Author Topic: AI Images Without Labeling: Deception and Copyright Issues (Read 854 times)

MadMax · « **on:** January 07, 2025, 09:26 »

Hi everyone,

I've noticed more and more artists not labeling their works as AI-generated, even though all elements were created using Artificial Intelligence. Often, it's enough to layer these elements in Photoshop and make minimal edits to present the work as "original" and copyright-protected. Adobe seems to accept this practice as well.

The problems:

Deception: Viewers believe the art was created traditionally.
Copyright gray area: At what point is a work truly “original”?
Displacement of traditional art: Hybrid works could push non-AI artists to the sidelines.
Style theft and legal risks: AI can generate elements in my (or someone else’s) artistic style. If I later produce content that resembles the AI-generated work, I could face copyright infringement claims—even if the style was originally mine.

Should there be a requirement to label AI-generated content? What’s your take on this?

HalfFull · « **Reply #1 on:** January 07, 2025, 11:58 »

"Should there be a requirement to label AI-generated content? What’s your take on this?"

My understanding is that there is a requirement. If you've used AI to generate elements used in the image it has to be declared as "AI was used to generate this image" tag.

There is an exception that relates to the use of filling expanded backgrounds in photoshop or, editing out parts that are distracting but, if you add a person, animal or element to the image it has to be declared as AI.

As you mentioned, there are a lot out there that don't. I now use "Content Credentials" from Raw File -> Photoshop -> finished Tiff / Jpg. This way I can prove the origins of my work and how it was created.

gnirtS · « **Reply #2 on:** January 08, 2025, 09:28 »

The usual sub-continent FB groups they AI spammers have noticed that sales are better from non-ai images as they're more attractive to buyers so have started doing exactly that, not labelling.

(As well as submitting to agencies that dont allow AI at all).

userpoland · « **Reply #3 on:** January 08, 2025, 09:42 »

Quote from: HalfFull on January 07, 2025, 11:58

"Should there be a requirement to label AI-generated content? What’s your take on this?"

My understanding is that there is a requirement. If you've used AI to generate elements used in the image it has to be declared as "AI was used to generate this image" tag.

There is an exception that relates to the use of filling expanded backgrounds in photoshop or, editing out parts that are distracting but, if you add a person, animal or element to the image it has to be declared as AI.

As you mentioned, there are a lot out there that don't. I now use "Content Credentials" from Raw File -> Photoshop -> finished Tiff / Jpg. This way I can prove the origins of my work and how it was created.

What if you improve your video in Topaz Video Ai like denoising, better slow motion, Proteus image quality improvement?

Do we also have to mark it as Ai's film?

Stockhome Syndrome · « **Reply #4 on:** January 08, 2025, 15:46 »

Quote from: userpoland on January 08, 2025, 09:42

What if you improve your video in Topaz Video Ai like denoising, better slow motion, Proteus image quality improvement?

While I understand why adding or modifying elements via AI shouldn't be permitted without identification, I think simply running your own video(s) thru a program like Topaz Video AI for the sole purpose of making the video better quality should be allowed.

These programs are tools. Should a skilled worker not use a new tool that can produce better products? A bit crazy if you ask me.

cobalt · « **Reply #5 on:** January 08, 2025, 16:05 »

Quote from: gnirtS on January 08, 2025, 09:28

The usual sub-continent FB groups they AI spammers have noticed that sales are better from non-ai images as they're more attractive to buyers so have started doing exactly that, not labelling.

(As well as submitting to agencies that dont allow AI at all).

That is a huge problem. I have been reading the same comments.

Ai is useful but should be clearly labelled.

Year of the Dog · « **Reply #6 on:** January 09, 2025, 09:18 »

Quote from: gnirtS on January 08, 2025, 09:28

The usual sub-continent FB groups they AI spammers have noticed that sales are better from non-ai images as they're more attractive to buyers so have started doing exactly that, not labelling.

(As well as submitting to agencies that dont allow AI at all).

After I looked at the FB group, those people couldn't make a real image, if their life depended on it. They copy, flip, use stolen images for inspiration, then use AI to make new trash. All they do is spam and ask how to make money. There's no effort at all.

gnirtS · « **Reply #7 on:** January 09, 2025, 18:22 »

Quote from: Year of the Dog on January 09, 2025, 09:18

Quote from: gnirtS on January 08, 2025, 09:28
The usual sub-continent FB groups they AI spammers have noticed that sales are better from non-ai images as they're more attractive to buyers so have started doing exactly that, not labelling.

(As well as submitting to agencies that dont allow AI at all).
After I looked at the FB group, those people couldn't make a real image, if their life depended on it. They copy, flip, use stolen images for inspiration, then use AI to make new trash. All they do is spam and ask how to make money. There's no effort at all.

Indeed. But what they lack in talent and ethics they make up for in bulk. They want free, zero effort text prompt spam and instant money.

everest · « **Reply #8 on:** January 10, 2025, 15:49 »

I think all those that do not label their image can be stopped very easy.

First time you get caught with a single image not labeled 1 month suspension of the account. Second time 6 months. Third time for life.

The problem ends tomorrow.

gnirtS · « **Reply #9 on:** January 11, 2025, 11:02 »

Quote from: everest on January 10, 2025, 15:49

I think all those that do not label their image can be stopped very easy.

First time you get caught with a single image not labeled 1 month suspension of the account. Second time 6 months. Third time for life.

The problem ends tomorrow.

Its not that easy - you have to catch them first. On AS (and worse, SS) the sheer quantity of stuff means little or no human involvement or time to work out what is and isnt real.

Then the banning issue. On the FB groups there's a huge trade in people buying/selling accounts either before it gets banned or acquiring a new account after getting the last few banned. Its everywhere (usual geo regions).