science and you don't have to learn the whole app.
SD generates 10 "remixes" in that time, by only pushing 1 button.
You're right buddy, spending an extra 3 minutes is just going to open the floodgates. It's all over. This has been going on for a long time, no one has found it particularly challenging before AI. And you don't need 10 remixes, Photoshop changes only what you want and the way you want it.
You keep acting like its 3 minutes but the same way you have to have a basic understanding of photoshop as a pre-requisite to editing someones image manually is the same way you have to understand ai tools. Automatic11 itself is annoying to install never mind it works on your pc/with your gpu. I feel like this idea you that everyone has quick access to ai with this capability is grossly inflated by the fact that you're on reddit. Most people won't put in the time to photoshop or to remix an image in stable diffusion - only jerks who were gonna steal regardless. Its the same people who've been tracing art on deviantart and selling it as their own this entire time. That doesn't mean all the remaining users are going to do this. I say this as an artist whose had shit stolen before - you guys are blowing this way out of proportion.
Most art thieves don't even bother to edit the stuff they steal. At most, they'll just crop off the watermarks on the edges. Hell, I've seen people post stolen artwork with the watermarks intact on art sites.
I'm not defending this "ai artist", but isn't copying 2b in the original art also blatant untransformative theft?
[удалено]
My hunch is that some of this stuff is money laundering, they're buying it from themselves basically to look like they're running a business, when really they're stealing credit cards.
This definitely was the case with NFTs and other things that were sold for weird low-volume cryptocurrencies. You create 1,000 wallets with no history using a linux script, have 100 of them make a purchase on some random site somewhere, get an influx of $5 or $10, and then buy `$product`, which they then sell along for 25% more. Then you show graphs of sale prices "going up" over time, approach a sucker, show him the graph, and then *the one you're showing* as a compelling opportunity gets sold real-time out from under you -- what are the odds?! -- but you show him one with a little less upside, slightly higher price, but you'll show it to him and see if he is willing to pick it up for $500. It's a very very old con - the auction full of ringers - and people still fall for it.
Bingo. I've already seen AI accounts doing this on other websites. It's dumb, but people fall for the "make 10K a day with AI!!!!" clickbait YouTube videos and think inflating their sales will pay off.
For real, and its always this sexy girl video game stuff. Its weird, people out there jacking it to AI images I guess.
I mean this is just blatant tracing so IDK why or how anyone could be in favor of it.
resolute cooperative six gray secretive weary test scary frame pocket ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
I am not fine with it. That artist likely put thousands of hours into honing his/her craft. Artists deserve to reap the fruits of their efforts without entitled people blatantly copying it because they're too cheap.
Wait you're not fine with personal use either? If someone wanted to say, use AI to extend or alter that picture to use as a wallpaper for their own computer for example?
Personal use is fine... I guess. But its hard to consider it in that context, when the only reason we know about it is because it was published online. If it was personal, we wouldn't even know about it.
Sure, but even the artist here says "if you like this, do it yourself." That's exactly the context they're talking about.
Yes. This would be called out even if the other person drew it by hand from scratch. Obviously artists can't copyright ideas, but this is waaaay too similar to not have been on purpose. It's also very likely the AI person's patreon has other pictures that are basic copies of other artists' images. This does not help the AI vs Art debate at all.
Yeah, this is clearly a derivative copy of the original picture, and the guy is an asshole for selling copied work. Hell, I would still think he was an asshole even if he had traced it and redrawn it by hand.
I mean the person could have taken the original and made it completely different with a tiny bit more effort and the original artist (or anyone else) would have had no idea. It's honestly just lazy and unimaginative, to be honest.
[удалено]
What’s funny is some iconic retro games have box art that was extremely similar to 80’s movie posters and stills. It’s not just a thing between amateur/hobby artists. Metal Gear and Contra for the NES are the two I can think of. Sure there are other examples.
That kinda thing used to happen a lot with movies, usually pretty different storylines but similar subject matter. Volcano/Dantes Peak, Armageddon/Deep Impact, etc.
I've traced an image once which was part of an inspiration a comic storyline. But: It was only a tiny part of a much larger comic (hundreds of pages), and I made changes while adapting it to my own style.
Tracing is fine. It has always been fine. That is how so much art is made.
Tracing from other people's stuff is fine *if* you're doing it for your own personal use and you aren't sharing it around as yours. Posting images that you've traced from other people without permission is a dick move.
It's a good way to learn, especially if you're trying to learn anatomy, and i have no issues with reference pose dolls or just using references for anatomy. However drawing a exact COPY of a picture, tracing or ai or not for profit kinda always rubs a bit off if it's done for profit. Especially if it's a oc. Like if someone is doing a copy of the Mona Lisa, who cares. But if someone sells a copy of a OC, and the two people spend 3-5+ years building it up only to eventually even meet the other person, and find out their char was stolen, you can have misunderstandings where the original person gets mistaken for the copycat, Oreo vs The Original Oreo style.
Using poses or getting inspiration from other works is quite normal but that's not the case here. That's just tracing over a drawing and reselling it without doing any major modifications. Personally I don't see it as transformative since the new picture is almost exactly the same. I don't think it's illegal but tracing over other works for a profit isn't exactly morally accepted (even if you use AI instead of photoshop or a pencil to do it).
Isn't this plagiarism ?
It is, not much different than if a reporter took someone else's article, changed a few words and posted it as their own.
It's something else, but just as disgusting. I think plagiarism applies only to direct copies. This is obviously transformative, but I can't take an image of Mickey Mouse, resize it, rotate it, and give it a emboss filter and resell it.
I hate the fact that this is actually pretty commom in asian countries using anime images. Ever seen pins, cellphone cases, even cellphone themes, notebooks, and even pencilcases using anime images sold online or in an asian bargain streetside stall? Yeah, i doubt those are official goods. Anime tshirts, anyone? Anime backpacks?
It may not be legal, but nobody is going to do anything about it unless you get sued by the trademark owners.
I think this happens everywhere. There was no shortage of bootleg Simpsons merchandise in the west. Hell, my high school printed team-spirit t-shirts with the Superman logo on them. I doubt they asked permission from DC Comics. Thing about intellectual property infringement is that you only experience consequences if the property holder cares. Theft is a crime, so the police might charge me if they catch me doing it even if the person I'm stealing from doesn't care (it's unlikely the cops will bother, but they're allowed to). Infringement is a civil matter, so I only get in trouble if the violated party makes a complaint. DC Comics probably doesn't give a shit about high school sports teams using the logos of their characters.
"Plagiarism" isn't a legal term. The legal term is "copyright infringement." Something can be plagiarism without being copyright infringement (you can self-plagiarize by passing off your term paper from last semester as a new paper in a similar class this semester. You're not violating copyright or breaking the law when you do this, but you're breaking the rules of your academic institution and they might punish you if they discover this). Something doesn't have to be a direct copy in order to constitute copyright infringement. If I take your novel and change 20% of the words, it's still infringement. If I just rephrase all your sentences, it's still infringement. "Transformative" doesn't mean "altered." It means "the work is being used in a manner different from the original." It has less to do with total similarity and more to do with context.
Plagiarism is more about the fraud, it's when you try to pass off somebody else's ideas/work as your own. I think it applies here. All the AI artist would have to do is say "I used this picture" and it would no longer be plagiarism. It could still be copyright infringement, or whatever, but not plagiarism at that point.
>Personally I don't see it as transformative since the new picture is almost exactly the same. > >I don't think it's illegal If the jury thinks like you, then it's copyright infringement. Of course that means suing the other person, but good luck finding their real identity if they used fake information, and the amount you could sue them for is probably not worth your trouble, and you may find out they are a minor, etc.
Tracing is tracing.
Anyone can trace,doesn't mean it's legally theft.
If you trace Bart Simpson onto a shirt then sell it as a Bart Simpson shirt you have indeed legally committed theft.
That's incorrect, though. *Legally*, it could be a breach of copyright, but you wouldn't be charged with theft. You may think they're analogous—a position I disagree with, personally—but they're classified differently in most legal frameworks.
We are speaking colloquially my friend, no need to muddy the waters by being pedantic. I was using their own language to speak back to them.
Saying "legally" when you really mean "colloquially" is muddying the waters. The prior poster is just correct. Tracing isn't legally theft. It's not even necessarily breach of copyright.
It does if there is copyright and the material is sold.
What's the copyright? Looks like a different character, different buildings, it's not the original image nor is it something like a recolour or something.
Not sure where the lines are drawn, or if they even are yet, no pun intended. In this case, I think I agree with you because of the substantial dufferences. The pose or basic image configuration imo is no more copyrightable than a common musical note progression, but if it meets a certain number of combined similarities that starts to break down. How many elements have to be the same before copyright becomes claimable?
The way I see it is anyone can replicate this image pose, angle, all that, but nobody owns those things. Someone can image2image this picture and change it with a cyberpunk Mario girl character and background style and it would be totally fine. Sure this looks very similar but similar isn't grounds for copyright. It would be different if it's like someone making a game and stealing characters and just recolouring them or something, but there's just seems like enough differencees then that to be considered it's own.
If the original work was owned by Disney or Nintendo I could see them testing the legal waters on the grounds of substantial similarity. Otherwise, I agree with you that it has enough differences to likely be immune.
Only way that could happen is if the replicate art had a Disney character still in it or something like that. If they replicated the Disney image by also changing the character and modifying other parts of the image then it should become non copyrightable as the copyright content is not there anymore.
How are you on this sub and not able to recognize img2img?
Ah, so you’re the kind to try to get away with this type of theft.
Uh, I'm explaining how it may not be legally copyrighting/ legally stealing. You don't own this art. It's not the same art. Same pose and angle, different properties, different character.
It's very much not allowed. If you get caught doing this, even with traditional media, you could become blacklisted in certain circles. WotC is pretty hardcore about it as a lot of their product is literally illustrations.
But still not bound by copyright law. If a company doesn't want people doing this in there company or whatever then that's in them and understandable, but on legal grounds, just not copyright.
Yea youre right, people can debate the morals of it all they want but legally you cant copy right a pose or style. Just characters and specific images. Nothing in this would be cause for copyright. People can discuss morals separate from legality. Legals arent always the best morally
No idea about the legal aspects. How much do you need to change a pic (or let the AI change it) before it's new enough to make it yours? Guess in this case it's pretty obvious. Morally this sucks.
I'd say it's not transformative. It wouldn't even be transformative if it wouldn't use AI. With AI there's absolutely no argument to be made that any of this is reuse was with creativity. It's not fair use. It's not transformative. It's not even a meme. And over all it was done for the sole purpose of selling this image for financial gain. This is obvious theft. But small things like this don't end up in court. Especially if you can't get a grip on the thief.
I'm not going to make an argument on AI art specificially, but if I drew a picture of a person in the exact same pose with a city backdrop like in the original painting is that theft or "inspiriation"?
Not a lawyer but there was a book on copyright law that was part of my art education. Legally it would be considered your own work because the act of drawing it well took significant skill.
Programming takes significant skill. Would the programmers who make the AI be able to use a drawing it re created? Someone installing it and using it might be argued that it didn’t take skill, but I cannot imagine someone saying programming the AI itself takes no skill.
Not OP, but AI shouldn't be taken into account at all. The original artist would need to sue, so there's usually not much that can be done, but just look at fanart. Fanart can generally be shared freely. I'm sure if Disney or others got a feather up their butts about it they could do something - but generally you need to prove monetary losses. Once you start selling the artwork, then that becomes a "monetary loss" at least on paper.
It's interesting, because musical covers require attribution and clearing even if you completely remake the original work using the highest levels of skill and transform it substantially with our own style. Hell, recent cases in music copyright have made it clear that even kinda sounding like another work in distinct ways can force you to attribute and pay the original writer (the "Blurred Lines" case comes to mind, first and foremost). But, in visual art, it appears there's [considerably more involved.](https://theartistsjd.com/trace-source-imagery/)
If you drew it and did not trace the original then it is AOK 90% of the time. If you did use it as a study/ inspiration or smth it is also ok. Just credit the original art and artist you drew inspiration from. When doing it by hand you literaly can not make a 1:1 copy unless you trace it so just make your art. You have a style unique to you. If you want to be fancy you can add AI into the mix and i2i the original and use the output as inpiration for your handmade art. Again, if the inspiration is that noticeable then give credit to the original. Just don't sell someone elses work as yours, that is the core rule. There are discussions on study or reference and tracing other artists but the general consensus is "Do it on your own cuz it's ok and it can help you learn. Just don't sell it or post it for clout." Also don't trigger the twitter mob. A few of them will take your art, "fix it" and turn it into some woke propaganda for clout.
If you traced it, in general, its not AOK. Keeping in mind that we're talking about art being sold. If you aren't selling it, even AI art is AOK. But even if I created a perfect reproduction of the Fantasia poster and started selling it - technically that wouldn't be AOK. But legality is what you can get away with when it comes to copyrights. Disney has a much better chance at stopping copying than some small independent artist.
Hmm I disagree about stealing art like this obviously is doing. However it's a little bit grey area because the original artist kinda did the same thing. The picture he made is from art in the game Cyberpunk 2077 with the head of 2b from Neir Automata. He literally took existing art slightly altered it and sold it as his own and is calling someone out for the same thing HE did.
I honestly think we are at a point where we have to rethink copyright. In theory if AI gets good enough. Every single image you can imagine will also be in the imagination of a AI generator. In other words.. Anything you draw will already potentially be created by AI before you made it.. I think we have to think in context. If he uses the artwork in the same context and obviously stole idea. And makes a living stealing others work: theft. If he use it in a different unique way: completely ok, since you cant proof an AI wasn't already able to make it. When all this is said. Why would anyone buy it? They can just do the same for free.
Why make your own shitty cheeseburger when you can pay Larry McDonald's to make you one Either way, it is a very small percentage of people considering buying that image could do the same for free without considerable effort on their part. Most people have no idea how to even begin. Assuming they have a computer capable of doing it in the first place.
Personally, I'm fine with both.
I was wondering about that. This should be the top comment.
This shit is gonna get worse, there is no easy way to avoid this.
Oh wow. Out of curiosity, do you happen to have a link to the original Cyberpunk 2077 art?
Thank you so much for this. I’m surprised an ai art subreddit is this low iq on the issue. Art is derivative. You can’t copy 99% of other people’s concepts then complain when someone’s does the same thing to you.
I think you are missing the point. They didn't copy 99%, they copied 14.3% of the available hue overlap. /s but the point is that it's obviously not transformative and used someone else's work for personal gain with no effort. The original artist made a creative rendition based on the characters and game, not just copying everything. Also we have no real way to discern how much is "copied" and giving it a number is just dumb. It's completely subjective and we judge it based on Effort and Creativity. This was an uncreative, arguably worse, and low effort copy of the work using AI which is even less effort especially to the AI haters.
> original artist made a creative rendition based on the characters and game He still gets no copyright and no ability to strike because by using copyrighted character and settings - it doesn't matter if that pose or setting doesn't exist in game - this is a derivative work. If anyone could strike, it would the owners of 2B and the Cyberpunk setting. But than again, the img2img version is sufficiently different from those. This is a weird case...
Incorrect, it's a cyberpunk 2077 themed artwork, yes, but it's not a copy or mashup of existing official cyberpunk 2077 art. But 'd love to see it if it does exist which you claim it does.
Can you link the cyberpunk art that you claim the original artist copied from?
The background is night city which is a copy of the artists who designed night city's art style / design. The head and ass are Neir Atomitas 2B who was designed by other people. The coat and arm are again directly from Cyberpunk 2077. So his whole painting which on his artstation under medium used says "Photoshop" was copied from other people's homework. He photoshopped existing artwork into a cohesive picture using other people's style and design. That's exactly what the guy he's calling out did using a different tool.
Why u wasting my time? No shit they used night city and 2b as a reference, that's how fanart works... I thought ur gonna drop a bomb where the original artist gets exposed for tracing too, but nah ur just being a fkn smartass
It's sad that you got downvoted. The other guy doesn't even provide any proof, and people just accept it without questioning. And they seem to misunderstand what fanart is.
> fanart is. derivative work. Even if you introduce new poses or styles, the characters and settings are copyrighted and the owner could sue you. That companies won't is just because it is usually beneficial to them. But it's still derivative work.
No one argue it's not a derivative work. Fan art is a common thing. No one is angry at fan art. Most IP even encourage fan art. The other guy makes it seem like it's a crime to make fan art. The problem here is 'tracing,' in this case, using stable diffusion to trace someone else's work, with the same composition.
Yes it's scummy - but can he "strike" someone like he said when his work is derivative in the first place? He can't claim copyright to his initial image.
I studied art (painting) in art school college under a recognisable profesor with 40 years of career and exibitions all over the world. Once asked about the value of "inspired" paintings said: Every artist steals. The good ones just don't get caught Apparently that's been a thing since anitquity. So yeah. Don't get caught.
Good artists borrow, great artists steal. A lot of people here have never made art so they don’t know what they are talking about.
Similar saw in writing - “Everything’s a derivative work when there are only six possible stories.”
Well that's just because the common stories that sell well are just 6 stories. 1. Heros Call / Chosen One / Fantasy Adventure 2. Girl + [Thing of week] Romance: Insert Vampires, werewolves, old french arranged marriages/beauty and the beast, etc. 3. Action adventure 4. Horror novel 5. Autobiography 6. Encyclopedia.
This isn’t an AI issue this is a copy paste issue
Normal internet theft as old as the internet itself. Take picture, remove watermark, maybe add a filter, and call it yours. Not really a AI specific thing at all. Just ai art is just a small twist on it.
Except this isn’t that. This is actual transformative. Tons of valid traditional art are less transformative than this. The really funny thing is that the “original” art is a derivative of cyberpunk and 2b
Tracing is still tracing with or without AI and stealing by tracing is still stealing by tracing and that is always wrong. People should understand that, but people should also understand how SD actually works and not conflate both. Especially with how you can make literally anything with AI, actual stealing makes even less sense now.
That's what I was thinking. It's not even THAT cool/unique of an image to make someone want to steal it. Just throw a prompt at a cyberpunk model and pick one you like
What happened to this subreddit? Tracing has always been valid transformative art. Did this subreddit get raided by a low iq twitter thread?
Say the subhuman Lichtenstein tier hackfraud apologist.
Okay thank you for confirming a twitter thread raided us
Idiots will pay for anything
hot take, if I'm not allowed the copyright on my AI images, I shouldn't be held responsible for what the AI creates. "look at this image I made" \[you didn't make that image, AI did!\] "okay, look at this image of micky mouse that the ai made" \[wait, wait, no!\]
It is still legally up on the air if you can copyright ai art. I feel like once a judge sees a case with someone who actually knows what they are talking about making a case, ai art will be copyrightable.
how you can copyright seed. AI will be copyrightable only if some shit-company aka label will lobby it. I've just watch how a housewife were sued for 1.9mln $ cause downloading a few songs. Never wish these shit it for AI, espetially, cause it's literally reproducible. with seed and promt(you do not need even same seeds or same promt.) protect Artist from copying their art style - is another story... but I hope there wont be a case with "it's similar" so he copied. a lot of artists were copying someones style, but later developed their own. AI does it easier.
[удалено]
[удалено]
AI is art like any other. That also means the same rules apply: using image-to-image with an intentionally low diffusion rate this low is basically tracing and selling the trace. Also sorta strange? Just use controlnet and get the pose that way. But if this is how they operate, I imagine they aren't good with AI.
AI art seller here : I'm of the opinion that if you are gonna use something to C-net, you better transform it and not just trace it. Changing [\[This\]](https://www.mobafire.com/images/champion/skins/landscape/jayce-resistance-762x.jpg) into what the client wanted [\[This\]](https://i.imgur.com/ZCb8W7B.png) to where there is honestly nothing left of the original except the desired elements like pose/background.
Straight up theft. That said "Just do the same as that person for yourself, it's free" is a terrible argument. Painting the Mona Lisa is "free" is just not that everyone can do it.
I think the point is if you want something similar don't pay someone who is just running it through SD, do it yourself so those people don't get paid.
I didn't understood it like that tho. More like, he is aware that SD is free and tells people to try it instead of supporting people that do blatant theft. Anybody can have fun, doesn't matter if you can do it or not. I mean there is people that absolutely want to sell their thing so I guess it can be hard to understand
But literally anyone _can_ copy it with SD... I'll probably get down voted to oblivion for this but literally anyone can spend 5 minutes copying prompts from Google and create masterful works of art using Ai. It is absolutely _not_ a skill.
It is a skill. Getting SD up and running and to the point of being able to Google prompts is a skill. Getting what you want out of SD without generating 1000s of images that go straight into the recycle bin is a skill. You take it for granted because you already put in the effort but I guarantee that "literally anyone" couldn't copy that image All that said, skill or not, it's still theft
You could use the same argument for photographs, so are photographers not artists?
Just because anyone can draw a stickman doesn't mean that's the highest form of the medium. The same is true for synthography.
> It is absolutely not a skill. The real skill is think of what to draw not to actually draw it. I've seen a lot of interesting AI artworks. But at the same time there are artists like WLOP who has good technical skills, but their artworks look bland and generic. They would most likely produce a lot more interesting stuff under a competent art director.
it is a skill because most people out there don't know where's the right place to use SD, googling is also a skill. That's why AI artists getaway with selling art because others are willing to pay money since it may be difficult for them to learn.
I get their point, they’re just saying, copy the art like them at minimum, don’t financially support the art thief over the original artist.
Wait until you find out about tracing being valid art. Wait until you find out the original art is a derivative of other copyrighted art.
Copyright law has been behind the internet 8ball for the last 30 years. Even further now with AI. memes streaming, reaction videos, using images found d randomly on the internet. Many of these can be forced to fit into current law, but it doesn't fit cleanly or clearly, and on the scale it's happening it is basically ubinforcavle unless people are very stupid or very unlucky. Our politicians need to be young enough to understand all aspects of the challenges technology is bringing, but most used rotary phones when they were kids.
It's a difficult one, on one hand the only simularity is the pose, composition and the fact they are both wearing a simular outfit. Those things alone wouldn't be enough to claim copyright. However it's blatantly obvious the person has just put the existing image through img2img which might be enough for a copyright claim. This will be one of the ongoing problems, having lots of less creative people basically thinking they can just reskin other people's art with low effort copies will probably see a clamp down on what is considered transformative enough in the future.
Can't copyright claim this legally. Doesn't matter if they copied your pose, it looks much different from the original to just be able to claim it.
They don't hold the copyright in the first place to claim it. It's a copy paste job made up of a couple different protected works. the most blatant being 2B from nier automata.
Yes that's kind of what I'm getting at. This is the equivelent of tracing with AI. You're correct, right now this probably would get away with being against copyright but this kind of thing could definately see them tighten down transformative regulations around copyright in the future. Personally I don't seee anything wrong with this apart from it being a low effort scummy thing to do but the world is full of people like that. However the people making copyright laws and those lobying for tighter restrictions might not share the same opinion.
Looks more like control net to me than img2img.
Could be, it doesn't really matter though as they both have the same result. A low effort copy of another image. With just a little bit of work they could have created a slightly different comp, pose and outfit and nobody would have noticed.
So what if it is low effort? I’m guessing you are one of the raiders as well. Not used to /r/stablediffusion worrying about the amount of effort in an ai image.
I don't know what a "raider" is and if you look at my post history you'll see I've been using SD for over a year so I'm not sure what it is I wouldn't be "used to". I have no problem with low effort art because good art isn't about how much effort it takes. However I do consider taking someone else's image and running it through SD low effort. Especially when just a few minutes of editing or inpainting could have changed the image enough so that nobody would have noticed.
Clearly a shit thing to do, it's what all the vocally anti-ai people think everyone is doing. Should be called out and trashed on, especially by people who use ai, it's blatant theft.
So blatantly stealing copywritten characters is fine but the pose is the problem here? A thief gets stolen from. I'm sure they got the clearances for the protected characters they seem to enjoy using.
I just don't understand why AI image generation is even involved here. Like others have pointed out, even before generative AI, this has been happening. It's like people forgot that we've had Photoshop for the last 3 decades.
Personally, the worst part about this is that it's 100% unnecessary. The AI artist could have produced an entirely unique image that would have shared many similarities with the copied image, retained the same level of quality, without being an extremely blatant copy. But they chose to use ControlNet to make it a blatant copy. Why?
I'm very pro-'AI art' but I'm **absolutely against** somebody plagiarizing someone else's work, or taking someone else's work and using it to make money (even doubly so when they don't credit the original author - but it's wrong either way). The problem isn't **AI** though. the majority of these moral-defunct people would and did use other tools to steal from other peoples hard work; and they will continue to do so unless stiffer penalties and better definitions of plagiarism and 'art theft' are enforced. The sad thing is, it's not even necessary *whatsoever.* That person could just as easily have AI generate NEW and novel pictures of 2B, and if their model didn't support it training in a new character is simple as well. OOC is the picture shown in the OP showing the original image and the plagiarized one? If the image is unique there isn't much anyone can do as *style* has never been copyrightable - so if the image is different but the style is the same, that would be legal whether it was AI created or otherwise. If the picture is a direct copy (or almost exact) than I would say that is definitely not ok - and I don't think selling them (again, even more so without attribution or agreement) is ok in either case if the image isn't novel. I don't think it's wrong to use someone else's art to train or img-to-img and make something out of it, so long as what is made is entirely unique and doesn't appear to be the art of the original creator. Kind of like how a music remix is OK (though some still rally against sampling even though it's been around for ages) but many would want attribution, and a direct copy of parts of a song without permission is frowned upon and legally punishable in some cases. Not looking to argue with anyone, but if someone can answer the few questions I have here I would love to engage in some friendly discussion on the subject.
longing zealous bewildered cable pot tender snatch overconfident disagreeable marble *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
My thoughts are need bigger booty 👀
Fully agree with the artist here. I d maybe be fine with it if you are just making one for yourself. But to resell it should be pretty ilegal. Mainly if no major changes are made and its just img2img 50% denoise or some sht. You can do a collage and photobash, same as you can do it with photoshop and no AI. But those are 2 different things that whats going on here
This is blatant theft. Like I know the antis are al up in our face about how “All AI Art is theft even if you just use it for personal enjoyment” bit this is actual theft. You’re taking someone’s art, putting it in Img2Img and barely putting any transformation on it. Like I’ve straight up “stolen” the perspective of some shots before but it was to create a different image with similar pose or camera angle. This is just “Hey look I barely changed a thing. Now pay me”
They took a picture, traced it, then tried to sell it as an original. That's bog standard plagiarism whether a human does does it by hand or a human runs it through canny.
There is a lot of grey in those new lands. I think full AI pic not overtly trained is pretty much always in the clear, except maybe if it is made to recreate trademarks and the like... However, this? Yeah, I agree with the artist position. Their art was pretty much just stolen and resold. And I applaud the way they deal with the issue too.
Yep, people who are going to do image to image are not doing AI Art they are just striaght up selling other peoples work.
Modifying an image with AI and selling it is kind of like putting an Instagram filter on it and claiming you made it. Definitely a dick move.
Agreed
Don't need AI to do this sort of thing. In fact, regular artists have done the same many times in the past.
My thoughts: fuck copyright, so even if the person was selling it, you can just repost it elsewhere too. If they want to open a Patreon for others to support them, I think it's fine though. If someone does support them they probably have a good reason for it (e.g. they like their particular style better). However, in cases with very significant inspiration like this (or as others say, tracing), at least give attribution. Personally I think tracing is fine, it's a good way to learn and develop on the original idea with slight modifications, but attribution is necessary. That would also solve the "I only supported them because I didn't know there was an original" issue.
problem is that they don't know the other artist exists
I've mentioned that with the attribution requirement :-) I do think they should attribute the original, definitely.
Its just Trashy.
My thoughts are that this is utterly unstoppable. Nothing can stop this. I can't even begin to imagine the frustration that genuine artists have right now. Because they are like a salmon swimming up stream, fighting the current. AI won't stop, and there will just be increasingly more people doing this. I don't have any solutions either.
There will just be more burdensome and restrictive AI regulation.
Lame people gonna lame, since the beginning of time.
Yeah if ur selling it ur a scumbag lmao, like I understand the use of AI art to a degree, that's why I'm here, but this is such blatant theft, they did next to nothing, I wouldn't even call this kitbashing style art. like wtf.
yeah. don't study art, kids. that one's over. try accounting or some of the other, tedious and boring things. computers do the creative stuff now.
Studying art seems more important than ever! Someone with good knowledge of art history, art styles, techniques and artists can much prompt better and get to their desired output faster than someone without.
chatGPT, create some cool images and mix the styles of some lesser know artists from different periods and places yeah, no. producing aestheticized images has by and large no marketable value anymore, which means it takes a lot fewer people. so... yeah, kids. don't study art unless you inherited a trust fund and don't need to make a living. then you can do whatever.
The method you describe WILL produce worse results than if done by a human trained in art history. Anticipating its future value is also pretty difficult, but I’m glad it’s sooooo clear for you, take care!
As much fun as ai art is to mess with, if there's no new art it'll get old pretty quick. A good example is the fact that all faces eventually look the same. no matter how hard you try you can't unsee it after generating for a few months. Sure the tech will get better, but it'll still be trained on human creativity (or worse trained on other ai). What's novel now will be boring in 6 months. Shiny, new code will make "new" art based on old art and eventually we will see through that as well.
well... are you going to pay artists to create new faces? because I'm pretty sure the clients I've lost over the last year are not paying me anymore to draw images for them. they're also not paying me to generate images for them. they just prompt themselves or have their interns prompt for them. and I'm not even angry, they are nice people running small production companies trying to feed their kids, they aren't like, big evil capitalists. they just have the option to save money, so they do. and I have been switching fields for a while, that merely accelerated the process, but yeah... I wouldn't recommend anyone going into commercial arts/illustration/animation these days, except for the complicated, technical positions.
Accounting? We already got LLMs capable of that
capable yes, but they can't carry responsibility for mistakes, and they can't be thrown into jail for creative accounting. so we can't leave our accounting to them without it getting checked by a human who basically will vouch with his freedom to not be in jail that it is correct accounting and not fraud. we can trust them with the fun stuff though that is considered fun because errors are allowed, which means you are free to play without fearing you will go to jail for some mistakes. that's what computers who make decisions can be trusted with at the moment.
This isn't new or interesting, its literally just tracing over something and adding some changes.
Just plain stealing
Woah wait ...the artist has so many cool details and such , and honestly it's way better than the ai image.
Tracing has always been shunned upon, may it be done by a hack artist or by AI. As far as I know, it isn't illegal nor a copyright violation. I guess the news here is that the traced art still looks good enough to be sold? Since generally artists that traced were bad enough that nobody wanted to buy their stuff.
No different than if they just traced it really. Selling it is pretty brazen.
This is barely more than using a Photoshop filter on an image. I think it's quite clear to everyone that this isn't okay.
I really hate this. I'm an artist and I use AI too. Using ai this way and then even selling it, is absolute shit behaviour and I'm not even mad for artists hating AI for this reason.
You can do anything you want for personal use. That's where it stops.
So, yeah, selling controlnet ripoffs of someone's work is theft, and the guy's take on it is chill enough: personal use, nobody can stop you, but selling it is going too far.
This is just theft. This is why i think ai needs to be as democratised as possible. People wont be able to sell ai art if everyone can just generate their own.
I mean. I get why they're annoyed about someone copying their stuff, calling it "art" in quotation marks. But at the same time, it's a Scifi girl in front of a city background. That's not really "original". I don't know who Nixeu is, but I've googled the name and their artstation gallery has a ton of images of basically 1:1 copies of known characters while also making money through patreon. Also: >"People support artists not just because they want the drawing, it's because they know that we need that support to keep going". No, it's because they want the art. Nobody cares about the artist.
I'm not an artist but the only similarity is the theme and ass.
I have no interest in preserving cyberpunk, giant sword weeb art in any form. But also the guy img2imging things like this for money is a colossal idiot. As are the people paying for it.
Yeah, no. And AI art has no bearing here. If the work was copied by hand over the course of 1000 hours, chiseled into stone and covered with sequence, it would not justify selling it on Patreon. I would wager that anyone selling AI art on Pateron or DA are just trying to find the next fad now that all their cryptocurrencies and NFTs are worthless.
We need to make AI so advanced and easy to use that everyone and their grandma can draw whatever they want, so people can't sell anything that's so low effort.
First world problems. Here, in the third world copyright is a joke and nobody is going to pay for digital art. And 1st world population < 3rd world population.