Banning AI art on PP

So a retoucher wished to show his/her "eye" in creating AI/photo combinations. He/she wants to post AI creations to serve as future backgrounds (mutch as a studio woould show the backgrounds and props.) Because there are no "photos", are such AI creations banned from PP? Note that the retoucher's art is in the selection of certain images from many that are generated, not the creative generation itself.

Edited by sayray55

Some of these questions are nuts. Surely people know the difference between whether they have created something vs telling a computer to create something?

sayray55 said

So a retoucher wished to show his/her "eye" in creating AI/photo combinations. He/she wants to post AI creations to serve as future backgrounds (mutch as a studio woould show the backgrounds and props.) Because there are no "photos", are such AI creations banned from PP? Note that the retoucher's art is in the selection of certain images from many that are generated, not the creative generation itself.

There are zillions of places better suited to share computer-generated backgrounds for others to buy or use. 

Back in the dark ages when Photosig was pretty much the only Photography sharing website, as PS became better and people more adept they faced a similar problem.  They created Artsig for digitally manipulated images.  People knew which one was suitable for their work because generally except for being deliberately obtuse, people ain't stupid.

Danny Molyneux said

HorrifyMeUK said

... among serious artists, creatives, models, photographers or other “real” people of skill and craft.

I think you have me confused with somebody else. :-) 

:)

Russ Freeman said

Unfocussed Mike said

A somewhat useful article from Petapixel:

https://petapixel.com/2022/09/14/if-ai-is-killing-photography-does-that-mean-photography-killed-painting/ 

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/

It would depend on how much creative input a person had, worst case if someone wanted copyright on an AI image would be to take it and add or change something in the image, an old fashioned way, then it becomes a derivative work and can be copyrighted 

I feel that AI in photography is something that will happen but I do believe it will not effect those that still love to create an image with skill and passion. as for AI 

a test of its power may be to type in a few words and see if you can get it to create a self portrait of its self,   I for one cannot say what words they may be due to

rules on posting at PP but give it a try.

lets ban photoshopping while we are at it..

Onboard with you A.I. art sentiments HorrifyMeUK .

Westend Portfolios said

lets ban photoshopping while we are at it..

Why? 

Unfocussed Mike said

Gothic Image said

Unfocussed Mike said

Theimagebear said

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.

You mean if I have a model who is not on purpleport and won't tell you who they are?

I have plenty of work on here that is demonstrative of what I can do as a photographer, that features three people who enjoy working with me but haven't ever wanted to join.

I'm never going to feel obligated to identify them. 

Do you feel those images shouldn't be there?

They are (hopefully good-ish) examples of my work with amateur models.

Whereas uploading a Midjourney image of a person who does not exist would not be. It's a very clear line between the two.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

I do - always. Why wouldn't you?  (Ditto models whose photos miraculously appear without a photographer present!)

They get identified as "model not on purpleport" if that is what you mean. 

That's all you're getting because that's all I've told them I will say about them.

Not sure what the controversy is here? Who is it rude to? They aren't models. I'm expected to give their names to strangers on the internet?

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

There are always going to be exceptions but from day 1 and it was originally set up to help and share between models, photographers and studios, in a safe environment.  So it would be the friendly thing to do.

Theimagebear said

Unfocussed Mike said

Gothic Image said

Unfocussed Mike said

Theimagebear said

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.

You mean if I have a model who is not on purpleport and won't tell you who they are?

I have plenty of work on here that is demonstrative of what I can do as a photographer, that features three people who enjoy working with me but haven't ever wanted to join.

I'm never going to feel obligated to identify them. 

Do you feel those images shouldn't be there?

They are (hopefully good-ish) examples of my work with amateur models.

Whereas uploading a Midjourney image of a person who does not exist would not be. It's a very clear line between the two.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

I do - always. Why wouldn't you?  (Ditto models whose photos miraculously appear without a photographer present!)

They get identified as "model not on purpleport" if that is what you mean. 

That's all you're getting because that's all I've told them I will say about them.

Not sure what the controversy is here? Who is it rude to? They aren't models. I'm expected to give their names to strangers on the internet?

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

There are always going to be exceptions but from day 1 and it was originally set up to help and share between models, photographers and studios, in a safe environment.  So it would be the friendly thing to do.

So. I've gone back and changed my portfolio now!

If the model was on purpleport beforehand, it now says "model no longer on purpleport".

If the model was never on purpleport it doesn't say a goddamn thing about them!

There's no safety implication here, and literally nobody should feel a friendly entitlement to know anything about them.

If they want to work with purpleport photographers they can join.

They are real photos so I don't see what any of this has to do with the topic at hand.

Theimagebear said

Unfocussed Mike said

Gothic Image said

Unfocussed Mike said

Theimagebear said

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.

You mean if I have a model who is not on purpleport and won't tell you who they are?

I have plenty of work on here that is demonstrative of what I can do as a photographer, that features three people who enjoy working with me but haven't ever wanted to join.

I'm never going to feel obligated to identify them. 

Do you feel those images shouldn't be there?

They are (hopefully good-ish) examples of my work with amateur models.

Whereas uploading a Midjourney image of a person who does not exist would not be. It's a very clear line between the two.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

I do - always. Why wouldn't you?  (Ditto models whose photos miraculously appear without a photographer present!)

They get identified as "model not on purpleport" if that is what you mean. 

That's all you're getting because that's all I've told them I will say about them.

Not sure what the controversy is here? Who is it rude to? They aren't models. I'm expected to give their names to strangers on the internet?

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

There are always going to be exceptions but from day 1 and it was originally set up to help and share between models, photographers and studios, in a safe environment.  So it would be the friendly thing to do.

That being the case - and as you appear to be such an advocate (when lecturing others on the subject) I was a bit puzzled to find that a significant number of the images you've posted in your portfolio don't include any acknowledgement of the model whatsoever. No tag, no name, no credit - not so much as a "not on PP" or "model wishes to remain untagged" etc., etc.

Unfocussed Mike just sounds like someone likes the model you've shot and wants you to hand over the info lol.

I've seen models myself I like who have photos on here but I wouldn't badger the photographer about it on the forum.

Edited by Wondrous