Banning AI art on PP
Bob @ Fatbloke said, 1663191914
I am not championing anything...Just saying that if Jackson Pollock threw enough paint, it might produce a Rembrandt?
(Monkeys and Shakepeare)
:-)
Deliberately Pot-Stirring, just to fuel the debate here.
Jackson Kiss said, 1663192195
So is an image, shot on film for argument’s sake, of a nude model with an AI image projected on using a digital projector going to be banned?
Unfocussed Mike said, 1663192481
Jackson Kiss said
So is an image, shot on film for argument’s sake, of a nude model with an AI image projected on using a digital projector going to be banned?
Not as I understand it. But that sounds good, do that!
andysphotographic said, 1663192626
Aren't most images on the site created Artificially by Intelligence in editing software?
Bob @ Fatbloke said, 1663192671
andysphotographic said
Aren't most images on the site created Artificially by Intelligence in editing software?
....This.
Lenswonder said, 1663193263
The people who support this thing have lost touch with reality.
It's sad that humans get to this point but this is the way of industry. You become so advanced in technology you destroy your own society and cultures. The same is happening with other forms of technology, ultimately all this has a larger detrimental effect.
Bob @ Fatbloke said, 1663193447
Wondrous said
The people who support this thing have lost touch with reality.
It's sad that humans get to this point but this is the way of industry. You become so advanced in technology you destroy your own society and cultures. The same is happening with other forms of technology, ultimately all this has a larger detrimental effect.
Horses for Courses.......wait....This Entire site is based on......"The Internet"?
It is just evolution, surely.
Lathes replaced files......CAD replaced Drawing boards....Cameras replaced paintbrushes....
Relax.....you can still use a file / Drawing Board or Paintbrush?
Unfocussed Mike said, 1663193873
Wondrous said
The people who support this thing have lost touch with reality.
It's sad that humans get to this point but this is the way of industry. You become so advanced in technology you destroy your own society and cultures. The same is happening with other forms of technology, ultimately all this has a larger detrimental effect.
I think it is fascinating. But also that it is massively unethical to train a system on everyone's art and then set that system loose competing with the same artists without compensating them for the theft.
But then the commercial advantage in that for players like OpenAI is going to be short-lived, precisely because systems like Stable Diffusion are already freely available.
So artists themselves will soon have ways to use the same tools without a licence-fee-based model.
All of that is, I think, separate from considerations about how the immediacy/speed/tirelessness of these tools affects specific creative communities, and it's that impact that I think Russ Freeman is most worried about: what does it do to this community if we let what we do become diluted by treating prompt-generated images the same way we treat the result of (often paid-for!) shared endeavours?
My own personal take is that the authenticity of portfolios is sort of tangled up with member safety in complex ways and we need time to figure out what this change will mean -- time that a ban and an actively aware community can work with.
Either way I think we need fairness and guidelines on how we should collectively treat such stuff, which is why I was so pleased to see that blog post. It was not a casual easy decision.
Edit: word choice.
Edited by Unfocussed Mike
Allesandro B said, 1663193742
Theimagebear said
Great, the main reason this site was created was to help photographers, models and studios network, communicate and work together in a safe place. This is not a place or exhibiting work unless its to help with the above. The use of digital work to create images is fine and some of it is amazing but on this site its a place to advertise your work to hopefully get to work with some amazing people. If you create images with no model or there is one but you choose to keep their identity private (a growing thing) then thats not what here is about.
Edited by Theimagebear
Really, is that in the PP rulebook? There are many reasons why models don't want to be identified here and it's more about their choice (and respecting that) than your perception of a photographer choosing to keep a model's Identity secret in my experience.
CalmNudes said, 1663193831
Jackson Kiss said
So is an image, shot on film for argument’s sake, of a nude model with an AI image projected on using a digital projector going to be banned?
> There is no problem using such images for backgrounds in the same way that commercial background images or textures might be used.
Suggests not.
It's pretty simple.
- If it is a photograph and you took it, you can upload it to a photographer account
- If you retouched it (and have permission) you can upload it to a retoucher account
- If you're in it (and have permission) you can upload it to a model account
- If you did the hair and/or makeup and have permission upload to a MUA account.
- If it was shot in your studio, you can upload to a studio account (if you have permission).
If it was entirely computer generated, or generated by a computer mashing up other peoples photographs. Then you need a "Computer controller" account. When PP creates one. Which they probably won't.
If you project something you wouldn't be allowed to post on its own, you can still post the resulting photo.
Lenswonder said, 1663194150
Bob @ Fatbloke Society will suffer the consequences of this Molly cuddling of technology one way or another. You will see the effects of these decisions to bow to machines.
This is not evolution this is bs!
Somethings we saw on our screens were not just entertainment, this is life mirroring works of art, such as in film.
These programs could actually benefit artists if they were used ethically but they are not. Artists should be compensated for their visual styles being used in software.
Unfocussed Mike said, 1663194655
Wondrous said
Bob @ Fatbloke Society will suffer the consequences of this Molly cuddling of technology one way or another. You will see the effects of these decisions to bow to machines.
This is not evolution this is bs!
Somethings we saw on our screens were not just entertainment, this is life mirroring works of art, such as in film.
These programs could actually benefit artists if they were used ethically but they are not. Artists should be compensated for their visual styles being used in software.
Molly Nouveau get your coat, my friend. Cuddles incoming.
(Sorry Wondrous just being a twit)
Paul Askins said, 1663198001
Jackson Kiss said
So is an image, shot on film for argument’s sake, of a nude model with an AI image projected on using a digital projector going to be banned?
No. It is quite clear that this is not banned.
andysphotographic said
Aren't most images on the site created Artificially by Intelligence in editing software?
No.
Russ Freeman (staff) said, 1663225543
Unfocussed Mike said
A somewhat useful article from Petapixel:
Great link, thank you.
From that link, I also found this, which talks about how, in the USA at least, such images cannot be subject to copyright:
https://petapixel.com/2022/02/23/ai-created-art-cannot-be-copyrighted-us-copyright-office-rules/