Will AI Art Kill Artist's Careers?
-
Art by Midjourney AIWhat is AI art? Is it a threat to illustrators? Jake Parker, Lee White, and Will Terry share everything you need to know about this rapidly-advancing technology.
-
That was a pretty optimistic take on Ai Art! But I also think it was fair. The art world can't wish an advancement like this away so why not look on the bright side? But Jake also acknowledged that some jobs are going to change and some jobs are going to be lost.
Going back to the original question of the copyright implication of Ai Art:
"Will there be copyright issues when technology can replicate an artist’s style?”
I think the guys answered that correctly. An illustrator can't copyright their style as it is, so Ai replicating a style but creating an original image is just a natural extension of current industry standards.
BUT what they didn't consider in the podcast is the reverse -- what are the copyright implications of an artist copying (or creating a derivative of) an image created by Ai
Is Ai Art in the public domain?
or
Is Ai Art the property of the company that spent the time, money, expertise and -- yes -- creativity to create the Ai Art program? -
Ok but can we talk about how bad and unsettling this cover art is? I must say that the leg-tail, the tail-neck and the ear angles are enough to make me feel completely safe that it'll be a while before machines will kill the illustration business.
-
Fstoppers also held a debate on AI Art. They mentioned the US copyright office has declined applications for AI Art, citing lack of 'human authorship'. On the video they questioned what would be copyrighted: the image, the keywords or the coding that was generated. But, I can imagine a corporation lobbying the office to change their stance.
It would be very interesting to see a court case over AI Art ownership or plagiarism.
-
@willicreate Super interesting. I"m not suprised that it was submitted as Work For Hire as the Ai would arguably be the employee of the company.
Very mixed on the outcome here.
It does feel weird to have a machine's creativity copyrightable, but --If everything the Ai machine makes is public domain that creates a unending fountain of free art for clients who would otherwise be paying illustrators.
And based on Jakes description of the Ai Art programs process I can see an argument being made that the machine is being creative.
-
I really enjoyed this podcast. They've all been so good lately.
I think Ai will find a place, but it won't take over. Photography has been an option for years and years, yet people pay artists to create photorealistic portraits all the time. I think there's only so much you can replace by computers, and artists will still have a precedence to AI.
-
@davidhohn Not sure if this is the same thing but if we replace “AI” with “Adobe” or “Procreate” or any pencil manufacturer — we currently use them to create art but they don’t get co-copyright.
On the other hand, I’m sure somewhere in the terms of use for both programs it’s mentioned that you can use their program, fonts, brushes, etc., royalty-free.
On the other other hand, we’re talking about a final product here generated not by a human but machine learning.
Or perhaps the current equivalent is if someone creates fan art that is so convincing that people confuse the fan art-creating artist for the original artist. For example, if someone creates a tiger friend for Hobbes in Calvin and Hobbes and sells merchandise. Just thinking out loud. I’m sure I’m missing something obvious here
-
Not sure if this is the same thing but if we replace “AI” with “Adobe” or “Procreate” or any pencil manufacturer — we currently use them to create art but they don’t get co-copyright.
I can see how you got there, but I don't think you can replace "Ai" with "Adobe" or "Procreate".
Photoshop, Illustrator or Procreate are primarily designed to create digital interpretations of physical media. That is, the input that creates the final image are physical actions made by the artist. The time, effort and energy spent perfecting those skills is often years. The program itself doesn't make artistic choices the artist does.
By comparison the Ai program simply requires the user to be able to type two or three words into a text field and then the program takes over and makes all artistic choices from there.
Copyright is designed to protect the physical manifestation of artistic choices.
Oh boy -- As I write this I think I'm convincing myself that the Ai Programs should own the copyright to the images they generate! This is not a hill I'm prepared to die on, but I can't yet see an alternative.
Or perhaps the current equivalent is if someone creates fan art that is so convincing that people confuse the fan art-creating artist for the original artist. For example, if someone creates a tiger friend for Hobbes in Calvin and Hobbes and sells merchandise. Just thinking out loud. I’m sure I’m missing something obvious here
This is also an interesting scenario, but I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. Can you rephrase?
-
@danielerossi said in Will AI Art Kill Artist's Careers?:
Not sure if this is the same thing but if we replace “AI” with “Adobe” or “Procreate” or any pencil manufacturer — we currently use them to create art but they don’t get co-copyright.
There has to be a legal agreement between the user and the service provider. On Abode's terms of use, they waive ownership of content you create (1.5 Ownership). But, they do retain the right to police your work (4. Your Content). For Instagram they don't claim ownership of your content, but we do give them royalty-fee licensing of each piece.
According to the Dall-E terms of use, the company OpenAI owns the "generations" (aka the image) but gives the users rights. It also states they will not assert copyright claims to the generation, but that doesn't mean they concede that the user has copyright claim.
Terms of agreement on a pencil... That would be a funny New Yorker comic
Or perhaps the current equivalent is if someone creates fan art that is so convincing that people confuse the fan art-creating artist for the original artist. For example, if someone creates a tiger friend for Hobbes in Calvin and Hobbes and sells merchandise
With this example it's clear cut. The company or artist who owns the trademark can pursue legal action against anyone in artist alley that makes fan art that character.
-
@davidhohn If a monkey can't own a copyright, then a machine definitely can't
@davidhohn said in Will AI Art Kill Artist's Careers?:
If everything the Ai machine makes is public domain that creates a unending fountain of free art for clients
A close example of this already happening is when fashion studios steals designs from independent creators selling wares on Esty. Who enacted the actual theft (CEO, art director or junior designer) is still a mystery. This sort of behavior is rare (I think).
I would have thought with the invention of Google and Artstation, there would be a flood of independent game developers blantantly ripping assets from old games and portfolios. But most people do the honest thing and buy stock assets.
Then again, most video content creators take images and music and only compensate the artist by dropping a name credit. So... I think society can go either way. But, with the new generation growing up expecting content for free, I'm not optimistic.
-
I can see how you got there, but I don't think you can replace "Ai" with "Adobe" or "Procreate"…That is, the input that creates the final image are physical actions made by the artist…The program itself doesn't make artistic choices the artist does… By comparison the Ai program simply requires the user to be able to type two or three words into a text field and then the program takes over and makes all artistic choices from there.
Ah, I see where I misunderstood. True, AI is a tool but not the same as artist’s tools like Photoshop and a pencil.
Copyright is designed to protect the physical manifestation of artistic choices.
Or perhaps the current equivalent is if someone creates fan art that is so convincing that people confuse the fan art-creating artist for the original artist. For example, if someone creates a tiger friend for Hobbes in Calvin and Hobbes and sells merchandise. Just thinking out loud. I’m sure I’m missing something obvious here
This is also an interesting scenario, but I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. Can you rephrase?
Someone or something (an AI tool) creates something that is so convincing that people think it’s official merchandise. “Create this Disney-like character doing this specific pose”. That kind of thing.
-
According to the Dall-E terms of use, the company OpenAI owns the "generations" (aka the image) but gives the users rights. It also states they will not assert copyright claims to the generation, but that doesn't mean they concede that the user has copyright claim.
That’s pretty scary. Someone ends up creating work that is like you drew it but you can’t do anything about it. The company you mentioned would own the copyright. Just now I’m thinking of how someone can make a character in the style of The Simpsons. But I don’t think this is an exclusively AI issue. The guys mentioned something like this on the episode. You can’t copyright a style
Terms of agreement on a pencil... That would be a funny New Yorker comic
-
If a monkey can't own a copyright, then a machine definitely can't
But a corporation can. Disney is a great example of how they keep extending copyright laws. So once Meta starts incorporating AI art creation tools in its products…
Then again, most video content creators take images and music and only compensate the artist by dropping a name credit. So... I think society can go either way. But, with the new generation growing up expecting content for free, I'm not optimistic.
I’m definitely listening to the previous episode again
-
Has anyone tried creating images on anything other than Mid Journey? I want to try playing around with this to learn more about it and I'm not quite sure where to start! There seems to be several options.
-
@davidhohn do you think there is an argument for copyright issues within these two images? Apparently this image (the bottom one) won a contest in the digital art category even though it is A.I. created and not modified after. The top image is from the most recent Dune film.
-
@Aaron-Cutright you can’t copyright composition, so there is absolutely no issue between these two images.
SVS Faculty Instructor
www.leewhiteillustration.com -
Loved this episode. So much to discuss on this topic.
One thing that came to mind for me is what if AI art was better than humans. For example let’s say an art director instructs both an illustrator and an AI and the AI creates artwork in the same style as the illustrator but even better. I think this could put a lot of concept artists in trouble. Maybe it would mean that there are only art directors and they just direct a bunch of AI but I think more narrative based illustration is where the difference is.
I think part of the reason that people like stories is because they know it comes from a real live person and that counts for a lot. There are plenty of fake wood products, sometimes you really can’t tell the difference between the real and the fake but that doesn’t matter to people. If given the choice they would always rather have the real deal.
-
@Griffin-McPherson said in Will AI Art Kill Artist's Careers?:
I think this could put a lot of concept artists in trouble.
You're not the first person I've read with this sentiment.
I had a classmate in college who wasn't the best draftsman, but beat us all at getting into a game studio. He was a rare asset for having served in the military during wartime. He had operated with military hardware and understood procedures. I've been in the hot seat at meetings where I had to explain my choices with mood boards. Love to see someone solely relying on AI Art for their career sweat it out.
Also consider there has to be someone to design the layout of a stage and props. For example, you can have the software generate an image of a tank, but it won't know what reactive armor is and why it is located at certain points. What if blueprints for the interior are needed? Would it factor in how a human being fits and manuever inside it? Even human designers forget that part.
Art directors don't hire people because they draw well and fast. They trust each member of the team to have different set of knowledge. A concept artist needs to be able to answer what kind of materials would be used to make a costume, cultural significance, etc. If the art director doesn't care about any of this, then I guarantee production will suffer, costs go up and maybe make for a bad movie.
As for environmental concept art, I think you still need a person who understands geology and geography. And if not, at least consider how a set still needs to be built. The director will always have notes making edits necessary.
So, I think AI Art will help concept artist get better at their jobs. Having as well technical skills and a curiousity to learn would make for a better employee.
-
@danielerossi But even the most convincing fan art that people think is original is bordering on the "is it fan art or plagiarism" line. A student could write an exact replica of a professional's paper/book and claim it as their own, but that doesn't mean just because they wrote it they have any claim to it. To me, fan art isn't making an exact replica, it's being inspired by it. Beyond that, fan art is still one of those weird categories where some companies do C&D's and don't allow creators to do it, while others simple don't care. In the case of AI, to me a copyright can't be held by a machine.
Personally I still don't think AI will kill artist jobs, at least not yet like Jake said. What irritates me is people getting judged for their AI art on the same level as digital artists who spend hours on their work. I'm sorry, they're not the same at all. As someone who has to deal with digital art getting dimissed when compared to "real" fine art, the idea that once again our work can be dismissed irritates me.
-
@Lee-White I agree that composition should not be copyrightable, I had just run into that claim a lot in school with teachers forcing students to do assignments over because of the composition being too similar to another artist; I thought it was odd even back then.
