Banning AI art on PP

Gareth Oakey Photography said

I applaud the ban but the grey areas creep ever further. Is it OK to use a clone tool to change a portion of an image? Yes, OK, what about a smart healing tool that uses context awareness? Yes, OK - so computer generated portions are fine. What about replacement of a sky with an AI editor like Luminar? Upscaling and adding detail with Topaz AI? AI relighting of a model with Portrait Pro? Still OK ...??   etc.  

Most of the processes you just describe require human action, visual judgement, and a certain degree of skill in its application. AI art requires absolutely nothing except typing a few keywords. There’s a huge difference 

gm7.photography said

It looks smooth, detailed etc, but it's still a million miles away from an actual photo. The image that kicked this all off got away with it because it was a silhouette.

There were things before this -- there's already a small handful of midjourney images among the FPIs from what I can see, and it's certainly been commented on before, but when it was one image or another it was almost impossible to discuss without breaking rules.

The service AndiM did by giving us a single image we could talk about without being sin-binned for naming/shaming/unsolicited critique was not inconsiderable.

From the About us page (and I quote), "It doesn't matter whether you are an experienced photographer or a new model our mission is to provide you with one neat and easy to use service so you can find talented people to work with..." - says nothing about ability to input words and create computer generated images which were not created with a camera and/or model - yes, you can nit pick that but you get the gist though!

Holly Alexander said

Gareth Oakey Photography if anything gets reported they will ask for the original image , so should be able to tell if it's a creation or if there's no original imagery then it's obvious nothing was used besides typing in a bunch of words

Say I had an artist profile and I replied that I had painted it, so it is the original image? Or I'm a mixed media photographer who uses my own paintings in my photographic images?  I do support the move but it's going to be very tricky to keep on top of, especially as AI tools become more prevalent in traditional applications such as Photoshop.

Gareth Oakey Photography said

Holly Alexander said

Gareth Oakey Photography if anything gets reported they will ask for the original image , so should be able to tell if it's a creation or if there's no original imagery then it's obvious nothing was used besides typing in a bunch of words

Say I had an artist profile and I replied that I had painted it, so it is the original image? Or I'm a mixed media photographer who uses my own paintings in my photographic images?  I do support the move but it's going to be very tricky to keep on top of, especially as AI tools become more prevalent in traditional applications such as Photoshop.

If you said you'd painted it and had not, you're lying. It's going to be difficult to prove but you're still lying; it's really important that this site should ask people up front not to lie, and this is a new context to ask them in.

If you use it in mixed media within a single image or composite, and you don't use it to deceive, I don't think it's a real problem.

You are right about the tools in photoshop; we need time to adapt to what it means. But if PP doesn't say "sorry, no" to fully-AI-generated images now, it's going to be very difficult to find a line to draw about deception.

HorrifyMeUK 's position is about creative laziness which is a bit different to mine, but I think it's also worthy of discussion. I think if we all really want to be good at what we do, and push people on to be better, then allowing something that was generated from a few dozen words and then picked from a bunch of options to sit alongside something that involved even an hour of planning is probably not a good thing for us either.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

Unfocussed Mike said

Gareth Oakey Photography said

I applaud the ban but the grey areas creep ever further. Is it OK to use a clone tool to change a portion of an image? Yes, OK, what about a smart healing tool that uses context awareness? Yes, OK - so computer generated portions are fine. What about replacement of a sky with an AI editor like Luminar? Upscaling and adding detail with Topaz AI? AI relighting of a model with Portrait Pro? Still OK ...??   etc.  

The blog post makes this amazingly clear.

"There is no problem using such images for backgrounds in the same way that commercial background images or textures might be used."

If PP is fine with midjourney images in backgrounds (which is a prominent use of a generated image), they are fine with all the things you're talking about. There's no slippery slope.

I really applaud the care with which the sentence I quoted was written, by the way. It's an effective yardstick.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

My point was that AI tools are becoming more and more a part of traditional workflow applications. It's getting increasingly more difficult to draw the line.  As an example, my camera club competitions are governed by rules which include 'All elements of the image must have been captured by the photographic process'. This should mean the Smart Healing brush is illegal as it generates new pixels based on the computer interpretation of what it thinks should be there. However, fail to use the brush and a judge will happily mark you down for distractions in your image and suggest you do use it. It's become an accepted part of the process and renders the rule outdated. The line needs to be redrawn. This is the issue we will face with AI in image making.

Gareth Oakey Photography said

Holly Alexander said

Gareth Oakey Photography if anything gets reported they will ask for the original image , so should be able to tell if it's a creation or if there's no original imagery then it's obvious nothing was used besides typing in a bunch of words

Say I had an artist profile and I replied that I had painted it, so it is the original image? Or I'm a mixed media photographer who uses my own paintings in my photographic images?  I do support the move but it's going to be very tricky to keep on top of, especially as AI tools become more prevalent in traditional applications such as Photoshop.

Did you destroy the painting, don't you have any images of the progress of the painting?

It's not hard to decide to delete an image. We already do it if someone can't provide us with proof, or if an image looks like something is a banned topic regardless of whether it is or it is not.

Admin has last say, so if the image is important to you and a hill you feel you might want to die on, then you'll be able to show Admin some proof. If not, then it gets deleted.

Russ Freeman said

Gareth Oakey Photography said

Holly Alexander said

Gareth Oakey Photography if anything gets reported they will ask for the original image , so should be able to tell if it's a creation or if there's no original imagery then it's obvious nothing was used besides typing in a bunch of words

Say I had an artist profile and I replied that I had painted it, so it is the original image? Or I'm a mixed media photographer who uses my own paintings in my photographic images?  I do support the move but it's going to be very tricky to keep on top of, especially as AI tools become more prevalent in traditional applications such as Photoshop.

Did you destroy the painting, don't you have any images of the progress of the painting?

It's not hard to decide to delete an image. We already do it if someone can't provide us with proof, or if an image looks like something is a banned topic regardless of whether it is or it is not.

Admin has last say, so if the image is important to you and a hill you feel you might want to die on, then you'll be able to show Admin some proof. If not, then it gets deleted.

Good answer - thanks Russ

Russ Freeman said

Gareth Oakey Photography said

Holly Alexander said

Gareth Oakey Photography if anything gets reported they will ask for the original image , so should be able to tell if it's a creation or if there's no original imagery then it's obvious nothing was used besides typing in a bunch of words

Say I had an artist profile and I replied that I had painted it, so it is the original image? Or I'm a mixed media photographer who uses my own paintings in my photographic images?  I do support the move but it's going to be very tricky to keep on top of, especially as AI tools become more prevalent in traditional applications such as Photoshop.

Did you destroy the painting, don't you have any images of the progress of the painting?

Oddly enough I think this is also the real artist's defence against AI imagery in terms of its effect on the value of their work and what their work means.

Show your audience your process.

Gareth Oakey Photography said

I applaud the ban but the grey areas creep ever further. Is it OK to use a clone tool to change a portion of an image? Yes, OK, what about a smart healing tool that uses context awareness? Yes, OK - so computer generated portions are fine. What about replacement of a sky with an AI editor like Luminar? Upscaling and adding detail with Topaz AI? AI relighting of a model with Portrait Pro? Still OK ...??   etc.  

I think the wording in the blog makes this clear?

I agree with the decision.

I don't care about all the grey areas that may or may not be put forward.

Let's have a human decision on what is suitable for this site. I really don't see any artistry in using a computer to completely design, construct and finalise the presentation of an image.

Give it a year or two and will be impossible to even detect which is AI and which is not.

waist.it said

In other news: King bans rising tide. :-)

Is that what people mean when they say I'm a Canute ? 

Model after (way too many IMVHO) photographers have finished the post-production side of things these days:

VS ... Actual "real life" model when you see her in the flesh:

A 'friend' ;) told me he witnessed this every so often at 'social meet ups' at a pub, or when chance spotting them out somewhere 🫢🤐

-sp●●n- said

Give it a year or two and will be impossible to even detect which is AI and which is not.

Indeed. But this might give us a year or two to figure out what that will mean.

Six months of members being upset by deceptive uses of AI art and deciding to move on to other things could really ruin this site. The damage has already been done to other communities.