AI and plagurism

How happy would anyone be to find an account set up using their photos?

This is a fake: https://www.instagram.com/realhughalison/ using photos stolen from my Modelmayhem account.

I have reported it to IG, and so have others. They have done nothing.

Plagiarism seems OK until it happens to oneself.

Huw said

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.

I see, so spoon has at some point been portraying other peoples work as his own? I must be reading a different thread because I didn't see that!

Gothic Image said

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

It's necessarily about consent/licensing (amongst other things) and the extent to which AI engines should be permitted to use peoples' imagery and/or likeness for machine learning, without their consent/licensing.

But if photographers here aren't really bothered about mangling other photographers' images willy-nilly and without their knowledge or consent, I'm not sure here is the right place for that debate.

Edited by FiL

GPA6 said

Huw said

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.

I see, so spoon has at some point been portraying other peoples work as his own? I must be reading a different thread because I didn't see that!

Maybe.

But consider this. If the images output by leonardo.ai based on the input provided by Spoony aren't his, whose are they?

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?

That's the members prerogative, they don't need to voice their reason.

GPA6 just the usual faux outrage, people have to vent, even at meaningless issues.

Before you ask, no I did not portray the original image as my own, I did not even portray the derived works as my own, they are throw away image to prove a point. Yes I gained permission from the “owner” here in PP.

GPA6 said

Huw said

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.

I see, so spoon has at some point been portraying other peoples work as his own? I must be reading a different thread because I didn't see that!

I don’t think anyone suggested that….

Huw said

GPA6 said

I see, so spoon has at some point been portraying other peoples work as his own? I must be reading a different thread because I didn't see that!

I don’t think anyone suggested that….

So where is the plagurism then? are people suggesting the original photo is not owned by the poster? (oh the perfect irony if that is true). 

-sp●●n- said

Huw said

GPA6 said

I see, so spoon has at some point been portraying other peoples work as his own? I must be reading a different thread because I didn't see that!

I don’t think anyone suggested that….

So where is the plagurism then?

It's derived from your first post in this thread. You didn't acknowledge the source which leaves you open to accusations of plagiarism.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe that the reason you didn't acknowledge is because you tried to insert a link which contained a tag, but the system didn't complete the link/tag in the way you expected it to. Am I being too kind?

Edited by FiL

FiL said

-sp●●n- said

So where is the plagurism then?

It's derived from your first post in this thread. You didn't acknowledge the source which leaves you open to accusations of plagiarism.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe that the reason you didn't acknowledge is because you tried to insert a link which contained a tag, but the system didn't complete the link/tag in the way you expected it to. Am I being too kind?

Edited by FiL

It is hardly my fault if the link did not work as intended, and if I was trying to hide something, would I have chosen an FPI image from the very day it was an FPI? one of the most viewed images on the site that day...

indemnity said

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?

That's the members prerogative, they don't need to voice their reason.

which is driving people away from open discussion.  Why doesn't anyone that's not interested in the original thread just go and find another one? 

-sp●●n- said

FiL said

-sp●●n- said

So where is the plagurism then?

It's derived from your first post in this thread. You didn't acknowledge the source which leaves you open to accusations of plagiarism.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe that the reason you didn't acknowledge is because you tried to insert a link which contained a tag, but the system didn't complete the link/tag in the way you expected it to. Am I being too kind?

Edited by FiL

It is hardly my fault if the link did not work as intended, and if I was trying to hide something, would I have chosen an FPI image from the very day it was an FPI? one of the most viewed images on the site that day...

I wouldn't rely on people actively monitoring FPIs if I were you - many don't including me.

But it's good to know that it was a system/user error rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead people. I don't think anyone here really believed that was the case though.

-sp●●n- said

GPA6 just the usual faux outrage, people have to vent, even at meaningless issues.

Before you ask, no I did not portray the original image as my own, I did not even portray the derived works as my own, they are throw away image to prove a point. Yes I gained permission from the “owner” here in PP.

Well, I find this a most interesting and very valid topic.  It is something that (like it or not) will change the face of photography for ever. I wish we could get under the skin of it if for no other reason then to set parameters.  That won't happen on an open discussion here on purple port even though it will affect this site and everyone on it. 

Image

I tried to insert the image using the image tab but it didn't work, I had copied a link from my drop box account. 

anyway, the picture was created in a few mins, selfie, ai generated image and then a couple of mins to overlay. 80 plus percent is AI, is the top image acceptable among photographers? 

Edited by GPA6

GPA6 said

I tried to insert the image using the image tab but it didn't work, I had copied a link from my drop box account. 

anyway, the picture was created in a few mins, selfie, ai generated image and then a couple of mins to overlay. 80 plus percent is AI, is the top image acceptable among photographers? 

Edited by GPA6

I cannot wait for it to become mainstream and the mess it will make to dating apps "but you look nothing like the picture".

GPA6 said

[snip]

which is driving people away from open discussion.  Why doesn't anyone that's not interested in the original thread just go and find another one? 

I think some of us are trying to understand what the original thread was actually about, hence my comment above.  AI can selectively alter parts of an existing image - don't we know that already?  What's the discussion point here?