AI generated image wins Sony Photography Award

Or change the name of the competition to the Sony Image Award :)

Russ Freeman said

Ouch.

Sony, a maker of cameras, has experienced their Nathan moment...

Well, it's Sony, what do you expect?
They've been driving photography down a blind alley for quite a while now, trying to innovate to the point of foolproof cameras.
This is just another "Sony thing". No skill required at all.

Since there are no persons depicted, they don't need to grant permission.

The rules are available here: https://www.worldphoto.org/sony-world-photography-awards/open

I haven't finished my morning coffee but kudos to anyone who can point to the rule that directly states that each entry must be a photograph.

This one would seem to be broken by any photo of a living human, since photographs of them are personally identifiable information:

    4.1.3 Each Entry does not contain personally identifiable information about You or any other person(s)

So in that sense this image may follow the rules better than any real photographs of real people...

MAndrew It might not break the rules but it is not a photograph. If they allow AI images then the fault is in the name of the competition.

Why do I suspect that this same competition next year, will have slightly amended rules for the entry for the images submitted?

Capture 77 said

Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of a photograph is as follows: ​

‘a picture that is made by using a camera that stores images in digital form or that has a film sensitive to light inside it’

The said competition winner is not a photograph so therefore should be disqualified.

Point of order: a dictionary does not define a word.

A word has a meaning, and a dictionary documents that meaning.

If the word's meaning changes over time, then the dictionary's entry for that word should reflect that change.

Tabitha Boydell said

We’ve been trolled at the ultimate level

However, it’s a photography award and the image is not a photograph so needs to be disqualified

As has been noted, the creator of that image has said exactly the same thing, and has refused his prize.

Capture 77 said

MAndrew It might not break the rules but it is not a photograph. If they allow AI images then the fault is in the name of the competition.

I completely agree, it makes a mockery of the competition and the other entrants.

I'm not saying it's right, I suspect the reason the rules don't clearly state what is allowed is that we're already well past the point of simple definitions, and into the fuzzy realm of "I can't tell you what breaks the rules but I know it when I see it". By avoiding tying themselves in knots with a definition in the rules they open themselves up to things like this where such an entry may not techniclly breach the rules.

Anyway the winner is now someone else (even though their image surely breaches rule 4.1.3) , and they have >cough< artificially generated a lot of publicity for the competition and the former winner - whether that's a good or bad thing in the long run remains to be seen.

At least now, anyone that can type or speak a prompt to an image-generating algorithm has the same opportunities to win as someone that has spent decades honing their skills and their craft, so in many respects, it's just making things equal.

The next step is to declare everyone a winner and divide the prize between all entrants.

Sensual Art said

Capture 77 said

Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of a photograph is as follows: ​

‘a picture that is made by using a camera that stores images in digital form or that has a film sensitive to light inside it’

The said competition winner is not a photograph so therefore should be disqualified.

Point of order: a dictionary does not define a word.

A word has a meaning, and a dictionary documents that meaning.

If the word's meaning changes over time, then the dictionary's entry for that word should reflect that change.

There is, however, a legal definition in the UK Copyright Act 1988:

“photograph” means a recording of light or other radiation on any medium on which an image is produced or from which an image may by any means be produced, and which is not part of a film;

Huw said

Not bad, for a Sony competition.

AI hasn't mastered Canon Colour Science yet I see.

;)

It shouldn't take too long for skin to look like Doritos dipped in Irnbru the same as some real images.

Kevin Connery said

..

Additionally, this particular one seems to technically violate the Open category overall rule 4.3: "You confirm that each person depicted in the Entry has granted permission to be portrayed as shown." Given that the persons depicted don't actually exist, they can't have granted permission. (They can't have objected, either, but that's not how the rule was written.)

...

Edited by Kevin Connery

Of course, you could also argue that as they don't exist, they're not actually persons, and so no permission is needed.

However, on the general question of should this image be valid in this competition, I firmly agree with those in the "No" camp - it's not a photograph, so shouldn't be included.

Of course, this does all lead on to the more general question of what should be allowed - are composite images valid, how much 'manipulation' is allowed, etc.

Cloning out dust spots, seems perfectly acceptable, but what about removing other parts of a scene?

Whether you're pro AI or anti AI, it's taking over no matter what and portrait photography is only a small part of it.
They have already manage to fool a bunch of simps to pay for AI generated pictures on Only Fans and now they are improving AI generated video by the day, which means that even the porn industry will be taken over eventually, give it one year top. I heard even Lewis published a board of entirely AI generated models, to improve diversity they said, yeah sure...
It's done, nobody will stop that thing at this point and we're at the beginning of a radical change, will it be good or bad for humankind, only the future will tell.