AI and plagurism

This post has been filtered based on your content filter settings because it is NSFW. View reply

The Ghost of Prancy McPrettykins Siofra is very clearly fake, I'm not sure how anyone can mistake her for a real human being.

Stu H - Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition……

FiL said

-sp●●n- said

All this copyright talk, in the UK I could claim the 'Teaching' fair use exception to copyright and use any copyrighted image for this purpose:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright#teaching 

"Several exceptions allow copyright works to be used for educational purposes, such as:

• the copying of works in any medium as long as the use is solely to illustrate a point, it is not done for commercial purposes, it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement, and the use is fair dealing. This means minor uses, such as displaying a few lines of poetry on an interactive whiteboard, are permitted, but uses which would undermine sales of teaching materials are not"

Consider yourselves illustrated a point, and taught...this post was brought to you for non-commercial purposes. Ambulance chasers, disband.

Edited by -sp●●n-

I've decided to be kind to you and not discredit your understanding of copyright legislation. Be thankful, but I believe you've suffered enough for one day.

You are trolling, pure and simple. No copyright case would be brought in such an instance, that is reality, but congratulations on de-railing a thread for your own agenda. Move onto the next one where you can question ownership of images, there are thousands of images added to this site every week, you will no doubt be busy.

Infinity Valerie said

The Ghost of Prancy McPrettykins Siofra is very clearly fake, I'm not sure how anyone can mistake her for a real human being.

Male fantasy trumps what the eye can see and which parts of the the male brain prefer not to acknowledge.

Edited by FiL

FiL said

Infinity Valerie said

The Ghost of Prancy McPrettykins Siofra is very clearly fake, I'm not sure how anyone can mistake her for a real human being.

Male fantasy trumps what the eye can see and which parts of the the male brain prefer not to acknowledge.

Edited by FiL

The last photo that would fool me, a tiny tell in the hair, but the addition of a previous underwear line on the skin, that is great for realism.

-sp●●n- for me it's the general "feel" of the image, it lacks soul in the way her eyes seem glazed and absent, her eyes are a dead give away (they are even focusing in different directions) but I am guessing the eyes aren't what most males are drawn to in reality

Edited by Infinity Valerie

-sp●●n- said

FiL said

Infinity Valerie said

The Ghost of Prancy McPrettykins Siofra is very clearly fake, I'm not sure how anyone can mistake her for a real human being.

Male fantasy trumps what the eye can see and which parts of the the male brain prefer not to acknowledge.

Edited by FiL

The last photo that would fool me, a tiny tell in the hair, but the addition of a previous underwear line on the skin, that is great for realism.

What, despite the bow growing out of her ass?

Infinity Valerie said

The Ghost of Prancy McPrettykins Siofra is very clearly fake, I'm not sure how anyone can mistake her for a real human being.

I'm not going to deny that a human can spot she's not real but I've tested her against other AI and they think she's real. So you can't easily use AI tools to spot a fake profile. If presented with five thumbnails of the same 'person' how many people would look any closer?

Also, without naming and shaming, there are some 'photographers' who abuse Portrait Pro (or similar) so much that the results look like AI. waist.it tried some of his very obviously pictures of humans against an AI tool and the results were no better than coin tossing.

Right, so where were we going with this thread?  AI can selectively change parts of an image?

The Ghost of Prancy McPrettykins agreed, but I'm not talking about use of AI images. I was originally referring to photographers using other people's work and presenting it as their own. I wonder if there's a way to run automated background checks to make sure the images match the copyright owner. Difficult no doubt, but not impossible.

Infinity Valerie said

The Ghost of Prancy McPrettykins agreed, but I'm not talking about use of AI images. I was originally referring to photographers using other people's work and presenting it as their own. I wonder if there's a way to run automated background checks to make sure the images match the copyright owner. Difficult no doubt, but not impossible.

I believe the site already uses reverse image search to check whether images have been lifted from elsewhere. AI makes that substantially harder because you can take an image from somewhere else, run a regeneration on it and present it as a whole new image.

We already have the GWC problem where their best shots are from a workshop run by an experienced photographer where their normal level is much worse. AI just turns the tables in the models favour by allowing them to literally be someone else.

On a more positive note, people can now model anonymously AND show a face, just not their own.

indemnity said

GPA6 said

Why do people keep finding the need to run 'background checks'? I wish this culture would stop. It destroyed my thread and countless others. I'm personally very interested in what spoon has shared in his original post. Once again there was nothing amis but there's been a couple of pages of finger pointing and now the thread has completely lost its way. Spoon, if you are reading this, can I ask which platform you have been using? Thanks

People do checks for a variety of reasons, that's their business/prerogative. Contacting members directly can be a rewarding and friendly way of obtaining information on PP.

So what's the reason here?  there is only a tiny hand full of background checkers on here but they are extremely vocal on these boards and have ruined yet another decent thread. It's no wonder so few people actively involve themselves in the community here. Why aren't people happy to discuss the topic at hand?

GPA6 said

indemnity said

GPA6 said

Why do people keep finding the need to run 'background checks'? I wish this culture would stop. It destroyed my thread and countless others. I'm personally very interested in what spoon has shared in his original post. Once again there was nothing amis but there's been a couple of pages of finger pointing and now the thread has completely lost its way. Spoon, if you are reading this, can I ask which platform you have been using? Thanks

People do checks for a variety of reasons, that's their business/prerogative. Contacting members directly can be a rewarding and friendly way of obtaining information on PP.

So what's the reason here?  there is only a tiny hand full of background checkers on here but they are extremely vocal on these boards and have ruined yet another decent thread. It's no wonder so few people actively involve themselves in the community here. Why aren't people happy to discuss the topic at hand?

Well the thread is about plagiarism, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to discuss it.

-sp●●n- said

GPA6 said

Why do people keep finding the need to run 'background checks'? I wish this culture would stop. It destroyed my thread and countless others. I'm personally very interested in what spoon has shared in his original post. Once again there was nothing amis but there's been a couple of pages of finger pointing and now the thread has completely lost its way. Spoon, if you are reading this, can I ask which platform you have been using? Thanks

leonardo.ai 

I have trialed Leonardo with some of my own images and Tensor.art. For sun an early stage in the development of 'copied' AI the results have been impressive.  Very impressive. I can see merging a genuine photo with an AI generated image to not only become impossible to detect but also be totally acceptable (if it isn't already)