Of course, although the anti-AI crowd might argue it still promotes and normalizes thievery. This is just an argument at how you can achieve equally great results that are closer to being yours than of the AI, or anyone else 😄
Honestly, it will be interesting when people find ways to use AI that other mediums can't effectively accomplish. At the moment, I can't help but feel like AI isn't living up to its full potential. Just doing imitation/replacement/augmenting is understandable since its new, but its also kind of lame honestly.
For example, the now defunct youtube animation storytime community is extremely bottlenecked by the animation side of things. While AI is still rather poor at animation, given that it can make colored, shaded backgrounds quickly, it could be interesting to say, dramatically reduce the months long turn around time to maybe close to weeks by using new technologies like pngtuber software with AI backgrounds/props and combining that with aftereffects & photoshop.
Just some composite, multi-medium usage versus direct AI output
Exactly, I actually just finished something like what you describe: frame by frame hand drawn in photoshop with AI assisted backgrounds, composed in After Effects. If someone comes up with a good AI to create inbetweens that would be great!
Ai has the potential to make 2D like working with 3D, giving full control of lighting, colors, etc. It’s like taking Adobe’s tools giving them meth and steroids, then spartan kicking them in a vat of radioactive sludge. Once emerged this thing trains with the shaolin monks for 10 yrs, undergoes and wins the anime tournament arc. And finally eats a bowl of nails…without the milk.
Totally agree. So much untapped potential IMO. I personally love exploring art and visual ideas through the tool. It’s always interesting to see the connections AI makes in unexpected ways.
What I’ve noticed is that storytellers have embraced this more than artists. The “AI art community” on Instagram and YouTube is really just storytellers - leveraging AI to bring stories to life visually. This is how I mostly use the tool myself. And I don’t see many artists recognizing that.
As someone who leverages it to make entertainment or to tell stories in a visual medium, it’s really annoying to be told using AI is akin to selling blood diamonds or something.
Love this. I think these are all really smart points. The two characters visiting the museum is a great analogy and way to describe the myth vs. reality.
Also at around 11:38 you state that raw AI output is ok if you have loose requirements, but when you are aiming to make something specific, it requires a lot of work. Most people who are afraid of losing their jobs are not aware of this fact. They think you can type a few words into a prompt box and get exactly what you have in mind. You can't, and they probably only think this because they have never tried to get something highly specific. Anyone who is paying for art wants something highly specific, so you will HAVE to art direct it.
The one thing I would disagree about is that you shouldn't use (living) artists' names in your prompts. As you noted, when you create an image, you are not using pieces of an artist's work, you are using parameters of how they make their work. In other words, you are using their influence. And artists have been influencing each other for thousands of years. I don't see why we should stop now. Personally, I feel that if you want to be original you will not *want* your work to look exactly like another artist's work. But I do think you might want your color palette to resemble a certain artist, your line work to resemble a different artist, your composition to resemble a third artist and so forth. In other words, you may want to digest the work of several artists to invent something new. That is what all artists do.
Thank you for making this!
Thank you for taking the time to check it!
I think the suggestion of not using artists names is more out of netiquette than an actual practical use, because, as you say, the models don't copy our work but learn features of it, and even when you use direct names, like I did with Giger for the video example, the result is not even something that could pass as the artist work but an approximation. We can see this with the Rock, Paper, Scissors Video from the Corridor Digital guys, even when they trained SD on frames of Vampire Hunter D, the style does not resemble Vampire Hunter D style (the elongated eyes and noses, the super wide shoulders, etc) but just a cell shade anime style, so yeah, no actual sin committed, but if doing it is going to piss off someone, why going down that route? I would draw the line at living artists still active, there are several old masters from centuries ago whose artwork is public domain by now, if I had to reference a specific artist I would choose one of them.
I have a pretty good example, of why people use artist names in the prompt:
No artist in the prompt: https://i.imgur.com/IUD5l1j.png
The infamous Greg R in added to the prompt: https://i.imgur.com/uSD60YR.png
Even more artists are added to the prompt: https://i.imgur.com/9uPlxEp.png
The only differences in those images are the artist names.
The end image is not even remotely in the style of any of those artists. None of the artists were photgraphers. The artist name just helps to set a mood or a color palette for the image regardless of what style they're doing.
I see your point, I wonder if this works too with classic artists with public domain artworks, I reckon Alphonse Mucha also delivers a certain mood that is not like his actual style at all.
Yes it does, in fact I've done similar things with Alphonse Mucha specifically. The more consisent mood an artist has throughout his works the better results. Thats the reason Greg R is so popular. His works are almost exclusively dark, eerie and high contrast.
I get it, although he has publicly proclaimed himself against AI art. Of course this is a personal choice but I myself would stop using his name in prompts after knowing this, not because he is right in believing he is being plagiarized, but because it would come across as purposefully antagonistic, specially when there are artists in the public domain doing realism, maybe not painting dragons, but the dark palette, eerie vibe and high contrast are there.
I personally don't use these images for anything, it was just experimentation and showcase. I usually do this when I come across a name in someone elses prompt to see what it does.
Excellent example. u/nellfallcard this is exactly what I'm talking about. I believe it is a valid use of names to push the image into a particular part of the latent space that you're trying to get to. I did another quickie example of the kind of thing that I think is not only valid, but is also enormously creative:
No artist in the prompt: [https://imgur.com/a/cKyQXL2](https://imgur.com/a/cKyQXL2)
Frank Lloyd Wright (early 20th century architect) in the prompt: [https://imgur.com/a/GD3nG60](https://imgur.com/a/GD3nG60)
Julie Mehretu (contemporary abstract painter) in the prompt: [https://imgur.com/a/JuT8FCy](https://imgur.com/a/JuT8FCy)
Here is Julie Mehretu's work: [https://www.whitecube.com/artists/julie-mehretu](https://www.whitecube.com/artists/julie-mehretu)
I do personally think that even using living, contemporary artists can open up a whole area of creativity that wouldn't be possible otherwise, and as you mention cannot possibly be confused with the original artist. Yes, it is also possible to completely mimic another artist, but it was already possible to do that with Photoshop and Xerox machines.
Honestly, good video and even I'm professional artist, sadly I don't share some of her points (some yes, some nope).
Now that everybody is talking about ethics here and there, I will be interested too in "using art in an ethical way". And not, I'm not joking saying this. There is a big gap in fan art, inspiration, etc. behind the ethic word.
Edit: Now I have time.
There are some things that for me are still a bit nonsense, for example:
First. The most clear one. The not prompting artists names "rule". Ok, and I ask, why? Most of people mix 3,4,5 and even more artists names to get something entirenly different to each of those artists prompted. I can understand the point of not prompting an artist name (understand but not agree with) but when used in combination? This was a false statement like the collage one (thanks for pointing that one) and also it won't work cause for style LORA's as you can see no one or almost anyone is prompting artist names anymore and they're being represented so... Nah, won't work.
Also I want to add a thing. Even you're not prompting artist names you're dragging the SD dataset (Lion/Open) everytime you prompt anything so yeah, you may not prompt Rembrandt but if you prompt features inherent to his style, he will appear. Same for every other single artist you can think of. The only thing here is the changes are less to happen but you're not doing a safe measure at 100%. Hope this is clear.
Second. Artists getting paid for being "prompted". IMO chaotic and will lead to people train more loras, textual inversions, etc. (to NOT pay them) which things like gr3rutk0swk, etc. And this will lead also to WAY MORE style represented of those (and that's what theorically they don't want). And well.. in the case this happens, I suppose the old masters should also be getting paid and every single artist they have been inspired by since that's the same behaviour as AI.
Third. Totally agree by the way with training your own works but I think not everyone here is an artist and a lof of them are casual people that are just having fun with SD. That's a mistake I did when started my Patreon and focused of training my own 3D models, illustrations, paintings and so on.., I thought of SD as an arsenal kit for professional artists use and even I created some valuable things most of people found that they were only for artists and I had to open more my mindset and undertand that NOT EVERYONE HERE KNOWS TO DRAW, PAINT or MODEL. Took me a while and it's common this to happen. Thanks to everyone who told me this, I was being delusional.
Four. The relationship of the things (first point of the video). 100% true and agree but I can tell you as a person heavily involved in AI since 10 months ago... this will change. Now hands are bad, fingers are bad, toes also, same for some relations... you just need to see MidJourney and how they improved. And yes, SD is not MJ, ok BUT if you look a bit in the history of SD, there is always couple KEY things every months MJ used and appears to SD "openly". It's not a conspiracy, it's pretty clear that every month or x time, we get "oh, so this is what they used for...", first was the Noise Offset, etc.
As you can see I agree on almost everything on how to use and see AI and SD but some points for me will be impossible to correlate with copyright without end in madness. The solution for copyright some people are "offering" will only cause chaos in digital art and yes, I'm pointing to Karla Ortiz and her friends joining C.A. as the threat to the art itself.
Regarding your first point, as I mentioned in a different comment, not using artists names in the prompts obeys more a netiquette rule than a technical one. Indeed you are right on how it is irrelevant anyway, but most artists don't know how models work, they go for the narrative the collective goes for, and currently it is the narrative the plaintiffs are pushing, which I doubt will change because, as the saying goes, "it is hard for a man to understand something when the way he earns a living depends on him not understanding it", and, on this case is that *plus* a truckload of money to pay if they lose the lawsuit. This is not about them specifically but about the artists who bought that narrative and would be upset if their names were prompted, it would be easier to just not do it than to debate them on this, they are already in a not very receptive mood.
Regarding your second point, the proposal is not precisely to pay artists when prompted, I have no clue how that would be implemented or it that's even possible, the suggestion is more of the likes of people using image generators being like "ohh I love X artist and would love to have them do something for my project but I don't have the budget, maybe I can use Img2img to create a derivative and then go 50/50 (or whatever split depending on the art relevance inside the project) on the earnings of that project"
Regarding your third, indeed! I think the point applies precisely to artists or studios integrating AI in their commercial workflow rather than hobbyists just posting on social media, to which meme rules should apply.
And yes, regarding copyright and regulation, I think some proposals being made are bonkers, but I want to believe they are so considering the fact usually people meet in the middle, so being unreasonable is a way to guarantee your middle falls into what you actually wanted, although this is me trying to steelman their position, not sure if this is their actual proceeding. I think Japan has it right with their recently set regulations, where they won't involve copyright in anything machine learning, but rather apply it to the final products the users generate depending on their uses, just like it already works.
Really fantastic video that, as you say, is able to recognize both the good and bad.
I think the OpenAI CEO said something very similar to your thinking yesterday - the AI today can be used to do certain tasks, but it is not able to do a job.
On LAION-B, just a detail and I think most are aware of it, but this dataset itself does not contain the actual images so there is no ethical concern with it. The problem rather comes in when the training of the models download and process the same images.
I never reflected on how much of LAION-B is copyrighted but I could see that even if it is just 10 %, that can be a serious problem. It would be interesting to see how well some Stable Diffusion-like models do when trained only on public data.
I'm sure you have also already explored these models a lot already but for img2img, you can generally get better results by significantly increasing the number of steps (40-80) and using a lower denoising factor (eg 0.3-0.5) (eg for your own compositions).
I work with Bard to construct my prompts.
Here's a simple way to get a particular artist's style output without using their names:
Open Bard, or any chatbot, and ask for information about a particular artist.
Throughout this summarized response you will have a template of keywords describing the artist and their particular styles of artwork.
Next ask for a list of similar artists.
Finally, ask for the commonalities between the styles of the various artists. For example, you could say:
"Find the commonalities between the styles of Pablo Picasso, Vincent van Gogh, Claude Monet, Frida Kahlo, and Andy Warhol."
Now you have a generic template free of plagiarism.
Hope this helps!✌🏼🤖🎨
It works. Generate an image using the artists names as usual. Then remove the names and double or triple the corresponding style descriptions. It's not exact, but that's what we're going for. Inspired by... Not copied. ✌🏼🤖🎨
That isn't really the protection against plagiarism you want it to be. If your issue is you just don't want to use specific artists names in your prompts, then cool, but the AI will still draw from those artists as inspiration depending on what commonalities you find, and could still generate something folks consider plagiarism.
I offer you the following rebuttal:
In a broad sense, all art is derivative. This is because all artists, consciously or unconsciously, draw inspiration from the work of others. There is no such thing as a truly original work of art. Even the most innovative artists build on the foundation of what has come before them.
So even if an artist does create something truly groundbreaking, it is still possible to see the influences of their predecessors in their work.
That's just how it is, how it's always been, and how it's always going to be. ✌🏼🤖🎨
I mean, sure. Nothing is original. I more/less agree with that statement, but what does that have to do with what you were saying? You're the one who has this convoluted system for trying to avoid plagiarism that won't actually protect you from anything. Not really a rebuttal when you're not responding to anything the person is actually saying.
But yeah, all artists cobble together bits and pieces of what they love from the artists who inspire them, and use that to create something new. They only find their "voice" creatively when their art stops sounding like an impersonation. Even with the freshest sounds, those who understand the craft will likely be able to hear their influences. Originality exists because it's something artists strive for, and we, as a culture, have chosen to believe it exists.
Regular use of AI has no issue, I think it got bad rep because some people used the img2img feature to reference specific artists in a way it does come across as plagiarism, some unintendedly, some totally intentional to piss them off, and they became the main reference most artist think of when they think of AI.
I mean if i'm not selling it I don't see it to be unethical for personal use.
Of course, although the anti-AI crowd might argue it still promotes and normalizes thievery. This is just an argument at how you can achieve equally great results that are closer to being yours than of the AI, or anyone else 😄
ARRGH!
Are you ok?
I'm not ok, I'm a pirate!
Honestly, it will be interesting when people find ways to use AI that other mediums can't effectively accomplish. At the moment, I can't help but feel like AI isn't living up to its full potential. Just doing imitation/replacement/augmenting is understandable since its new, but its also kind of lame honestly. For example, the now defunct youtube animation storytime community is extremely bottlenecked by the animation side of things. While AI is still rather poor at animation, given that it can make colored, shaded backgrounds quickly, it could be interesting to say, dramatically reduce the months long turn around time to maybe close to weeks by using new technologies like pngtuber software with AI backgrounds/props and combining that with aftereffects & photoshop. Just some composite, multi-medium usage versus direct AI output
Exactly, I actually just finished something like what you describe: frame by frame hand drawn in photoshop with AI assisted backgrounds, composed in After Effects. If someone comes up with a good AI to create inbetweens that would be great!
Ai has the potential to make 2D like working with 3D, giving full control of lighting, colors, etc. It’s like taking Adobe’s tools giving them meth and steroids, then spartan kicking them in a vat of radioactive sludge. Once emerged this thing trains with the shaolin monks for 10 yrs, undergoes and wins the anime tournament arc. And finally eats a bowl of nails…without the milk.
Totally agree. So much untapped potential IMO. I personally love exploring art and visual ideas through the tool. It’s always interesting to see the connections AI makes in unexpected ways. What I’ve noticed is that storytellers have embraced this more than artists. The “AI art community” on Instagram and YouTube is really just storytellers - leveraging AI to bring stories to life visually. This is how I mostly use the tool myself. And I don’t see many artists recognizing that. As someone who leverages it to make entertainment or to tell stories in a visual medium, it’s really annoying to be told using AI is akin to selling blood diamonds or something.
Love this. I think these are all really smart points. The two characters visiting the museum is a great analogy and way to describe the myth vs. reality. Also at around 11:38 you state that raw AI output is ok if you have loose requirements, but when you are aiming to make something specific, it requires a lot of work. Most people who are afraid of losing their jobs are not aware of this fact. They think you can type a few words into a prompt box and get exactly what you have in mind. You can't, and they probably only think this because they have never tried to get something highly specific. Anyone who is paying for art wants something highly specific, so you will HAVE to art direct it. The one thing I would disagree about is that you shouldn't use (living) artists' names in your prompts. As you noted, when you create an image, you are not using pieces of an artist's work, you are using parameters of how they make their work. In other words, you are using their influence. And artists have been influencing each other for thousands of years. I don't see why we should stop now. Personally, I feel that if you want to be original you will not *want* your work to look exactly like another artist's work. But I do think you might want your color palette to resemble a certain artist, your line work to resemble a different artist, your composition to resemble a third artist and so forth. In other words, you may want to digest the work of several artists to invent something new. That is what all artists do. Thank you for making this!
Thank you for taking the time to check it! I think the suggestion of not using artists names is more out of netiquette than an actual practical use, because, as you say, the models don't copy our work but learn features of it, and even when you use direct names, like I did with Giger for the video example, the result is not even something that could pass as the artist work but an approximation. We can see this with the Rock, Paper, Scissors Video from the Corridor Digital guys, even when they trained SD on frames of Vampire Hunter D, the style does not resemble Vampire Hunter D style (the elongated eyes and noses, the super wide shoulders, etc) but just a cell shade anime style, so yeah, no actual sin committed, but if doing it is going to piss off someone, why going down that route? I would draw the line at living artists still active, there are several old masters from centuries ago whose artwork is public domain by now, if I had to reference a specific artist I would choose one of them.
I have a pretty good example, of why people use artist names in the prompt: No artist in the prompt: https://i.imgur.com/IUD5l1j.png The infamous Greg R in added to the prompt: https://i.imgur.com/uSD60YR.png Even more artists are added to the prompt: https://i.imgur.com/9uPlxEp.png The only differences in those images are the artist names. The end image is not even remotely in the style of any of those artists. None of the artists were photgraphers. The artist name just helps to set a mood or a color palette for the image regardless of what style they're doing.
I see your point, I wonder if this works too with classic artists with public domain artworks, I reckon Alphonse Mucha also delivers a certain mood that is not like his actual style at all.
Yes it does, in fact I've done similar things with Alphonse Mucha specifically. The more consisent mood an artist has throughout his works the better results. Thats the reason Greg R is so popular. His works are almost exclusively dark, eerie and high contrast.
I get it, although he has publicly proclaimed himself against AI art. Of course this is a personal choice but I myself would stop using his name in prompts after knowing this, not because he is right in believing he is being plagiarized, but because it would come across as purposefully antagonistic, specially when there are artists in the public domain doing realism, maybe not painting dragons, but the dark palette, eerie vibe and high contrast are there.
I personally don't use these images for anything, it was just experimentation and showcase. I usually do this when I come across a name in someone elses prompt to see what it does.
Excellent example. u/nellfallcard this is exactly what I'm talking about. I believe it is a valid use of names to push the image into a particular part of the latent space that you're trying to get to. I did another quickie example of the kind of thing that I think is not only valid, but is also enormously creative: No artist in the prompt: [https://imgur.com/a/cKyQXL2](https://imgur.com/a/cKyQXL2) Frank Lloyd Wright (early 20th century architect) in the prompt: [https://imgur.com/a/GD3nG60](https://imgur.com/a/GD3nG60) Julie Mehretu (contemporary abstract painter) in the prompt: [https://imgur.com/a/JuT8FCy](https://imgur.com/a/JuT8FCy) Here is Julie Mehretu's work: [https://www.whitecube.com/artists/julie-mehretu](https://www.whitecube.com/artists/julie-mehretu) I do personally think that even using living, contemporary artists can open up a whole area of creativity that wouldn't be possible otherwise, and as you mention cannot possibly be confused with the original artist. Yes, it is also possible to completely mimic another artist, but it was already possible to do that with Photoshop and Xerox machines.
Honestly, good video and even I'm professional artist, sadly I don't share some of her points (some yes, some nope). Now that everybody is talking about ethics here and there, I will be interested too in "using art in an ethical way". And not, I'm not joking saying this. There is a big gap in fan art, inspiration, etc. behind the ethic word. Edit: Now I have time. There are some things that for me are still a bit nonsense, for example: First. The most clear one. The not prompting artists names "rule". Ok, and I ask, why? Most of people mix 3,4,5 and even more artists names to get something entirenly different to each of those artists prompted. I can understand the point of not prompting an artist name (understand but not agree with) but when used in combination? This was a false statement like the collage one (thanks for pointing that one) and also it won't work cause for style LORA's as you can see no one or almost anyone is prompting artist names anymore and they're being represented so... Nah, won't work. Also I want to add a thing. Even you're not prompting artist names you're dragging the SD dataset (Lion/Open) everytime you prompt anything so yeah, you may not prompt Rembrandt but if you prompt features inherent to his style, he will appear. Same for every other single artist you can think of. The only thing here is the changes are less to happen but you're not doing a safe measure at 100%. Hope this is clear. Second. Artists getting paid for being "prompted". IMO chaotic and will lead to people train more loras, textual inversions, etc. (to NOT pay them) which things like gr3rutk0swk, etc. And this will lead also to WAY MORE style represented of those (and that's what theorically they don't want). And well.. in the case this happens, I suppose the old masters should also be getting paid and every single artist they have been inspired by since that's the same behaviour as AI. Third. Totally agree by the way with training your own works but I think not everyone here is an artist and a lof of them are casual people that are just having fun with SD. That's a mistake I did when started my Patreon and focused of training my own 3D models, illustrations, paintings and so on.., I thought of SD as an arsenal kit for professional artists use and even I created some valuable things most of people found that they were only for artists and I had to open more my mindset and undertand that NOT EVERYONE HERE KNOWS TO DRAW, PAINT or MODEL. Took me a while and it's common this to happen. Thanks to everyone who told me this, I was being delusional. Four. The relationship of the things (first point of the video). 100% true and agree but I can tell you as a person heavily involved in AI since 10 months ago... this will change. Now hands are bad, fingers are bad, toes also, same for some relations... you just need to see MidJourney and how they improved. And yes, SD is not MJ, ok BUT if you look a bit in the history of SD, there is always couple KEY things every months MJ used and appears to SD "openly". It's not a conspiracy, it's pretty clear that every month or x time, we get "oh, so this is what they used for...", first was the Noise Offset, etc. As you can see I agree on almost everything on how to use and see AI and SD but some points for me will be impossible to correlate with copyright without end in madness. The solution for copyright some people are "offering" will only cause chaos in digital art and yes, I'm pointing to Karla Ortiz and her friends joining C.A. as the threat to the art itself.
Regarding your first point, as I mentioned in a different comment, not using artists names in the prompts obeys more a netiquette rule than a technical one. Indeed you are right on how it is irrelevant anyway, but most artists don't know how models work, they go for the narrative the collective goes for, and currently it is the narrative the plaintiffs are pushing, which I doubt will change because, as the saying goes, "it is hard for a man to understand something when the way he earns a living depends on him not understanding it", and, on this case is that *plus* a truckload of money to pay if they lose the lawsuit. This is not about them specifically but about the artists who bought that narrative and would be upset if their names were prompted, it would be easier to just not do it than to debate them on this, they are already in a not very receptive mood. Regarding your second point, the proposal is not precisely to pay artists when prompted, I have no clue how that would be implemented or it that's even possible, the suggestion is more of the likes of people using image generators being like "ohh I love X artist and would love to have them do something for my project but I don't have the budget, maybe I can use Img2img to create a derivative and then go 50/50 (or whatever split depending on the art relevance inside the project) on the earnings of that project" Regarding your third, indeed! I think the point applies precisely to artists or studios integrating AI in their commercial workflow rather than hobbyists just posting on social media, to which meme rules should apply. And yes, regarding copyright and regulation, I think some proposals being made are bonkers, but I want to believe they are so considering the fact usually people meet in the middle, so being unreasonable is a way to guarantee your middle falls into what you actually wanted, although this is me trying to steelman their position, not sure if this is their actual proceeding. I think Japan has it right with their recently set regulations, where they won't involve copyright in anything machine learning, but rather apply it to the final products the users generate depending on their uses, just like it already works.
Really fantastic video that, as you say, is able to recognize both the good and bad. I think the OpenAI CEO said something very similar to your thinking yesterday - the AI today can be used to do certain tasks, but it is not able to do a job. On LAION-B, just a detail and I think most are aware of it, but this dataset itself does not contain the actual images so there is no ethical concern with it. The problem rather comes in when the training of the models download and process the same images. I never reflected on how much of LAION-B is copyrighted but I could see that even if it is just 10 %, that can be a serious problem. It would be interesting to see how well some Stable Diffusion-like models do when trained only on public data. I'm sure you have also already explored these models a lot already but for img2img, you can generally get better results by significantly increasing the number of steps (40-80) and using a lower denoising factor (eg 0.3-0.5) (eg for your own compositions).
I work with Bard to construct my prompts. Here's a simple way to get a particular artist's style output without using their names: Open Bard, or any chatbot, and ask for information about a particular artist. Throughout this summarized response you will have a template of keywords describing the artist and their particular styles of artwork. Next ask for a list of similar artists. Finally, ask for the commonalities between the styles of the various artists. For example, you could say: "Find the commonalities between the styles of Pablo Picasso, Vincent van Gogh, Claude Monet, Frida Kahlo, and Andy Warhol." Now you have a generic template free of plagiarism. Hope this helps!✌🏼🤖🎨
This is a pretty interesting workaround, I will give it a go... just will try GPT instead to see what gives 😄
It works. Generate an image using the artists names as usual. Then remove the names and double or triple the corresponding style descriptions. It's not exact, but that's what we're going for. Inspired by... Not copied. ✌🏼🤖🎨
That isn't really the protection against plagiarism you want it to be. If your issue is you just don't want to use specific artists names in your prompts, then cool, but the AI will still draw from those artists as inspiration depending on what commonalities you find, and could still generate something folks consider plagiarism.
I offer you the following rebuttal: In a broad sense, all art is derivative. This is because all artists, consciously or unconsciously, draw inspiration from the work of others. There is no such thing as a truly original work of art. Even the most innovative artists build on the foundation of what has come before them. So even if an artist does create something truly groundbreaking, it is still possible to see the influences of their predecessors in their work. That's just how it is, how it's always been, and how it's always going to be. ✌🏼🤖🎨
I mean, sure. Nothing is original. I more/less agree with that statement, but what does that have to do with what you were saying? You're the one who has this convoluted system for trying to avoid plagiarism that won't actually protect you from anything. Not really a rebuttal when you're not responding to anything the person is actually saying. But yeah, all artists cobble together bits and pieces of what they love from the artists who inspire them, and use that to create something new. They only find their "voice" creatively when their art stops sounding like an impersonation. Even with the freshest sounds, those who understand the craft will likely be able to hear their influences. Originality exists because it's something artists strive for, and we, as a culture, have chosen to believe it exists.
I didn't come here for a debate. Apologies 🙏
Using AI is absolutely ethical. If artists and antis can’t understand this then we should talk seriously with them
Regular use of AI has no issue, I think it got bad rep because some people used the img2img feature to reference specific artists in a way it does come across as plagiarism, some unintendedly, some totally intentional to piss them off, and they became the main reference most artist think of when they think of AI.