0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
Many talk about selling AI images. For private use ist o.k. but not for the purpose of making money on other peoples intellectual property.I will never use AI. Anybody else on this forum? If I would do so, I am no longer myself but a thief.
Using AI you're not stealing from anyone in particular or infringing copyright. The results AI systems produce are unique, but based on what it learned from other sources. Similar to what someone could create from memory whilst being inspired by something they've seen.
Quote from: Josephine on November 22, 2023, 13:56Many talk about selling AI images. For private use ist o.k. but not for the purpose of making money on other peoples intellectual property.I will never use AI. Anybody else on this forum? If I would do so, I am no longer myself but a thief.What if there was at some point some AI that you could train on only your own photos?
Personally, I have no interest in doing AI. I enjoy wandering around with my camera and shooting what catches my eye.Sometimes I get to meet other photographers doing the same and we have a good chat.Of course, stock isn't a major income stream for me so I get to pick and choose.
....What if there was at some point some AI that you could train on only your own photos?
I can only answer from the point of view of an illustrator. I easily could generate a coloring book for kids within minutes and sell it on Amazon. Is this fair? without a single stroke, without any knowledge and costs of any software. Its the matter of typing a few words into the search engine and you are done. You can proudly call yourself illustrator. A photographer can easily steal someones sky and use it for the own purpose. The one who spent maybe days waiting for this very sky with this very special light. If anybody feels this is correct, fine.Sorry my English is not perfect.
Quote from: Josephine on November 25, 2023, 03:38I can only answer from the point of view of an illustrator. I easily could generate a coloring book for kids within minutes and sell it on Amazon. Is this fair? without a single stroke, without any knowledge and costs of any software. Its the matter of typing a few words into the search engine and you are done. You can proudly call yourself illustrator. A photographer can easily steal someones sky and use it for the own purpose. The one who spent maybe days waiting for this very sky with this very special light. If anybody feels this is correct, fine.Sorry my English is not perfect.You are using a computer to create your work then offer it online to the entire planet via agencies with the potential to create a million copies or downloads.How is that fair to the real oil painter who painstakingly creates their art on canvas from scratch and probably even makes his own paints and brushes???It used to take YEARS to complete a great painting or portrait.Yet here you are using modern tech to create it in mere hours.How is what you are doing fair to the REAL artists?And even worse if you use a camera, photographers are just one button pushers.If you actually believe what you are saying, you MUST stop using any modern version of photoshop and forgo all modern cameras.And please stop using your smartphone.Because all modern tech will be using ai in the future.Basically - freeze yourself in the tech and software of 2015, or maybe even earlier.Forever.So good luck with that.
You're comparing apples with oranges. So I have to disagree with your statement.If someone creates something, then that person needs visual, linguistic, musical or creative know-how. That is something completely different from typing in prompts.It doesn't matter whether you use a paintbrush, a camera, a guitar, a keyboard, a computer or any other tool.A work created by a human being, be it a painting, a photograph, a poem, a piece of music or whatever, is therefore an achievement that represents a value.The fact that this is the case can be seen in how many images you are not allowed to upload anywhere for commercial purposes - be it an Eames chair, an Apple computer, the light installation on the Eiffel Tower, the Mona Lisa, a Harley Davidson and countless other subjects.This also applies to AI-generated images, which are not allowed to take up these protected works visually. The fact that a normal image contributor does not have the money to legally prosecute the illegal use of their work does not mean that a corporation offering AI software has the right to freely use the work of these "normal" contributors to make money illegally!Anyone who produces something creative - with whatever tool - is the author of that thing. And no artificial intelligence has the right to circumvent that!
I see you're an illustrator, so this may not be relevant to you, but for example the relatively new Denoise is an AI function of Adobe Camera Raw. I'm using that function when needed to rescue high ISO files, so I can't say I'll never use AI, but AFAIK, this use isn't (ab)using other people's IP.
eta...then I am just adjusting the clothes a bit, changing out the sky, removing the glasses, changing the hairstyle...
Quote from: Noedelhap on November 22, 2023, 19:13Using AI you're not stealing from anyone in particular or infringing copyright. The results AI systems produce are unique, but based on what it learned from other sources. Similar to what someone could create from memory whilst being inspired by something they've seen.You are so aware for the question of stealing or infringing copyright... You know what is a unique production... You also know what is of being inspired... No doubt that AI is a new way for you being creative and unique. Your work is left (and you did many illustrations of it). Right, is the famous La Linea by Osvaldo Cavandoli.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Linea_(TV_series)No comment.
etaAnyone taking any bets how long it will take OP and others to fully embrace ai??It will start with - oh I am just denoising my high iso images...there is no harm in that......then...I am just expanding the image a bit, just a simple nature shot that was too close up, so the customer has more options...I am just adding a little more grass and sky......then I am just adjusting the clothes a bit, changing out the sky, removing the glasses, changing the hairstyle......my clients asked me to change this image/design with the help of ai and I obliged because it was a client request......my clients asked me to help them with prompting, so I did it as a service......* it... EVERYONE is using ai and I must feed my family and ...IT SAVES ME SO MUCH TIME...happy prompting noises in the background...
I was active on Midjourney for 2 months and I think I produced over 1000 pictures.
Quote from: RalfLiebhold on November 26, 2023, 14:22I was active on Midjourney for 2 months and I think I produced over 1000 pictures. And how is the income? More than a standard photo?
Let's not confuse generative AI content with AI software. The copyright problem is gigantic for generative AI content and affects little-known authors. I agree 100% with Wilm.
Quote from: Bauman on November 26, 2023, 13:57Let's not confuse generative AI content with AI software. The copyright problem is gigantic for generative AI content and affects little-known authors. I agree 100% with Wilm.That's exactly what I mean. I was still learning at the drawing board. Then came computers and CAD software. Of course, these tools are an immense relief. And they help enormously to save time.But I still had to - and still have to - design things myself.When the architects at Gerhy develop new buildings, they naturally use the latest software. They are no longer living in the last millennium. Nevertheless, what is created there is a creative achievement for which all these architects are paid. None of us are allowed to upload Gehry buildings for commercial purposes - it's forbidden. And if someone were to upload AI-generated Gerhy images, their portfolio would be blocked. But only because Gerhy has the money to make sure that this is forbidden.But platforms like midjourney and others allow exactly that: that what someone has spent a lot of time creating is simply used to teach their own software. Which wouldn't be a bad thing per se if midjourney paid to use these images. But they don't do that. They even take money from their users for the theft. That's exactly the point! From my point of view this is incredible!
I can only answer from the point of view of an illustrator. I easily could generate a coloring book for kids within minutes and sell it on Amazon.
Machine Learning, AI that creates images does not use the original images, it's not making a composite or taking bits and pieces of our images to make new images. The machine is trained to create new images, from what it has learned. At least that's the way AI like Dall-E and Midjourney work. The original images are never accessed again when someone asks for a new composition. So the whole, "I should get paid, every time my image is used again." is not logical, as all images of that type, style or whatever else, were used only once, but no images are specifically ever used again. AI is making a new image.I see the decision to use or not as anyone's individual choice. I have fun making some cartoons or basic illustrations. And that's just as needed, now and then. Personally I'm not going to depend on AI for anything, and I like taking real photos. Hopefully people who pay for using images that I create will feel the same.
Quote from: Josephine on November 25, 2023, 03:38I can only answer from the point of view of an illustrator. I easily could generate a coloring book for kids within minutes and sell it on Amazon. Machine Learning, AI that creates images does not use the original images, it's not making a composite or taking bits and pieces of our images to make new images. The machine is trained to create new images, from what it has learned. At least that's the way AI like Dall-E and Midjourney work.
Quote from: Josephine on November 25, 2023, 03:38I can only answer from the point of view of an illustrator. I easily could generate a coloring book for kids within minutes and sell it on Amazon. But you can't protect or copyright it. Kind of ironic.Machine Learning, AI that creates images does not use the original images, it's not making a composite or taking bits and pieces of our images to make new images. The machine is trained to create new images, from what it has learned. At least that's the way AI like Dall-E and Midjourney work. The original images are never accessed again when someone asks for a new composition. So the whole, "I should get paid, every time my image is used again." is not logical, as all images of that type, style or whatever else, were used only once, but no images are specifically ever used again. AI is making a new image.I see the decision to use or not as anyone's individual choice. I have fun making some cartoons or basic illustrations. And that's just as needed, now and then. Personally I'm not going to depend on AI for anything, and I like taking real photos. Hopefully people who pay for using images that I create will feel the same.
Quote from: Uncle Pete on November 27, 2023, 12:18Quote from: Josephine on November 25, 2023, 03:38I can only answer from the point of view of an illustrator. I easily could generate a coloring book for kids within minutes and sell it on Amazon. Machine Learning, AI that creates images does not use the original images, it's not making a composite or taking bits and pieces of our images to make new images. The machine is trained to create new images, from what it has learned. At least that's the way AI like Dall-E and Midjourney work. We don't know, Pete, how that works. When I search AS exclusively for AI-generated images, I clearly see Apple products, an Audi A4! A Mercedes star and so onIf the software worked the way you say it does, it would develop its own computers or cars. But it doesn't. And you can't be sure that it doesn't use 1:1 components from your images either.
The topic here is: "I will never use AI".To all the pro-AIs who sell their faith and prostration on this thread: Why not open a topic "I pray I will get eternal AI" for the simple sake of consistency and intellectual respect? [Edit]:I know that most AI critics tend to leave this forum, and that's unfortunately really understandable.
The topic here is: "I will never use AI".
Quote from: cobalt on November 26, 2023, 04:41eta...then I am just adjusting the clothes a bit, changing out the sky, removing the glasses, changing the hairstyle...Yes, I have also exchanged skies. For many years now. But it was always a sky that I photographed myself. I've never used a sky from one of your photos. That wasn't allowed either.And that's exactly what the AI providers get around. Without paying a single cent for it. Why are you not allowed to use elements from other people's images, but AI is? Can you explain why?...
etaAnyone taking any bets how long it will take OP and others to fully embrace ai??...
Quote from: Wilm on November 26, 2023, 05:56Quote from: cobalt on November 26, 2023, 04:41eta...then I am just adjusting the clothes a bit, changing out the sky, removing the glasses, changing the hairstyle...Yes, I have also exchanged skies. For many years now. But it was always a sky that I photographed myself. I've never used a sky from one of your photos. That wasn't allowed either.And that's exactly what the AI providers get around. Without paying a single cent for it. Why are you not allowed to use elements from other people's images, but AI is? Can you explain why?...one more time -- i don't know your specific knowledge, but, in general, complaints about being victimized show an underlying ignorance of how these models work. -- AI does not use ANY elements from images when creating new images - in an entirely separate process it trains on billions of images to create its dataset. when creating a new image (which may take millions of steps) it no longer has access to the original hundreds of millions of images it used in training. there are many descriptions, of varying detail, on how this actually works - posted frequently here & available online, so there's really no excuse for continuing to promote this false idea.the completely separate argument is whether there should be any payment for images to be used in training, but no one has been able to show that pieces of their image shows up in a new creation
Take Adobe Firefly: "Generate images from a detailed text description." This is the promise of Adobe.If you write Tiger you get a tiger, if you write Pope you get the image of the Pope. There must have been a photographer who took a photo of the tiger, and another photographer who took the photo of the Pope." Both photographer go empty and Adobe makes the deal.Am I wrong?
Furthermore "I never use AI" topic will mean that in future someone will not use smartphone, computers, Tv, internet, electric cars, hospitals, etc. It's a complete return to old "Zoe" but not really a return to innocence. Well...In some way it can be achievable if someone isolates from society.
Quote from: cascoly on November 28, 2023, 16:17Quote from: Wilm on November 26, 2023, 05:56Quote from: cobalt on November 26, 2023, 04:41eta...then I am just adjusting the clothes a bit, changing out the sky, removing the glasses, changing the hairstyle...Yes, I have also exchanged skies. For many years now. But it was always a sky that I photographed myself. I've never used a sky from one of your photos. That wasn't allowed either.And that's exactly what the AI providers get around. Without paying a single cent for it. Why are you not allowed to use elements from other people's images, but AI is? Can you explain why?...one more time -- i don't know your specific knowledge, but, in general, complaints about being victimized show an underlying ignorance of how these models work. -- AI does not use ANY elements from images when creating new images - in an entirely separate process it trains on billions of images to create its dataset. when creating a new image (which may take millions of steps) it no longer has access to the original hundreds of millions of images it used in training. there are many descriptions, of varying detail, on how this actually works - posted frequently here & available online, so there's really no excuse for continuing to promote this false idea.the completely separate argument is whether there should be any payment for images to be used in training, but no one has been able to show that pieces of their image shows up in a new creationTo say it right away: I don't have any specific knowledge because I haven't experimented with AI yet. In this respect, I agree with you.So I can only try to draw conclusions from what I can see.Maybe I really don't understand the working principle of AI software.But, if it were as you say, that AI does NOT use ANY elements from existing images, how can it be explained that, for example - the Apple logo- the Apple mouse- the iMac- the keyboard- the Mercedes starand so many other elements can be seen unchanged from the original in the images? Then why doesn't the AI "design" a new Apple or Mercedes logo, a different foot of the iMac, a new mouse etc.? I see here exactly the design features of Apple (material/color, radii, shapes, etc.).And, if it is as seen here, who can rule out that elements from your and my pictures appear 1:1 in other pictures.If you have a link that helps me to understand this, I would be grateful.
Quote from: HalfFull on October 06, 2022, 06:04Interestingly, it obviously copies quite a bit as they were also including watermarks with the images they produce. Might risk sounding like a broken record, but: The AIs sometimes generated images that have something resembling microstock agency watermarks, because they have been trained with so many watermarked (unlicensed!) images that they wrongly learned that the watermark was part of whatever it was supposed to generate. When an AI generates a watermark, it "thinks" it belongs in the picture like a suit to a businessman or the sun to a picture of a sunny sky. It's an issue of wrong learning, not an issue of copying. It recreates the watermark, just like it re-creates the sun or a suit. It cannot understand that the watermark is not part of whatever it is supposed to depict. If an AI was capable of thinking/realizing that whatever it is creating in images was actually something that exists in the offline world, then it would think that people walk around with floating watermarks in front of them.I start to think that many people do not really understand what an AI is. Artificial intelligence. It's not a computer programm that copy & pastes stuff. It is a program that has learning abilities. It gets input and it learns from it. Give it the wrong input and it will learn to create wrong results.
Interestingly, it obviously copies quite a bit as they were also including watermarks with the images they produce.
thus trademarks appear not because these are copied from a particular image but because many images contain those TM, the TM becomes part of its knowledge of what a computer looks like. it extracts info & stores it in a different format so after training it doesn't know anything about the original images.
...If I now have a rare, unrivaled landscape image or an object in my portfolio, the AI has no choice but to copy it too
Author
Topic: I will never use AI (Read 46028 times)
