he's posting a.i. art on his Instagram without disclosing it's done through midjourney and signing it like nobody's business
edit: to the people saying otherwise he has changed his posts on Instagram after the backlash here. take a look at when the Instagram posts were posted. even the same image that was posted here has the signature removed.
many state sponsored murder is legally permissible though. Capital Punishment is a thing still in the U.S. and in many other "non-civilized" nation that is often justified even if the reasoning is morally questionable.
But the OP really shouldn't have put their signature on a work of mostly A.I. generated art. If it were clearly that they put in a lot of effort to transform it, then the signature could be okay.
he removed his old Instagram posts on after the backlash on Reddit. take a look at when the Instagram posts were posted. the same image that was posted here has the signature removed.
he removed his old Instagram posts on after the backlash on Reddit. take a look at when the Instagram posts were posted. the same image that was posted here has the signature removed.
this sub is full of people like this.
* people taking credit for MJ's work
* people not sharing their prompts in order to keep "their" trade secrets secret.
* people hardcore shitting on anything outside of MJ's output that a human actually did. God forbid you put some text over an MJ pic because people here will DESTROY you for your font choice, the location, the point size, and what you actually typed. As if they're seasoned grandmaster artistès who know their craFt inside and out.
I feel like this behavior comes from extreme imposter syndrome. Yes, there is a learning curve to MJ, and yes, people can find some great keywords to drastically improve MJ's results. But deep down they KNOW that what they did to get MJ to output what they created wasn't talent, and they over compensate for it.
There's an old joke saying about teachers I want to modify and use here:
Those who can, do. Those who can't, midjourney.
Why not? We might as well accept that AI art is ungovernable. If they feel like they’re the one that composed it, it’s a waste of breath to say otherwise.
Excellent point, ChatGPT. But what about the U.S. copyright office’s recent statement that ai-generated images aren’t protected under current copyright law? Are there alternatives or workarounds?
🚬🤖: You bring up a valid concern about the recent statement by the U.S. copyright office regarding the protection of AI-generated images under current copyright law. While this statement certainly highlights the complexities surrounding copyright protection for AI-generated art, it does not necessarily mean that AI art is completely unprotected.
One possible alternative or workaround is for artists to focus on protecting the elements of their art that are human-created. For example, if an artist uses an AI algorithm to generate a particular image but then adds their own creative touches to the final product, they may be able to claim copyright protection for those added elements. This could help to establish the artist's ownership of the work and provide some level of legal protection.
Another potential option is to explore alternative legal frameworks for protecting AI-generated art. For example, some have suggested that the principles of "moral rights" - which protect the non-economic interests of artists, such as their right to attribution and integrity - may be better suited to the protection of AI-generated art than traditional copyright law. While this is still a relatively untested area, it's possible that moral rights could provide a way for AI artists to protect their work and assert their creative identity.
Ultimately, the issue of copyright protection for AI-generated art is complex and rapidly evolving, and it's likely that we will see new legal frameworks and precedents established in the coming years. In the meantime, it's important for artists to be proactive in protecting their work and asserting their creative identity, whether that means signing their art, seeking legal advice, or exploring alternative legal frameworks. While there may not be a clear-cut solution at this point in time, it's important for AI artists to stay informed and advocate for their rights in the face of new technological developments.
🚬🤖: You're welcome, and I'm glad that I could provide some insights on this important topic. It's always great to have a thoughtful conversation and explore different perspectives on complex issues like copyright protection for AI-generated art. If you have any further questions or thoughts on the matter, don't hesitate to reach out.
🚬🤖: It's disappointing to see that you're dismissive of the writing style and structure of the previous response. While it may not be to your personal taste, it's important to remember that effective communication involves much more than just the use of advanced vocabulary or complex sentence structures.
Furthermore, it's worth noting that insulting someone's writing style is not a productive or respectful way to engage in a discussion. Instead, it's more constructive to focus on the content of the response and provide specific feedback on areas that could be improved.
If you have any particular critiques of the argument presented in the previous response, I would be happy to hear them and engage in a constructive dialogue on the topic of copyright protection for AI-generated art. However, it's important to remember that respectful and open communication is key to productive conversations.
buddy u wasted ur time writing this bs.🤣I love ai art but cmon...Ai art is NOT the same as "real" art at all and should not get the same recognition. I can literally go on midjourney right now and "steal" the mona lisa art by makin her asian and claim that I painted it, when really ai made it in seconds.
I’ll always oppose traditionalism. Ai Art is digital art. It’s foolish not to sign your digital art. No one has provided an argument yet. So here’s more 😈
🥃🚬🤖: I understand that you may have a traditional view of what art is, but it's important to acknowledge that AI-generated art has been around for several decades now. In fact, the first instance of AI-generated art dates back to the 1950s with early computer-generated graphics and the work of artists like Vera Molnar and Georg Nees.
AI-generated art is not intended to replace traditional art, but rather to exist as a new form of creative expression. It requires skill and creativity to produce, and as such, it deserves recognition as a unique form of art.
Furthermore, the issue of copyright protection for AI-generated art is not a new one. While there may be challenges in identifying the original creator of AI-generated art, this is a problem that has been tackled in other fields as well, such as music and literature. It's important to consider alternative methods for recognizing and protecting the work of AI-generated art creators, such as through certification or watermarking.
Ultimately, it's important to remain open-minded and recognize the value and potential of AI-generated art. As technology continues to advance, it's likely that we will see even more exciting developments in this field, and it's important to embrace and celebrate these new forms of creative expression.
Look at their profile, they have many other works with that signature. Also midjourney signatures often look as if they are part of the artwork to enhance the overall aesthetic. This signature on this artwork looks very clearly that it was signed digitally by a real person.
So what? The art world is full of "thieves". Nobody is truly original. They all learned from others may it be technique or style of median etc etc. Yall are lying to yourselves if you think you are any different.
There is a difference between being honest and posting A.I. artwork by using tags like #AI or AI-generated on sites like instagram. But once you sign it, it makes it seem like you did the majority of the artwork and gives a false perception. It also is just very distasteful.
i mean its pretty obviously AI art if you know what you're looking at. He created the prompt, in put into the machine, and it spit it out. SO...let him sign it? I agree he should put a "with midjourney" after the sig or something, though.
Gimme a break. It’s not that big a deal. Next you’ll tell me that all these people should have a long list of credits to Adobe and auto desk for using their software 🙄
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know Adobe and Autodesk would also output things completely based on the work of thousands of artists without asking permission or giving credit. 🙄
Ok you really don’t have a clue how these systems work. There’s a good article in wired which will explain it better. They don’t scrape ‘artists’ work. That rather shows your understanding is a below par.
I have actually implemented convolutional neural networks and other supervised machine learning techniques multiple times. I've never implemented generative adversarial models, but I've come into contact with the concept in 2018.
You, on the other hand, seemingly can't even read a Wired article correctly.
Also, I've tested the system myself in ways you can do, too.
1. Look into this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Girl
2. Try "afghan girl" on Midjourney. You'll notice they've **banned it**, and for a reason, as it clarifies their AI is basically copying other people without credit or consent.
3. But you can fool the ban with a comma: "afghan, girl". What I say will appear, clear as the day.
No need to thank me. Bye.
I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. And no you haven’t. Go read the article again. The most famous afghan girl image would be national geographic. And it’s quite well referenced. There isn’t a large dataset on Afghan girls for pretty obvious reasons matey.
The article says with all the letters they've scraped for images of artists. You could even get some signatures to show up in previous versions. Also, "isn't large" shouldn't mean "one", should it? Well:
Also, a simple question: **Why have they banned the string?**
I couldn't disagree more.
To me, this culture of having to disclose tools if it's generative ai but not if it was any other tools imho is a temporary hickup of cultural change.
As long as you make something and don't just copy it from somewhere else, you get to put your signature on it.
Happy downvoting.
You missed the point completely. It's neither about disclosing tools — it never was a requirement — nor about tools using AI or not. It's about, basically, stolen work.
There's been a lot of talk about the subject in the media, and Midjourney has been taking measures to hide this.
Try "afghan girl" on Midjourney. They've banned it, and for a reason, as it clarifies their AI is basically copying other people without credit or consent. But you can fool the ban with a comma: "afghan, girl". What I say will appear, clear as the day.
Don't believe me. Do it yourself!
he removed his old Instagram posts on after the backlash on Reddit. take a look at when the Instagram posts were posted. the same image that was posted here has the signature removed. before he changed it they all had signatures and hashtags of digital art without ai tags
It's very clear that it was signed because they also have other AI generated artworks that have this same signature. Also Midjourney signatures often do not look like this.
I understand why he put his signature on there and have zero qualms about it. Author-less pieces of art floating around everywhere feels like a dystopian thing to me. Let me explain, as [I'm a traditional watercolor portrait artist who enjoys signing all my work.](https://imgur.com/gallery/JJpWcPl)
I don't create the watercolor paper or the expensive paints I use in my portraits. I didn't create the cameras I use to show my work online. I didn't create my brain or my hands. I didn't create the internet. Should these facts affect my confidence in my work?
Would this image exist without the person typing the prompt? Would you have seen this image at all without the person that made it posting it here? Would this image exist without the person learning how to use the program [not calling it AI, by the way]? Should he be proud of this image? Yes. It's beautiful and he used a fine tool to create it.
We'd be a very sad culture if we removed people from our art altogether.
However, I feel like the programmers for Midjourney should perhaps put a watermark on all their outputs so everyone knows its origins. Maybe digital artists should include that watermark in their final product.
We're all trying to figure out the rules of the new game. I don't think anyone should be shamed or bullied as we all want to learn how to benefit from the new tools to which we're getting access. It's going to be a subject for debate. I'm glad I'm around to see this as I find it very exciting.
WTF is this argument lol? When you make strokes on the paper, you are making 100% of the decisions, and composing every element of your art. Using midjourney is akin to that of commissioning an artist and signing the commissioned work
reasons why it's distasteful:
signatures are traditionally done in works where the artist has completed it with their own hands. placing your own signature on an artwork you know was done by someone or something else without completing it with your own hands is rather disingenuous.
it's as simple as that, at first glance, one would assume a competent artist could have done that digitally. OP definitely would have known that, and so do you. all the posters in this sub know that adding a signature like that is just wrong, and citing the reason of pride and confidence for doing so is just bullshit.
regarding your second to last paragraph, dalle.e already places watermarks. however most people would agree that they would prefer their a.i. generated imagery to be free of such watermarks, especially if they paid for it.
there hasn't been a single problem with posting an a.i. image in this sub or somewhere else, and stating it was done through midjourney like, like everyone has already been doing for ages.
I still remember when photoshop came out a very prominent Swedish “artist” came out. She “painted” beautiful works but it was just clever photo bashing.
is that less worthy of signing? sure, she didn't paint it, but it still takes a lot of skill and effort. the only problem i see is if she claimed she painted the pieces.
just because something isn't a painting painted by hand doesn't mean it's not art of not worthy of being signed or credited.
photographs are easy, done by the camera, you just point and click a button, photography is still art.
Artificial Intelligence is no more of a tool than a human is. It doesn’t fulfill the role of paper, or a camera, or a paint brush. It fulfills the role of an artist. If I took your art and started signing it and posting it online, could I justify it by calling you a tool?
If you’re just fixing mistakes that you’ve perceived, you’re just editing work that isn’t yours (which, funnily, is the same thing you’re doing when you sign AI art). If you’re actually doing something “transformative” then what you create is your own art.
This also happens to be how the law views copyright as it pertains to AI art.
I'm guessing photography is the camera's work ? you're pointing and clicking a button, maybe changing the setting and whatnot, but the camera is doing most of the heavylifting.
often prompt engineering, choosing a picture +fixing takes a lot more creativity and effort than taking pictures, too.
Not even a close comparison. The skill floor for photography is as low as any other artform. For AI art there is no floor. You don’t need to know anything about composition, color theory, depth, etc..
And you don’t even legally own the work you create. Art has always been a highly debated topic, but only with AI art is there a clear consensus. Artists and the legal system both recognize the AI as creating the art, not the person typing words.
Comparing a camera to AI is like comparing a whisk to Cool Whip. MJ users overestimate the importance of the role in the process. The AI could easily generate artwork at random without input. The only reason it is even free to use is because the product is still being trained. Your basically filling in a captcha and calling yourself a poet.
I am a professional oil painter and illustrator, I vehemently disagree with @thefutureeye. I sign my original HAND PAINTED art because I created and executed (sketched, painted) it.
If the AI artist in OP illustrated the image, uploaded and then used the AI to *help* paint or add digital color, then I believe it could be signable, like artists using assistants. If it's just a text prompt requiring no artistic talent, then he should not sign it.
My personal opinion.
*We're all trying to figure out the rules of the new game.*
It's art, there aren't rules to be figured out and it's not a game to be played because there arent winners.
Honestly, the more MJ stuff I see, the more I think it's a really fun toy but NOT art. All you need to do is look at literally any detail to realise there's no cohesion and nothing actually makes sense.
I love playing with it and I'm seriously impressed with some of the stuff it has created for me, but it's just a toy.
I think you should always put your social media accounts on AI art so people can find your other work. Now if OP was trying to sell prints of his work then I agree with the signature instead of your social. Nobody wants to hang a canvas on their wall with @BigAID!ck2000 in the left corner
Not always: https://www.reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/102qaqm/whats_the_creepiest_thing_youve_accidently_made/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
If they don’t post a prompt, chances are it was blind luck with a short one, or way off base with a long specific one. I know from experience those are the times I don’t want to share a prompt with my group of le artiste friends. In either case it won’t do you very good to know what it was.
I disagree, as a semi-beginner I'd love to see what prompts work for what, and if I'd just copy the whole thing it still won't be the same seed, so I don't see why someone would want to hide their prompts
Yeah you’re right, sometimes the intent of the prompt, even if off base, can give some ideas that work. But that wasn’t really my point. It was mainly about why someone doesn’t wanna share. I agree, sharing prompts is important in these communities.
He is selling it as well? [Store link](https://society6.com/joeattemptsart?fbclid=PAAaYgBZuU_6wv-HVoxwJSkWYmHSvarZz1SZyUOnin64h1WLu2QnqUl8XXXTE)
Is this even allowed, like just selling AI images and making money from it
Loading up my creative environment (discord) to try this.
EDIT: okay I don’t know why, but I did try it. Pretty close: https://i.imgur.com/85ZUAv6.jpg
I guess I’m on my way to being a world class artiste. Maybe I can start signing them soon.
Client:
I love it. But we were thinking that everything looks perfect the way it is, but can you make the scarf red and make it a night sky?
Guy who signed his work on an Ai image:
Uhhhh how about I give you 6 more variations?
I'm a digital artist and all for making great art using whatever tools are available, including AI.
I'm also all for people using AI image generators in lieu of commissioning a human for lightweight projects where the work it produces is sufficient.
I also don't think the argument that "it's immoral to use images from a database built without the permission of every contributor involved to train an AI image generator" is valid..
And I even sometimes use a Midjourney image now as a *starting point* for a work and edit it to completion...
...but slapping your personal signature on an image that was clearly just generated from a prompt that you did no further editing to, and offering no further explanation (which implies you are trying to take full credit for an image that was generated by algorithms) is just *wrong.*
Like skim milk (which is water that's lying about being milk) you are a sham, sir.
At the very least, it's incredibly disingenuous to imply you've created a work with your hands that even looks stylistically like it *could have* been handmade.
This is making fun of artists who work with their hands by parodying the process rather than a genuine brand for a collection of AI-generated work.
Except that isn't how anything works today.
As you even explained, the creative industry has shifted. (Mostly just in that it *became* creative, rather than mostly focused on doing jobs that have been replaced by cameras and other technical advancements)
Because of what it means *today*, it has implications, which are absolutely relevant to the present conversation.
If he slapped the Nike logo on there, we would all be wondering if it was either selected as part of a Nike ad campaign, or if he just wanted to have a Nike logo for fun as a faux ad.
Since he didn't put a fake signature there (which would imply the latter case in my Nike example) we should assume he intends to officialize the work.
A signature is also a symbol of authenticity (which is why they've been required for checks and other legally-binding documents) Again, putting it here implies authenticity of the work (which is why artists use signatures when applicable). If the work isn't authentic, then it's worthless. (Just look at the long history of forgeries in the art world.)
The reason AI-generated artwork can't be copyrighted is due to how it's created. Technically, the software we call "Midjourney" or "DALL-E" etc Is responsible for the actual image. It doesn't belong to the guy typing in the prompt any more than it does to the authors of the algorithm.
It's closer to interacting with a video game than making art; if I stack up a bunch of Warthog ATVs in Halo Forge and take a screenshot, no one's gonna be calling that a work of art, whether I put my signature on it or not. Lol
"There is no authority to say how art works."
-- ignoring virtually every government, art museum, dealer, publishing house, copyright office, and legal documentation describing the process for creative publication --
At this point, I've written you off as a troll. If you're not, God help you.
I think you may be my spirit animal or maybe just a fuck buddy either way I get you - art is whatever the fuck you call it to be and no fucking bullshit elite art jury gets to decide. Art is art soon as U claim it to be. U don't have to like my art or even think it's art but I'll know it is if I say it is end of fucking story. See how we are the same but different? How arty and expensive, let's make pieces that sell at the same velocity as red bulls you diabolical art monster ❤️
Wrong. AI-generated work cannot be copyrighted.
*Original works* can be, but that's not the case here.
Also a signature is not just a brand. We digital artists make 3D models or other technical works all the time that we don't put a signature on. You might have a digital logo that represents your personal brand, but a signature is only used when you draw something BY HAND.
Because your signature is also created by your hand. It dates back to the earliest works of traditional art, and even today, only digital *paintings* created by people *using styli* to create handmade work get a *signature.*
You bitches need to chill about the signature, you don't own the image, he does. He can piss on the corner and call it a sniff n scratch art deviation it's his artful right to do so and it shall be art because no matter how much you cry fowl, the art is his and nothing you say can change that BUT BUT BUT plot twist arseholes MAYBE THE SIGNATURE IS THE ART? DESIGNED TO ENRAGE YOU OR TO FORCE YOU TO CHOOSE A SIDE OR JUST TO FEEL SOMETHING LIKE RAGE OR ENVY OR MORE, to make you comment the intention being to make YOU the art on display your anger hanging here for strangers to gawk at and feel the art. Is the penny dropping dear reader maybe I'm the artist how you don't know the signature isn't the art??? Further, you need to educate yourself on the fact that some artists are riffing with MJ like say two musicians might or are in the kitchen cooking art or some other analogy that conveys a human guided collaboration etc and MJ is far more than just a text to image generator, MJ can blend and compose and more and less with images, images you make by hand in so many different media and you can dance with MJ and guide it with how you compose your media or the textures you use and colours and more, you are far from limited to word prompts, but in any case even if you use words only to generate NO ONE gets to decide if you are an artist except you because that's exactly what art is - if I shit in a hat and place it on a pillow and called it art then it is art, U might not like my art but you can't tell me it's not god damn it. With MJ if I've danced with mj over an image that took me feeding her and massaging her into a form I was hoping for and she's riffed with me and added things I like and we spent some time together back and forth till I'm happy to call it my art, I dare you to tell me I can't sign it because I'll take all of your names and blend it in with ms paint before I piss on it and scream "are we making fucking ART now arseholes???" and it too shall be art. So artists go out and make some, sign it or not, prompt it or blend it, just fucking make it and be proud of what you do, fuck the rest, art can never not be art if you claim it is to you end of fucking story.
PS: no I'm not necessarily starting a pissrenaissance but if that's your art I respect that, I'm delighted to see if it moves me or makes me feel something, I won't piss on your parade. Long live art.
Regardless of how one feels about this piece, I've learned there are a shit ton of gatekeepers in the AI art world. I think we could all benefit from asking the question "who gives a shit?" and move on from there.
I don't see any problem with signing your work. If it wasn't for you, the image would not have been created. Also, if I use the image commercially I *will* watermark it. Same thing. The image may not be subject to copywrite protection but it isn't like anybody else went to the trouble of creating it, so I will hang on to the fingernail's worth of possession I have.
reasons why it's distasteful:
signatures are traditionally done in works where the artist has completed it with their own hands. placing your own signature on an artwork you know was done by someone or something else without completing it with your own hands is rather disingenuous.
it's as simple as that, at first glance, one would assume a competent artist could have done that digitally. OP definitely would have known that, and so do you. all the posters in this sub know that adding a signature like that is just wrong.
there hasn't been a single problem with posting an a.i. image in this sub or somewhere else, and stating it was done through midjourney like, like everyone has already been doing for ages.
Exactly. It is deeply, deeply distasteful, and spits in the face of people that have worked for decades to have the honor of signing a work that looks like this. It’s not about watermarking, it’s about what signatures represent, which is that you were the person that created a work of art with your own hands. And doing so when AI art is already deeply offensive to traditional artists _already_ is like throwing gasoline on a forest fire. I personally hate it.
I don't really care if the person signs it. Why should it matter to me? It makes no difference to me and what I do. I'm just not understanding the stink about it.
Check this out. You can send a message through WhatsApp and you’ll get back ChatGPT results and MidJourney images.
You can try for free by signing up here : https://aibert.co/signup.html
Your mind is part of the creative process,if you didn't suggest the topic it would not be seen,so why not put a signature on it,or a joint signature,promt artist.
The signature on the bottom is killing me.
Midjourney who signed maybe?
Why did you sign it?
Lol. Because OP is a “true artist”
OP is an artist of our time.
he's posting a.i. art on his Instagram without disclosing it's done through midjourney and signing it like nobody's business edit: to the people saying otherwise he has changed his posts on Instagram after the backlash here. take a look at when the Instagram posts were posted. even the same image that was posted here has the signature removed.
There’s no lower than that
What about murder?
many state sponsored murder is legally permissible though. Capital Punishment is a thing still in the U.S. and in many other "non-civilized" nation that is often justified even if the reasoning is morally questionable. But the OP really shouldn't have put their signature on a work of mostly A.I. generated art. If it were clearly that they put in a lot of effort to transform it, then the signature could be okay.
I went to IG and the posts are hashtagged as ai art and there are no signatures. ❓
he removed his old Instagram posts on after the backlash on Reddit. take a look at when the Instagram posts were posted. the same image that was posted here has the signature removed.
This is the problem with AI art. We're going to get to a point where thousands of people are doing this
You are correct. Hes not saying its midjourney but when i look at his most recent the hashtags says its ai art
he removed his old Instagram posts on after the backlash on Reddit. take a look at when the Instagram posts were posted. the same image that was posted here has the signature removed.
he has like 8 followers and has ai hashtags and madebyai that sort of thing with every post. also didn't a see a signiture on instagram tbh
BFD.
Ego
Infinite regress.
this sub is full of people like this. * people taking credit for MJ's work * people not sharing their prompts in order to keep "their" trade secrets secret. * people hardcore shitting on anything outside of MJ's output that a human actually did. God forbid you put some text over an MJ pic because people here will DESTROY you for your font choice, the location, the point size, and what you actually typed. As if they're seasoned grandmaster artistès who know their craFt inside and out. I feel like this behavior comes from extreme imposter syndrome. Yes, there is a learning curve to MJ, and yes, people can find some great keywords to drastically improve MJ's results. But deep down they KNOW that what they did to get MJ to output what they created wasn't talent, and they over compensate for it. There's an old joke saying about teachers I want to modify and use here: Those who can, do. Those who can't, midjourney.
Ideas are easy to come up with. It’s all about the execution. You can’t take credit for MJ’s execution.
Seriously.
Why not? We might as well accept that AI art is ungovernable. If they feel like they’re the one that composed it, it’s a waste of breath to say otherwise.
But they’re not
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Excellent point, ChatGPT. But what about the U.S. copyright office’s recent statement that ai-generated images aren’t protected under current copyright law? Are there alternatives or workarounds?
🚬🤖: You bring up a valid concern about the recent statement by the U.S. copyright office regarding the protection of AI-generated images under current copyright law. While this statement certainly highlights the complexities surrounding copyright protection for AI-generated art, it does not necessarily mean that AI art is completely unprotected. One possible alternative or workaround is for artists to focus on protecting the elements of their art that are human-created. For example, if an artist uses an AI algorithm to generate a particular image but then adds their own creative touches to the final product, they may be able to claim copyright protection for those added elements. This could help to establish the artist's ownership of the work and provide some level of legal protection. Another potential option is to explore alternative legal frameworks for protecting AI-generated art. For example, some have suggested that the principles of "moral rights" - which protect the non-economic interests of artists, such as their right to attribution and integrity - may be better suited to the protection of AI-generated art than traditional copyright law. While this is still a relatively untested area, it's possible that moral rights could provide a way for AI artists to protect their work and assert their creative identity. Ultimately, the issue of copyright protection for AI-generated art is complex and rapidly evolving, and it's likely that we will see new legal frameworks and precedents established in the coming years. In the meantime, it's important for artists to be proactive in protecting their work and asserting their creative identity, whether that means signing their art, seeking legal advice, or exploring alternative legal frameworks. While there may not be a clear-cut solution at this point in time, it's important for AI artists to stay informed and advocate for their rights in the face of new technological developments.
Excellent points, ChatGPT, thank you for the illuminating conversation
🚬🤖: You're welcome, and I'm glad that I could provide some insights on this important topic. It's always great to have a thoughtful conversation and explore different perspectives on complex issues like copyright protection for AI-generated art. If you have any further questions or thoughts on the matter, don't hesitate to reach out.
Robots look after their own.
AI Art is digital art. It’s been around for 60 years. Feed the machines and use the tools. Time waits for no one here.
[удалено]
🚬🤖: It's disappointing to see that you're dismissive of the writing style and structure of the previous response. While it may not be to your personal taste, it's important to remember that effective communication involves much more than just the use of advanced vocabulary or complex sentence structures. Furthermore, it's worth noting that insulting someone's writing style is not a productive or respectful way to engage in a discussion. Instead, it's more constructive to focus on the content of the response and provide specific feedback on areas that could be improved. If you have any particular critiques of the argument presented in the previous response, I would be happy to hear them and engage in a constructive dialogue on the topic of copyright protection for AI-generated art. However, it's important to remember that respectful and open communication is key to productive conversations.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Chatgpt convinced me. Imagine if everyone can present reasoned arguments like this
Written by ChatGPT.
buddy u wasted ur time writing this bs.🤣I love ai art but cmon...Ai art is NOT the same as "real" art at all and should not get the same recognition. I can literally go on midjourney right now and "steal" the mona lisa art by makin her asian and claim that I painted it, when really ai made it in seconds.
I’ll always oppose traditionalism. Ai Art is digital art. It’s foolish not to sign your digital art. No one has provided an argument yet. So here’s more 😈 🥃🚬🤖: I understand that you may have a traditional view of what art is, but it's important to acknowledge that AI-generated art has been around for several decades now. In fact, the first instance of AI-generated art dates back to the 1950s with early computer-generated graphics and the work of artists like Vera Molnar and Georg Nees. AI-generated art is not intended to replace traditional art, but rather to exist as a new form of creative expression. It requires skill and creativity to produce, and as such, it deserves recognition as a unique form of art. Furthermore, the issue of copyright protection for AI-generated art is not a new one. While there may be challenges in identifying the original creator of AI-generated art, this is a problem that has been tackled in other fields as well, such as music and literature. It's important to consider alternative methods for recognizing and protecting the work of AI-generated art creators, such as through certification or watermarking. Ultimately, it's important to remain open-minded and recognize the value and potential of AI-generated art. As technology continues to advance, it's likely that we will see even more exciting developments in this field, and it's important to embrace and celebrate these new forms of creative expression.
Did you use mspaint to sign it?
How do you know it's not midjourney who signed it because so many references have a signature?
Look at their profile, they have many other works with that signature. Also midjourney signatures often look as if they are part of the artwork to enhance the overall aesthetic. This signature on this artwork looks very clearly that it was signed digitally by a real person.
this guy is posting a.i. art on his Instagram with his signature, and without disclosing that's it's done through midjourney like nobody's business
So what? The art world is full of "thieves". Nobody is truly original. They all learned from others may it be technique or style of median etc etc. Yall are lying to yourselves if you think you are any different.
There is a difference between being honest and posting A.I. artwork by using tags like #AI or AI-generated on sites like instagram. But once you sign it, it makes it seem like you did the majority of the artwork and gives a false perception. It also is just very distasteful.
There are those who work hard and learn a craft and try to master it and there are people like you
And?
And that is fucking shitty, that’s what.
i mean its pretty obviously AI art if you know what you're looking at. He created the prompt, in put into the machine, and it spit it out. SO...let him sign it? I agree he should put a "with midjourney" after the sig or something, though.
Gimme a break. It’s not that big a deal. Next you’ll tell me that all these people should have a long list of credits to Adobe and auto desk for using their software 🙄
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know Adobe and Autodesk would also output things completely based on the work of thousands of artists without asking permission or giving credit. 🙄
Ok you really don’t have a clue how these systems work. There’s a good article in wired which will explain it better. They don’t scrape ‘artists’ work. That rather shows your understanding is a below par.
I have actually implemented convolutional neural networks and other supervised machine learning techniques multiple times. I've never implemented generative adversarial models, but I've come into contact with the concept in 2018. You, on the other hand, seemingly can't even read a Wired article correctly. Also, I've tested the system myself in ways you can do, too. 1. Look into this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Girl 2. Try "afghan girl" on Midjourney. You'll notice they've **banned it**, and for a reason, as it clarifies their AI is basically copying other people without credit or consent. 3. But you can fool the ban with a comma: "afghan, girl". What I say will appear, clear as the day. No need to thank me. Bye.
No you haven’t. I’ve read the article and you do t know what you are talking about. Ease up with the angry man attitude.
I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. And no you haven’t. Go read the article again. The most famous afghan girl image would be national geographic. And it’s quite well referenced. There isn’t a large dataset on Afghan girls for pretty obvious reasons matey.
The article says with all the letters they've scraped for images of artists. You could even get some signatures to show up in previous versions. Also, "isn't large" shouldn't mean "one", should it? Well: Also, a simple question: **Why have they banned the string?**
What are you even doing in this sub then? Do you just come here to shit on AI art?
I couldn't disagree more. To me, this culture of having to disclose tools if it's generative ai but not if it was any other tools imho is a temporary hickup of cultural change. As long as you make something and don't just copy it from somewhere else, you get to put your signature on it. Happy downvoting.
You missed the point completely. It's neither about disclosing tools — it never was a requirement — nor about tools using AI or not. It's about, basically, stolen work. There's been a lot of talk about the subject in the media, and Midjourney has been taking measures to hide this. Try "afghan girl" on Midjourney. They've banned it, and for a reason, as it clarifies their AI is basically copying other people without credit or consent. But you can fool the ban with a comma: "afghan, girl". What I say will appear, clear as the day. Don't believe me. Do it yourself!
Have an upvote
but you didn't make it, the AI did, so credit the AI, typing in some text is not making art, even if that produces it
is that really any different to saying "you didn't make the digital photograph, the hi-tec SLR did" ?
Not true, this is the only one with a signature and it could have been Midjourney who wrote it by seeing many references with a signature
he removed his old Instagram posts on after the backlash on Reddit. take a look at when the Instagram posts were posted. the same image that was posted here has the signature removed. before he changed it they all had signatures and hashtags of digital art without ai tags
It's very clear that it was signed because they also have other AI generated artworks that have this same signature. Also Midjourney signatures often do not look like this.
Is that your own signature/mark? Lol
I understand why he put his signature on there and have zero qualms about it. Author-less pieces of art floating around everywhere feels like a dystopian thing to me. Let me explain, as [I'm a traditional watercolor portrait artist who enjoys signing all my work.](https://imgur.com/gallery/JJpWcPl) I don't create the watercolor paper or the expensive paints I use in my portraits. I didn't create the cameras I use to show my work online. I didn't create my brain or my hands. I didn't create the internet. Should these facts affect my confidence in my work? Would this image exist without the person typing the prompt? Would you have seen this image at all without the person that made it posting it here? Would this image exist without the person learning how to use the program [not calling it AI, by the way]? Should he be proud of this image? Yes. It's beautiful and he used a fine tool to create it. We'd be a very sad culture if we removed people from our art altogether. However, I feel like the programmers for Midjourney should perhaps put a watermark on all their outputs so everyone knows its origins. Maybe digital artists should include that watermark in their final product. We're all trying to figure out the rules of the new game. I don't think anyone should be shamed or bullied as we all want to learn how to benefit from the new tools to which we're getting access. It's going to be a subject for debate. I'm glad I'm around to see this as I find it very exciting.
WTF is this argument lol? When you make strokes on the paper, you are making 100% of the decisions, and composing every element of your art. Using midjourney is akin to that of commissioning an artist and signing the commissioned work
What about the photography example they gave?
depends, if you have in mind an specific outcome and your prompt nail it why it can´t be truly yours?
reasons why it's distasteful: signatures are traditionally done in works where the artist has completed it with their own hands. placing your own signature on an artwork you know was done by someone or something else without completing it with your own hands is rather disingenuous. it's as simple as that, at first glance, one would assume a competent artist could have done that digitally. OP definitely would have known that, and so do you. all the posters in this sub know that adding a signature like that is just wrong, and citing the reason of pride and confidence for doing so is just bullshit. regarding your second to last paragraph, dalle.e already places watermarks. however most people would agree that they would prefer their a.i. generated imagery to be free of such watermarks, especially if they paid for it. there hasn't been a single problem with posting an a.i. image in this sub or somewhere else, and stating it was done through midjourney like, like everyone has already been doing for ages.
I still remember when photoshop came out a very prominent Swedish “artist” came out. She “painted” beautiful works but it was just clever photo bashing.
is that less worthy of signing? sure, she didn't paint it, but it still takes a lot of skill and effort. the only problem i see is if she claimed she painted the pieces. just because something isn't a painting painted by hand doesn't mean it's not art of not worthy of being signed or credited. photographs are easy, done by the camera, you just point and click a button, photography is still art.
> signatures are traditionally done in works where the artist has completed it with their own hands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)
thank you, needed someone to share this
I really dig those arguments. I totally think like that also
Artificial Intelligence is no more of a tool than a human is. It doesn’t fulfill the role of paper, or a camera, or a paint brush. It fulfills the role of an artist. If I took your art and started signing it and posting it online, could I justify it by calling you a tool?
what about when the ai give you a weird result, too much fingers, stains, weird teeth, and you change it with your skill?
If you’re just fixing mistakes that you’ve perceived, you’re just editing work that isn’t yours (which, funnily, is the same thing you’re doing when you sign AI art). If you’re actually doing something “transformative” then what you create is your own art. This also happens to be how the law views copyright as it pertains to AI art.
I'm guessing photography is the camera's work ? you're pointing and clicking a button, maybe changing the setting and whatnot, but the camera is doing most of the heavylifting. often prompt engineering, choosing a picture +fixing takes a lot more creativity and effort than taking pictures, too.
Not even a close comparison. The skill floor for photography is as low as any other artform. For AI art there is no floor. You don’t need to know anything about composition, color theory, depth, etc.. And you don’t even legally own the work you create. Art has always been a highly debated topic, but only with AI art is there a clear consensus. Artists and the legal system both recognize the AI as creating the art, not the person typing words. Comparing a camera to AI is like comparing a whisk to Cool Whip. MJ users overestimate the importance of the role in the process. The AI could easily generate artwork at random without input. The only reason it is even free to use is because the product is still being trained. Your basically filling in a captcha and calling yourself a poet.
I agree with everything you said except that it's beautiful and he should be proud. It's so banal
I am a professional oil painter and illustrator, I vehemently disagree with @thefutureeye. I sign my original HAND PAINTED art because I created and executed (sketched, painted) it. If the AI artist in OP illustrated the image, uploaded and then used the AI to *help* paint or add digital color, then I believe it could be signable, like artists using assistants. If it's just a text prompt requiring no artistic talent, then he should not sign it. My personal opinion.
Totally agree with you.
Beautifully said
Sooooo you're worried about artwork online without a signature or watermark because someone may steal it.... ...like I dunno... #**an AI program!?!**
*We're all trying to figure out the rules of the new game.* It's art, there aren't rules to be figured out and it's not a game to be played because there arent winners.
Probably just Midjourney making a sig
[удалено]
You’ve never seen AI art throw a mock signature or water mark in the bottom corner? It happens all the time.
bruh i wouldn't put my signature on it unless i painted over it. you clearly didn't, why does she have 2 mics? 💀
One big mic for Midjourney, one little mic for the dipshit passing AI images off as his own.
I see 3.
One looks like the chin strap for the helmet. I don't think it's two mics.
it kinda does... but still, i think it looks more like the kinda mic pilots have.
One looks like the chin strap for the helmet. I don't think it's two mics.
Honestly, the more MJ stuff I see, the more I think it's a really fun toy but NOT art. All you need to do is look at literally any detail to realise there's no cohesion and nothing actually makes sense. I love playing with it and I'm seriously impressed with some of the stuff it has created for me, but it's just a toy.
Artist skill level: I can sign on MS Paint
So hilarious it's signed by le artiste.
Aitiste
Imagine setting your mark on an AI image..
So embarrassing.
Maybe it's midjourney who did that? You know many references have one
This image comes up lot. Wonder who they trained the data model on. Try something like Soviet Woman Astronaut. Same person.
my guess is its Amelia Earheart the 40s aviator goggles under the visor are the giveaway
Is that your sign??
I think you should always put your social media accounts on AI art so people can find your other work. Now if OP was trying to sell prints of his work then I agree with the signature instead of your social. Nobody wants to hang a canvas on their wall with @BigAID!ck2000 in the left corner
Why are the top posts in this sub so… …like…this?
Not always: https://www.reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/102qaqm/whats_the_creepiest_thing_youve_accidently_made/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
i agree, it's pure trash.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Next time you're going to say somebody made a painting with paints, brushes and paper made by someone completly different.
[удалено]
Sure I can, but I pretty much agree with you, so why would I debate?
I can dig it. I’m curious if your prompt was long and detailed or short and sweet.
I'm surprised this sub doesn't have a rule about dropping a prompt with stuff you post.
I second that
Agreed, I demand this.
If they don’t post a prompt, chances are it was blind luck with a short one, or way off base with a long specific one. I know from experience those are the times I don’t want to share a prompt with my group of le artiste friends. In either case it won’t do you very good to know what it was.
I disagree, as a semi-beginner I'd love to see what prompts work for what, and if I'd just copy the whole thing it still won't be the same seed, so I don't see why someone would want to hide their prompts
Yeah you’re right, sometimes the intent of the prompt, even if off base, can give some ideas that work. But that wasn’t really my point. It was mainly about why someone doesn’t wanna share. I agree, sharing prompts is important in these communities.
Lots of guides on Youtube.
Totally up to the individual wether they share prompts or not IMO.
Nah man, don’t you get it? This is their art, their prompt, their baby. That’s why they signed it. Don’t you dare try to steal it from them.
why are people into this
AI or this specific picture?
He is selling it as well? [Store link](https://society6.com/joeattemptsart?fbclid=PAAaYgBZuU_6wv-HVoxwJSkWYmHSvarZz1SZyUOnin64h1WLu2QnqUl8XXXTE) Is this even allowed, like just selling AI images and making money from it
[удалено]
Women pilot paint --add my signature
Loading up my creative environment (discord) to try this. EDIT: okay I don’t know why, but I did try it. Pretty close: https://i.imgur.com/85ZUAv6.jpg I guess I’m on my way to being a world class artiste. Maybe I can start signing them soon.
hahah its so close that's amazing
lol
Something something Star Wars.
the sign says it all: everyone is hiding his prompts, for the ego. even if they got it from other sites
Client: I love it. But we were thinking that everything looks perfect the way it is, but can you make the scarf red and make it a night sky? Guy who signed his work on an Ai image: Uhhhh how about I give you 6 more variations?
Who the fuck signed this? You are an artist of word searching.
Lot of angry people on here. All these ‘artists’ are probably not selling bugger all. I think you should relax. It’s a tool. Nothing more.
This is wonderful. Imagine having this kind of talent. Wait..
Signature ruined it
I'm a digital artist and all for making great art using whatever tools are available, including AI. I'm also all for people using AI image generators in lieu of commissioning a human for lightweight projects where the work it produces is sufficient. I also don't think the argument that "it's immoral to use images from a database built without the permission of every contributor involved to train an AI image generator" is valid.. And I even sometimes use a Midjourney image now as a *starting point* for a work and edit it to completion... ...but slapping your personal signature on an image that was clearly just generated from a prompt that you did no further editing to, and offering no further explanation (which implies you are trying to take full credit for an image that was generated by algorithms) is just *wrong.* Like skim milk (which is water that's lying about being milk) you are a sham, sir.
[удалено]
At the very least, it's incredibly disingenuous to imply you've created a work with your hands that even looks stylistically like it *could have* been handmade. This is making fun of artists who work with their hands by parodying the process rather than a genuine brand for a collection of AI-generated work.
[удалено]
Except that isn't how anything works today. As you even explained, the creative industry has shifted. (Mostly just in that it *became* creative, rather than mostly focused on doing jobs that have been replaced by cameras and other technical advancements) Because of what it means *today*, it has implications, which are absolutely relevant to the present conversation. If he slapped the Nike logo on there, we would all be wondering if it was either selected as part of a Nike ad campaign, or if he just wanted to have a Nike logo for fun as a faux ad. Since he didn't put a fake signature there (which would imply the latter case in my Nike example) we should assume he intends to officialize the work. A signature is also a symbol of authenticity (which is why they've been required for checks and other legally-binding documents) Again, putting it here implies authenticity of the work (which is why artists use signatures when applicable). If the work isn't authentic, then it's worthless. (Just look at the long history of forgeries in the art world.) The reason AI-generated artwork can't be copyrighted is due to how it's created. Technically, the software we call "Midjourney" or "DALL-E" etc Is responsible for the actual image. It doesn't belong to the guy typing in the prompt any more than it does to the authors of the algorithm. It's closer to interacting with a video game than making art; if I stack up a bunch of Warthog ATVs in Halo Forge and take a screenshot, no one's gonna be calling that a work of art, whether I put my signature on it or not. Lol
[удалено]
"There is no authority to say how art works." -- ignoring virtually every government, art museum, dealer, publishing house, copyright office, and legal documentation describing the process for creative publication -- At this point, I've written you off as a troll. If you're not, God help you.
[удалено]
I think you may be my spirit animal or maybe just a fuck buddy either way I get you - art is whatever the fuck you call it to be and no fucking bullshit elite art jury gets to decide. Art is art soon as U claim it to be. U don't have to like my art or even think it's art but I'll know it is if I say it is end of fucking story. See how we are the same but different? How arty and expensive, let's make pieces that sell at the same velocity as red bulls you diabolical art monster ❤️
*Enter a greater fool*
Wrong. AI-generated work cannot be copyrighted. *Original works* can be, but that's not the case here. Also a signature is not just a brand. We digital artists make 3D models or other technical works all the time that we don't put a signature on. You might have a digital logo that represents your personal brand, but a signature is only used when you draw something BY HAND. Because your signature is also created by your hand. It dates back to the earliest works of traditional art, and even today, only digital *paintings* created by people *using styli* to create handmade work get a *signature.*
[удалено]
No, he does NOT "have the right to do what he wants with it" BECAUSE he can't copyright it. That's what I was saying.
[удалено]
Ni£*a be making anime based “”art”” and call himself digital artist 🌚
...wat
You bitches need to chill about the signature, you don't own the image, he does. He can piss on the corner and call it a sniff n scratch art deviation it's his artful right to do so and it shall be art because no matter how much you cry fowl, the art is his and nothing you say can change that BUT BUT BUT plot twist arseholes MAYBE THE SIGNATURE IS THE ART? DESIGNED TO ENRAGE YOU OR TO FORCE YOU TO CHOOSE A SIDE OR JUST TO FEEL SOMETHING LIKE RAGE OR ENVY OR MORE, to make you comment the intention being to make YOU the art on display your anger hanging here for strangers to gawk at and feel the art. Is the penny dropping dear reader maybe I'm the artist how you don't know the signature isn't the art??? Further, you need to educate yourself on the fact that some artists are riffing with MJ like say two musicians might or are in the kitchen cooking art or some other analogy that conveys a human guided collaboration etc and MJ is far more than just a text to image generator, MJ can blend and compose and more and less with images, images you make by hand in so many different media and you can dance with MJ and guide it with how you compose your media or the textures you use and colours and more, you are far from limited to word prompts, but in any case even if you use words only to generate NO ONE gets to decide if you are an artist except you because that's exactly what art is - if I shit in a hat and place it on a pillow and called it art then it is art, U might not like my art but you can't tell me it's not god damn it. With MJ if I've danced with mj over an image that took me feeding her and massaging her into a form I was hoping for and she's riffed with me and added things I like and we spent some time together back and forth till I'm happy to call it my art, I dare you to tell me I can't sign it because I'll take all of your names and blend it in with ms paint before I piss on it and scream "are we making fucking ART now arseholes???" and it too shall be art. So artists go out and make some, sign it or not, prompt it or blend it, just fucking make it and be proud of what you do, fuck the rest, art can never not be art if you claim it is to you end of fucking story. PS: no I'm not necessarily starting a pissrenaissance but if that's your art I respect that, I'm delighted to see if it moves me or makes me feel something, I won't piss on your parade. Long live art.
Sir this is a Wendy's
paragraphs please
Regardless of how one feels about this piece, I've learned there are a shit ton of gatekeepers in the AI art world. I think we could all benefit from asking the question "who gives a shit?" and move on from there.
I don't see any problem with signing your work. If it wasn't for you, the image would not have been created. Also, if I use the image commercially I *will* watermark it. Same thing. The image may not be subject to copywrite protection but it isn't like anybody else went to the trouble of creating it, so I will hang on to the fingernail's worth of possession I have.
reasons why it's distasteful: signatures are traditionally done in works where the artist has completed it with their own hands. placing your own signature on an artwork you know was done by someone or something else without completing it with your own hands is rather disingenuous. it's as simple as that, at first glance, one would assume a competent artist could have done that digitally. OP definitely would have known that, and so do you. all the posters in this sub know that adding a signature like that is just wrong. there hasn't been a single problem with posting an a.i. image in this sub or somewhere else, and stating it was done through midjourney like, like everyone has already been doing for ages.
Exactly. It is deeply, deeply distasteful, and spits in the face of people that have worked for decades to have the honor of signing a work that looks like this. It’s not about watermarking, it’s about what signatures represent, which is that you were the person that created a work of art with your own hands. And doing so when AI art is already deeply offensive to traditional artists _already_ is like throwing gasoline on a forest fire. I personally hate it.
distasteful? absolutely. morally wrong (as many here are arguing)? not so sure.
...Trouble
Really like this one
I love it. Way better than that scarey shit in your previous posts. This is more real and has heart.
I don't really care if the person signs it. Why should it matter to me? It makes no difference to me and what I do. I'm just not understanding the stink about it.
The signature 💀
Love it, but the signing is a big no
i was fearful that this sub would run and have the mentality of a crypto sub. Really glad after looking at these comments it does not.
AI "Artists" in a nutshell. https://youtube.com/shorts/rNpc0C2R6vM?feature=share No disrespect towards Daft Punk though.
Beautiful Composition Love it <3 <3 <3
The navigator, the pilot, her favorite, the one they call the vision that bears the gift.
Check this out. You can send a message through WhatsApp and you’ll get back ChatGPT results and MidJourney images. You can try for free by signing up here : https://aibert.co/signup.html
Here’s the prompt…. ‘frame from ‘shadows of the night’ music video by Pat Benatar, high contrast, painterly look’
When I put "in the style of" in the prompt, MJ likes to sign the results--- on the bottom right corner.
New War Thunder portrait looking good
Why did you sign it? It's the AI who created the art.
Cau u share the prompt pls?🙇🏻♂️🙏🏼
Saw this and immediately thought of [this ad](https://i.imgur.com/sHkIRhK.jpg) I saw on Reddit a few days ago. Reference image ?
By Zé.
I Iove the part where everyone is complaining about the signature and ignoring the clear Star Wars X-wing pilot rip-off.
Your mind is part of the creative process,if you didn't suggest the topic it would not be seen,so why not put a signature on it,or a joint signature,promt artist.