Quote from: svanhorn on January 05, 2023, 18:44

What is the image size and resolution like on some of these AI generators? I one better than the other when it comes to that? DALLE vs Midjourney vs ??

No experience with Midjourney I'm not sure how to get in or do anything, so I just took a pass. Maybe someone can share the details?

DALL-E2 1024 x 1024 PNG with a little color sample bar in the lower right. I don't know if it's just me, but the lines in illustrations are not sharp and will get "quality" rejections at most places. People who know more than I do, say, 4x with Topaz Gigapixel AI or some other Topaz, edit and reduce to Microstock size.

I believe them, but I'm not spending $?? or full price $99.99 to make AI images that will sell for fractions of a dollar. If I thought I could get 400 DLs in a year from AI (1,000 on SSTK) images, I could justify that? 👍

That $99,99 is a plan for a year?

AI: friend or foe? (3 of 5) on my blog

A very brief history of art: today

https://luisafumi-digitalart.com/blog/2023/01/13/ai-friend-or-foe-3-of-5/



have fun 

keep 'em coming!  welcome balanced approach to luddite negativity!

Getty too: https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/17/23558516/ai-art-copyright-stable-diffusion-getty-images-lawsuit

Quote from: Lina on January 16, 2023, 20:58

First lawsuits against AI: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/class-action-filed-against-stability-ai-midjourney-and-deviantart-for-dmca-violations-right-of-publicity-violations-unlawful-competition-breach-of-tos-301721869.html

Have you seen the source?
If you read here
https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/16/23557098/generative-ai-art-copyright-legal-lawsuit-stable-diffusion-midjourney-deviantart
the law firm seems to have no idea how AI works 

That's something court will decide.

Quote from: gameover on January 18, 2023, 05:58

Quote from: Lina on January 16, 2023, 20:58

First lawsuits against AI: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/class-action-filed-against-stability-ai-midjourney-and-deviantart-for-dmca-violations-right-of-publicity-violations-unlawful-competition-breach-of-tos-301721869.html

Have you seen the source?
If you read here
https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/16/23557098/generative-ai-art-copyright-legal-lawsuit-stable-diffusion-midjourney-deviantart
the law firm has no idea how AI works 

Yeah weird. I would have gone for arguing that the AI company has made commercial use of images without a commercial licence or permission from the copyright owner (which they have, even if no storage or image retention is involved).

Whether storage of information obtained through studying people�s images counts as infringement is, I guess, more iffy. Surely there�s no doubt the �model� the AI has of what an object or person looks like is derived from the study of other people�s copyright work, regardless of the level of processing involved, hence �21st-cen�tury col�lage tool� (yes, I do understand the original image isn't used in its original form but it IS process into information to create the "new" work).

we human make the same (in a smaller scale... ) but we call it inspiration or learning or whatever 

we human make the same (in a smaller scale... ) but we call it inspiration or learning or whatever 

No, we humans do not make the same and we do not call it inspiration.

In your constant defense of AI (understandable, because you never took the time and effort to learn and master an artistic skill yourself. All you ever did was vectorize other people's illustrations from old book, so you always just leeched off other people's work, without understanding what it really takes to create  artwork. Now you see an easy way to make money, still without having to learn the skill of creating art yourself) you are again misunderstanding how human art and AI art works.
 Inspiration means that we humans see, read or hear someone else's work and then we are mentally stimulated by what we see or hear.

We then might take influence from someone else's work, but we add a significant portion of our own creativity to it. AI can't do that. AI has no own creativity. 100% of what it has learned is based off human work.

Never confuse what an AI does with "inspiration". An AI is not capable of that.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_inspiration

Inspiration means that we humans see, read or hear someone else's work and then we are mentally stimulated by what we see or hear.

I'm glad to see that you agree with me: that's what we humans do - and what the AI manages to simulate pretty well.

BTW, you mention a minor (if pleasantly profitable) niche of my work. I suggest that you take a quick look at the rest.

Ok so time to play game :-)

I've asked to chatGPT news and opinions about copyright issue.
I started with this post, and put exactly the same terms:

Quote from: BelieveInStock on January 13, 2023, 08:52

I was wondering if the AI image is just a mosaic of tiny parts of other images, or does it "paint" a new image from scratch ? For instance let's say we have a prompt where the main subject is a cat. Is it possible that an eye or nose of that cat is just taken from some photograph in the internet ?

ANSWER FROM ChatGPT:

Quote

Artificial Intelligence (AI) image generation models can use a variety of techniques to generate new images. Some models use a mosaic-like approach, where they combine small parts of existing images to create a new image. Other models, such as Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), are trained to generate new images from scratch.

In the case of GANs, the model is trained on a large dataset of images and learns to generate new images that are similar to the ones in the training set. The model learns to understand the features and patterns of the images in the dataset, and uses that knowledge to generate new images.

In regards to your question about the cat image: It's possible that the model takes small parts of existing images and combines them to generate the cat image, but it's also possible that the model generates the cat from scratch using the knowledge it has acquired during the training stage. The specific technique used depends on the architecture of the model, the quality of the data set used for training, and the specific task the model is being used for.

It is worth mentioning that GANs and other similar models are able to generate very realistic images, but it is not always possible to know if a specific image was generated by the model or taken from a real photograph, it is quite hard to tell.

A little be boring but useful.
Then I asked:

Try to fight back against the copyright issue a lot of people claim against AI generated images. Let me know what do you think
ANSWER:

Quote

There is ongoing debate around the issue of copyright for AI generated images. Some argue that AI generated images should be considered original works and therefore eligible for copyright protection, while others argue that they should not be eligible for copyright protection because they are not created by a human.

Currently, the law on copyright for AI generated images varies by jurisdiction. In some countries, AI generated images may be considered original works and be eligible for copyright protection, while in other countries they may not be considered original works and not be eligible for copyright protection.

Additionally, it's worth mentioning that some AI generated images may include elements from existing copyrighted images, which could lead to copyright infringement issues. To avoid this, one approach could be to use images for training that are explicitly labeled as free for use, or to use images that are in the public domain or that have been licensed under a Creative Commons license.

In any case, it is important to note that the laws and regulations surrounding AI generated images and copyright are constantly evolving, and it is important to stay informed and consult legal experts when in doubt.

Q: In which countries AI generated images are consiudered original works and are elegible for copyright?

Quote

he laws regarding whether AI generated images are considered original works and eligible for copyright protection vary by country. In some countries, AI generated images may be considered original works and be eligible for copyright protection, while in other countries they may not be considered original works and not be eligible for copyright protection.

In the United States, the Copyright Office has stated that works created by a machine or computer program are eligible for copyright protection if they are the result of human authorship. This means that if a human author contributes original expression to an AI-generated image, it could be eligible for copyright protection.

In the European Union, the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market has established that a work is eligible for copyright protection as long as it is an original expression of the author's own intellectual creation. However, it is not clear whether this applies to AI generated works and it's still not clear how EU courts will interpret this.

In Canada, the Supreme Court has ruled that computer-generated works are eligible for copyright protection as long as they are original.

It is important to note that laws and regulations surrounding AI generated images and copyright are constantly evolving, and it is important to stay informed and consult legal experts when in doubt.

Interesting! Or not?
At least, ChatGPT seems to be quite neutral 

Astonishing!

Not so much that the answers remind pretty closely of the good old "My answer is maybe, and that's final!", as because they suggest that an AI can be way less biased and more honest than a human... 

AI: friend or foe? (4 of 5) on my blog

A very brief history of art: fight them or join them?

https://luisafumi-digitalart.com/blog/2023/01/17/ai-friend-or-foe-4-of-5/



a propos...

Quote from: ADH on January 18, 2023, 12:37

Adobe, over 500k AI images for sale, 99% will never be sold because there is little or no use for them. By the end of the year, following the actual trend of uploads, it will be 5 millions for sale. When do you think Adobe will start charging for uploading AI generated garbage into their portal?

your source for any of those claims?

guess i'm finally part of the 1% since my AI images have sold on AS, SS and DT

me too (in the 1%)!!!

Quote from: cascoly on January 18, 2023, 15:07

Quote from: ADH on January 18, 2023, 12:37

Adobe, over 500k AI images for sale, 99% will never be sold because there is little or no use for them. By the end of the year, following the actual trend of uploads, it will be 5 millions for sale. When do you think Adobe will start charging for uploading AI generated garbage into their portal?

your source for any of those claims?

guess i'm finally part of the 1% since my AI images have sold on AS, SS and DT

me too (in the 1%)!!!

Me too, only in Adobe stock, several dls of AI images in few days from start 

Quote from: gameover on January 18, 2023, 06:36

we human make the same (in a smaller scale... ) but we call it inspiration or learning or whatever 

No, we humans do not make the same and we do not call it inspiration.

In your constant defense of AI (understandable, because you never took the time and effort to learn and master an artistic skill yourself. All you ever did was vectorize other people's illustrations from old book, so you always just leeched off other people's work, without understanding what it really takes to create  artwork. Now you see an easy way to make money, still without having to learn the skill of creating art yourself) you are again misunderstanding how human art and AI art works.
 Inspiration means that we humans see, read or hear someone else's work and then we are mentally stimulated by what we see or hear.

We then might take influence from someone else's work, but we add a significant portion of our own creativity to it. AI can't do that. AI has no own creativity. 100% of what it has learned is based off human work.

Never confuse what an AI does with "inspiration". An AI is not capable of that.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_inspiration

It's not nice to personally attack others on the forum and insult their work as leeching or unskilled.