Meme Encyclopedia
Media
Editorials
More

Popular right now

Want a Macaron meme and drawing.

Want a Macaron?

Owen Carry

Owen Carry • 2 days ago

Italian Brainrot / AI Italian Animals image and meme examples.

Italian Brainrot Animals

Mateus Lima

Mateus Lima • 2 months ago

Deriod slang term and meme examples from tiktok.

Deriod (Slang)

Mateus Lima

Mateus Lima • 20 days ago

There Is an Arabic Saying meme example depicting an image from the Life of Pi.

There Is an Arabic Saying

Philipp Kachalin

Philipp Kachalin • 4 months ago

Darth Vader AI Fortnite image example.

Fortnite Darth Vader AI

Phillip Hamilton

Phillip Hamilton • 4 days ago

Know Your Meme is the property of Literally Media ©2024 Literally Media. All Rights Reserved.

AI Art - Images (352 results)

Sorted By:

Pro-AI argument of art not being theft

WHY AI ISN'T COPYING ELI 5 AKA STRAIGHT TO THE POINT SIMPLE EXPLANATION OF DIFFUSION MODELS WE TAKE A PICTURE OF A THING, LET'S SAY A DOG, AND WE TELL TO THE COMPUTER: "HEY COMPUTER, PLEASE GRADUALLY TURN THIS PICTURE INTO NOISE, MEMORIZE EVERY STEP WHILE DOING SO" ORIGINAL PIC ORIGINAL PIC OF COMPLETELY RANDOM NOISE WAIT A MINUITE, IT'S NOT THE SAME DOG! STEP 1 ORIGINAL PIC OF COMPLETELY RANDOM NOISE STEP 4 STEP 2 NOW WE TAKE A PICTURE OF ACTUAL RANDOM NOISE AND WE TELL THE COMPUTER: "HEY COMPUTER, PLEASE PLAY THE 'DOG TO NOISE ALGORITHM' BUT REVERSED" PANE STEP 4 Beep-boop ok, done, I'll save this in my memory as "Dog to Noise Algorithm" STEP 3 STEP 3 Yes, because you started from actual random noise. I've learned how to generate a dog from noise. I'm not copypasting anything STEP 3 STEP 2 SO NOW IF WE TEACH THE COMPUTER ABOUT THE COLOR BLACK, AND WE THEN ASK: "HEY COMPUTER, PLEASE PLAY THE 'COLOR BLACK TO NOISE ALGORITHM' BUT REVERSED, AND THE 'DOG TO NOISE' ALGORITHM BUT REVERSED, AT THE SAME TIME" STEP 2 da STEP 4 "I'm an artist, similarly to how I would get paid to give an art lesson, I should be paid if you train an Al with my artworks" STEP 1 TADAAAN! YOU NOW HAVE A COMPLETELY ORIGINAL BLACK DOG! ADDENDUM FEEL FREE TO CROP AWAY THIS PART IF YOU'RE JUST EXPLAINING THE TECH "Yes but AI does it way faster than a human, we should be protected from it, the competition will become unfair" STEP 1 IF YOU ACTUALLY HAD TO TEACH SOMEBODY, YES, BUT THIS IS LIKE LOOKING AT SOMEONE'S FINISHED WORK AND LEARNING. WE ALL DO IT, THAT'S HOW HUMAN BRAIN WORKS. YOU LOOK AT OTHER PEOPLE'S WORK ALL DAY, AND LEARN FROM THEM FOR FREE, THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. YOU PAY AN ARTIST WHEN THEY ORGANIZE A CLASS, NOT WHEN YOU STUDY THEIR WORK AND LEARN THROUGH OBSERVATION. "If AI doesn't copy, why do I see watermarks and signatures in it?" SLOWING DOWN EVOLUTION BECAUSE IT'S UNPLEASANT TO HAVE TO ADAPT ISN'T SOUND LOGIC. THERE'S AN INCREDIBLE POTENTIAL IN THIS TECH FOR ARTISTS WHO ADOPT IT. THEY WILL BE ABLE TO INCREASE THEIR WORKFLOW BY HUNDREDS OF TIMES, SIMILARLY TO HOW E-COMMERCE PUSHED THE BUSINESS THAT LEARNED TO USE IT. LIFE ITSELF IS ABOUT ADAPTATION. LOOK AT HOW TODAY WE NEED MORE ENGINEERS AND LESS FACTORY WORKERS OR FARMERS. WOULD YOU SAY THAT IT MAKES SENSE TO BAN CINEMA BECAUSE BOOK WRITERS HAD TO DIVERSIFY THEIR SKILLSET BECAUSE OF ITS COMPETITION? "I don't care how the technology works, I've seen an AI generated image that is basically identical to an artist's picture. That's plagiarism!" AI ISN'T SENTIENT NOR INTELLIGENT. IF YOU SHOW IT A PAINTING THAT HAS A SIGNATURE ON IT, AND THEN ASK IT TO GENERATE A PAINTING, AI WILL ASSUME THAT THE WEIRD SCRIBBLE THAT HUMANS PUT ON THEM MUST BE PART OF WHAT WE CALL "A PAINTING" AND PUTS IT IN IT. SAME GOES WITH WATERMARKS. 100% YES. IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW SOMETHING HAS BEEN GENERATED, THROUGH AI OR THROUGH HUMAN HANDS, IF YOU PLAGIARIZE YOU PLAGIARIZE, AND YOU PAY THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF IT. SOMETHING INSPIRED BY SOMETHING ELSE IS FINE, BUT IF YOU PROMPT AN AI WORK TO REPRODUCE EXACTLY ANOTHER ARTWORK, AND THEN SELL IT, THAT'S JUST PLAGIARISM AND IT'S THE SAME AS TRYING TO SELL ANY COUNTERFEIT PRODUCT.
WHY AI ISN'T COPYING ELI 5 AKA STRAIGHT TO THE POINT SIMPLE EXPLANATION OF DIFFUSION MODELS WE TAKE A PICTURE OF A THING, LET'S SAY A DOG, AND WE TELL TO THE COMPUTER: "HEY COMPUTER, PLEASE GRADUALLY TURN THIS PICTURE INTO NOISE, MEMORIZE EVERY STEP WHILE DOING SO" ORIGINAL PIC ORIGINAL PIC OF COMPLETELY RANDOM NOISE WAIT A MINUITE, IT'S NOT THE SAME DOG! STEP 1 ORIGINAL PIC OF COMPLETELY RANDOM NOISE STEP 4 STEP 2 NOW WE TAKE A PICTURE OF ACTUAL RANDOM NOISE AND WE TELL THE COMPUTER: "HEY COMPUTER, PLEASE PLAY THE 'DOG TO NOISE ALGORITHM' BUT REVERSED" PANE STEP 4 Beep-boop ok, done, I'll save this in my memory as "Dog to Noise Algorithm" STEP 3 STEP 3 Yes, because you started from actual random noise. I've learned how to generate a dog from noise. I'm not copypasting anything STEP 3 STEP 2 SO NOW IF WE TEACH THE COMPUTER ABOUT THE COLOR BLACK, AND WE THEN ASK: "HEY COMPUTER, PLEASE PLAY THE 'COLOR BLACK TO NOISE ALGORITHM' BUT REVERSED, AND THE 'DOG TO NOISE' ALGORITHM BUT REVERSED, AT THE SAME TIME" STEP 2 da STEP 4 "I'm an artist, similarly to how I would get paid to give an art lesson, I should be paid if you train an Al with my artworks" STEP 1 TADAAAN! YOU NOW HAVE A COMPLETELY ORIGINAL BLACK DOG! ADDENDUM FEEL FREE TO CROP AWAY THIS PART IF YOU'RE JUST EXPLAINING THE TECH "Yes but AI does it way faster than a human, we should be protected from it, the competition will become unfair" STEP 1 IF YOU ACTUALLY HAD TO TEACH SOMEBODY, YES, BUT THIS IS LIKE LOOKING AT SOMEONE'S FINISHED WORK AND LEARNING. WE ALL DO IT, THAT'S HOW HUMAN BRAIN WORKS. YOU LOOK AT OTHER PEOPLE'S WORK ALL DAY, AND LEARN FROM THEM FOR FREE, THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. YOU PAY AN ARTIST WHEN THEY ORGANIZE A CLASS, NOT WHEN YOU STUDY THEIR WORK AND LEARN THROUGH OBSERVATION. "If AI doesn't copy, why do I see watermarks and signatures in it?" SLOWING DOWN EVOLUTION BECAUSE IT'S UNPLEASANT TO HAVE TO ADAPT ISN'T SOUND LOGIC. THERE'S AN INCREDIBLE POTENTIAL IN THIS TECH FOR ARTISTS WHO ADOPT IT. THEY WILL BE ABLE TO INCREASE THEIR WORKFLOW BY HUNDREDS OF TIMES, SIMILARLY TO HOW E-COMMERCE PUSHED THE BUSINESS THAT LEARNED TO USE IT. LIFE ITSELF IS ABOUT ADAPTATION. LOOK AT HOW TODAY WE NEED MORE ENGINEERS AND LESS FACTORY WORKERS OR FARMERS. WOULD YOU SAY THAT IT MAKES SENSE TO BAN CINEMA BECAUSE BOOK WRITERS HAD TO DIVERSIFY THEIR SKILLSET BECAUSE OF ITS COMPETITION? "I don't care how the technology works, I've seen an AI generated image that is basically identical to an artist's picture. That's plagiarism!" AI ISN'T SENTIENT NOR INTELLIGENT. IF YOU SHOW IT A PAINTING THAT HAS A SIGNATURE ON IT, AND THEN ASK IT TO GENERATE A PAINTING, AI WILL ASSUME THAT THE WEIRD SCRIBBLE THAT HUMANS PUT ON THEM MUST BE PART OF WHAT WE CALL "A PAINTING" AND PUTS IT IN IT. SAME GOES WITH WATERMARKS. 100% YES. IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW SOMETHING HAS BEEN GENERATED, THROUGH AI OR THROUGH HUMAN HANDS, IF YOU PLAGIARIZE YOU PLAGIARIZE, AND YOU PAY THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF IT. SOMETHING INSPIRED BY SOMETHING ELSE IS FINE, BUT IF YOU PROMPT AN AI WORK TO REPRODUCE EXACTLY ANOTHER ARTWORK, AND THEN SELL IT, THAT'S JUST PLAGIARISM AND IT'S THE SAME AS TRYING TO SELL ANY COUNTERFEIT PRODUCT.

AI Art

Truly the lamest dystopia

1960's Futurists: Automation will free mankind from meaningless tedium to focus on creative pursuits only human beings can master. 2020's Techbros: We're building AI to write all your books, music, and TV so you can focus on the meaningless tedium of your cubicle job. -Patrick S Tomlinson
1960's Futurists: Automation will free mankind from meaningless tedium to focus on creative pursuits only human beings can master. 2020's Techbros: We're building AI to write all your books, music, and TV so you can focus on the meaningless tedium of your cubicle job. -Patrick S Tomlinson

AI Art

why artists don't like AI art, explained with the good ol' cake analogy

Further: yes AI art is amazing technology; however, as it is now, the databases are built upon stolen art. the matter artists are taking with AI is the matter of theft for the ppl asking: yes you're free to share this. for people convoluting the analogy: it's an analogy. it's a surface-level, 1 page simple comic for a simple understanding of a complex issue. I do not speak for all artists. just expressing one human artist perspective.
Further: yes AI art is amazing technology; however, as it is now, the databases are built upon stolen art. the matter artists are taking with AI is the matter of theft for the ppl asking: yes you're free to share this. for people convoluting the analogy: it's an analogy. it's a surface-level, 1 page simple comic for a simple understanding of a complex issue. I do not speak for all artists. just expressing one human artist perspective.

AI Art

Ai Prompter takes hard L from artist they tried to steal from.

Gorm PO @malaphorician The artist I most want to emulate with Midjourney is Tomm Moore, who made the animated movies The Secret of Kells, Song of the Sea and Wolfwalkers. But I can't figure out how to reference his style! Anyone have any advice? Is there a trick I don't know about? 8 Pete Woods, Corrupt Legacy C... Replying to @malaphorician Pick up a pencil and work hard. ₁387 91 22 tomm moore @tommmoore. 6h Replying to @malaphorician or you could learn to draw 7,596 27 42 13 ● Gorm✔✔ @malaphorician 26m . I don't like working hard, and I don't think that's where the value in art is. I think that has more to do with taste, and I'm amazed and grateful to live to see technology that allows a quicker path from idea to expression. And it will only get better ₁31 2 22 2h 366 企 企 ↑ o
Gorm PO @malaphorician The artist I most want to emulate with Midjourney is Tomm Moore, who made the animated movies The Secret of Kells, Song of the Sea and Wolfwalkers. But I can't figure out how to reference his style! Anyone have any advice? Is there a trick I don't know about? 8 Pete Woods, Corrupt Legacy C... Replying to @malaphorician Pick up a pencil and work hard. ₁387 91 22 tomm moore @tommmoore. 6h Replying to @malaphorician or you could learn to draw 7,596 27 42 13 ● Gorm✔✔ @malaphorician 26m . I don't like working hard, and I don't think that's where the value in art is. I think that has more to do with taste, and I'm amazed and grateful to live to see technology that allows a quicker path from idea to expression. And it will only get better ₁31 2 22 2h 366 企 企 ↑ o

AI Art

AI art & real art

look! i made this! it only took me 3 hours of typing the same prompt into a machine and using something someone else made! this is the future of art! artists are now obsolete! just dont look too close at it or ask it to do hands ▬▬▬▬ AI "ART" (NEW FAD) ▬▬▬▬▬▬ I made this with love. Real Art THIS PICTURE WAS Made by phillip-bankss botw O
look! i made this! it only took me 3 hours of typing the same prompt into a machine and using something someone else made! this is the future of art! artists are now obsolete! just dont look too close at it or ask it to do hands ▬▬▬▬ AI "ART" (NEW FAD) ▬▬▬▬▬▬ I made this with love. Real Art THIS PICTURE WAS Made by phillip-bankss botw O

AI Art

certain people's jobs matter more than others

Artists losing their jobs to new tech The public Typists Lawyers & paralegals Taxi & delivery drivers Calligraphers Farmhands Data entry workers Hand sewists Travel agents
Artists losing their jobs to new tech The public Typists Lawyers & paralegals Taxi & delivery drivers Calligraphers Farmhands Data entry workers Hand sewists Travel agents

AI Art

AI generated comic book loses copyright

← Thread dish ✔ @companiondish today I woke up to the lovely news that an Al- generated comic lost its copyright protection because the USPTO determined that "copyrightable works require human authorship." great step in the right direction Al-Generated Comic Book Loses Copyright Protection USPTO 'overlooked the use of text-to-image generator Ben Wodecki November 8, 2022 ZARYA OF THE DAWN 9:43 AM - Dec 20, 2022 36 2 Min Read ZARYA OF THE DAWN 13.5K Retweets 862 Quote Tweets 72.4K Likes O 11 27 Tik Tok @ehmaerrmsonn he U.S. Copyright Office appears to be backtracking on s decision to grant protection to an Al-generated comic ook. dish → @companiondish · Dec 20 Replying to @companiondish this also means that if you generate images with Al to use for your brand, someone can just take it. its not yours or theirs. its not anything LOOOL 17 706 ♡ 9,265 1, he Copyright Office (USPTO) granted protection to Kris ashtanova for the comic book titled Zarya of the Dawn in eptember. he comic was created using the text-to-image engine idjourney and marked the first time the agency pproved an application for an Al work. 1 317 owever, the USPTO has now informed Kashtanova that it ill revoke the protection, saying copyrightable works quire human authorship. dish ✔ @companiondish. Dec 20 here's the article if you'd like to read the rest. this decision has a ton of implications for how Al software can be used in the professional world. or rather, how it can't. www ↑ ♡ 3.680 aibusiness.com Al-Generated Comic Book Loses Copyright Protec... The U.S. Copyright Office appears to be backtracking on its decision to grant protection to... 1 dish ✔ @companiondish - 18h tech bros fighting for their lives in the replies looool Merry Christmas everyone UITAS ... ...
← Thread dish ✔ @companiondish today I woke up to the lovely news that an Al- generated comic lost its copyright protection because the USPTO determined that "copyrightable works require human authorship." great step in the right direction Al-Generated Comic Book Loses Copyright Protection USPTO 'overlooked the use of text-to-image generator Ben Wodecki November 8, 2022 ZARYA OF THE DAWN 9:43 AM - Dec 20, 2022 36 2 Min Read ZARYA OF THE DAWN 13.5K Retweets 862 Quote Tweets 72.4K Likes O 11 27 Tik Tok @ehmaerrmsonn he U.S. Copyright Office appears to be backtracking on s decision to grant protection to an Al-generated comic ook. dish → @companiondish · Dec 20 Replying to @companiondish this also means that if you generate images with Al to use for your brand, someone can just take it. its not yours or theirs. its not anything LOOOL 17 706 ♡ 9,265 1, he Copyright Office (USPTO) granted protection to Kris ashtanova for the comic book titled Zarya of the Dawn in eptember. he comic was created using the text-to-image engine idjourney and marked the first time the agency pproved an application for an Al work. 1 317 owever, the USPTO has now informed Kashtanova that it ill revoke the protection, saying copyrightable works quire human authorship. dish ✔ @companiondish. Dec 20 here's the article if you'd like to read the rest. this decision has a ton of implications for how Al software can be used in the professional world. or rather, how it can't. www ↑ ♡ 3.680 aibusiness.com Al-Generated Comic Book Loses Copyright Protec... The U.S. Copyright Office appears to be backtracking on its decision to grant protection to... 1 dish ✔ @companiondish - 18h tech bros fighting for their lives in the replies looool Merry Christmas everyone UITAS ... ...

AI Art

If you're against AI art, do not fight it with copyright infringment

@Majoraz 4 days ago (edited) This was a fun video, and I dig the attempt to educate about the issues with Al art, but like many videos it doesn't explain and even misrepresents how copyright, intellectual property, and fair use actually works, and I think that's leading to misunderstandings about stuff like if the Al is "stealing" or the role of "creativity" in these debates. For context, I'm not an Al guy (in fact I do worry that corporations may undercut artists with it), but I am somebody invested in Intellectual property law, reform, and have followed cases & legislation for a decade. In particular, I'm worried that in a well intentioned bid to fight Al, artists may encourage legal changes that backfire and open human artists to liability too, not just limiting Al, as there's actually a fairly strong Fair use defense for a lot (but not all) of what Al's are doing, and any precedence set limiting Fair Use or expanding Copyright protection to stop Al might also apply and limit real artists too. Obligatory disclaimer that IANAL and that my comment here is based on US law, for other countries it might be different: For those unaware, the main thing in fair use determination is if the derivative work is "transformative". This is a legal concept that basically is asking is the derivative work is putting enough of a new spin on the original in both/either a literal and abstract sense. This is an IMMENSELY complicated concept, though, and to be honest, it's sort of impossible to cover entirely within Youtube's character limit: If something is transformative is just one aspect of many the courts consider when weighing a fair use defense: There's also Parody claims; there's the "4 pillars" (Purpose of a work, Nature of a work, how much of a work is used, and commercial impact), which a lot of sites act like are the only 4 but as i've explained there's other aspects too; and a whole host of other things. And Judges can and do invent new standards or weigh certain aspects more or less: You can satisfy a lot of requirements and still be infringing, or you can satisfy very little and still be fair use.... BUT, again, if something is transformative is usually the main factor, and this would be 12 pages long otherwise, so that's what i'm focusing on. The video here almost frames Al as almost splicing together bits of existing images, but in reality no actual parts of input images are cut out and pasted together. It's gleaning artistic principals via examine the trends and patterns between the input images, which it uses to develop an algorithm that can apply the things it "learned" to generate new images. This has a VERY strong argument for being transformative: For starters, the actual medium is changing. If you write up a text description of a painting, that's obviously not infringement, and what the Al is doing is even LESS of a adaptation then that: it's merely documenting select principals of it's composition rather then describing the work in totality, and not just from it but thousands of other works, where any one of them is merely a small part of the new whole. If anything it's more akin to saying that a book on lighting and composition would be infringing on the images the author looked at while writing the book, even if the book doesn't actually include the images or even describe them. If course, that's just discussing the Al algorithm itself, not the output images: I think that's more complex: As this entire video demonstrates, you CAN ask Al to generate images of copyrighted characters (like Goku), and that's obviously infringing on DB's copyright. You can also use Al to spruce up or "uncrop" existing images, which would likely be infringing on that image you had it modify: In both cases you can tell what the original character or image was. But if you're having the Al generate a brand new output image without specific copyrighted characters (say "Dragon in a swimming pool", then chances are no one image of a swimming pool or a dragon it used as an input is going to be obvious in the final piece, because it's just 1 of thousands of input images with little individual impact. It may not matter if the entire final image is derived from copyrighted inputs if only tiny bits of any one of them are still recognizable, but i'm admittedly not sure what the precedence is there with, say photobashing cases. I THINK it's just how much of any 1 is used based on what I've found, but I'm not sure. and there may be other factors. In any case, something I AM sure is wrong that both this video and many other people bring up, that the notion that the Al lacking "human creativity" in contrast to an artist looking at references somehow makes it not fair use or transformative. This just isn't true, at least in current law, as far as I know: Certainly, putting a themetically interesting and creative spin on a work can AID a Transformative (or especially Parody) argument when claiming fair use, but it's not a requirement. You do need human input to GET copyright protection, see Naruto v. David Slater (yes, really), but that's a separate thing. Similarly, the fact that Al's don't need to learn and practice also isn't really important in if it's Transformative, and the idea that it can replicate people's art styles also doesn't matter, as Copyright doesn't protect "Style", just specific works or characters, things, etc. This is where I think the risk with fighting Al via infringement claims starts: What if there IS a legal case or law passed changing that, and now creativity or requiring effort/practice IS a requirement in Fair use, or style IS now protected by copyright: Suddenly now you, as a actual, real human artist, might get sued because your art happens to stylistically look similar to somebody else's art. Or somebody making a piece of art that's a derivative work as a human artist now has a higher bar for claiming fair use because they have to prove it's sufficiently creative or high effort. Fair use is already WAY narrower then most people realize, and you of all people mark should know that. (If people are wondering why music Al generators only use royalty free music and care more about copyright, it's because the way copyright works with music is different: Music only has so many notes and the like vs the infinite spectrum of visual color, shapes, etc; so two people happening to make music with similar sections is common, and the case law with music infringement is ALREADY as such that in those cases, you're guilty of infringement often anyways even if it wasn't intentional. We do NOT want that happening with visual art copyright too. There's other ways music copyright is different too, like mandatory licensing) And the same giant corporations people are worried about misuing Al to undercut artists (which, again, is a real concern) would LOO00000OVE to have this happen: It would make it way, way easier for them to go after random people online with Copyright claims and C&D's: Imagine Disney Toei sueing somebody for making original characters that are just done in the Dragon Ball Style despite not actually being DB characters or using any copyrighted DB elements! In general, copyright expansions always benefit big corporations and hurt small creators: The corporations are too big to be sued for violations (such as when Family guy stole some guy's youtube clip then DMCA'd the original), and small creators are too small to fight back when the corporations sue them, even if what the creator did was fair use. Again, mark, you should know this. Of course, it's possible that a court's ruling or a law in an Al case could be worded in such a way that precedence would apply JUST to Al (Again, beyond being transformative, say, the market impact is part of fair use determination, and Al due to it's ease of use and lack of practice/skill is extra disruptive to the art market), but the courts have CONSISTENTLY passed laws and made rulings that hurt smaller artists and benefit corporations: As I explained before, ultimately it doesn't matter how many Fair use principals you do or don't meet, sometimes you win or lose anyways: In practice, how rich and powerful you are often decides things, many times before it even gets to court since big corporations can force settlements or draw cases out and the other side has to give in, or they can lobby for laws to pass. As it applies here, we've already seen the Concept Art Association's anti-Al fundraiser state they want to get the Copyright Alliance industry lobby group Disney etc are a part of to be involved, who want to use anti-Al sentiments to expand copyright. The courts will be WAY more willing to listen to the big corporations at the lobbying table or filing Amicus Briefs then they will small artists. So yeah, that's why I think framing what Al does as "stealing" or talking about how it's "not creative" or "can copy styles" is dangerous: It's well intentioned, but it's framing the issue and presenting arguments that, if they gain legal traction, could be disastrous to the rights of real human artists, as we can't guarantee that a court will rule or a law will be worded in such a way that those limitations would only apply to Al. As for how to combat it instead, I think there should be a push to get the Al companies to agree to stick to Royalty Free images on their own, like how the ESRB was formed without goverment regulation by the Games industry, and that people should just try to keep the precedence in place that Al images don't get their own copyright (which will discourage people from using Al in corporate contexts) without trying to claim the Al or the Al images are infringing. 38 se Reply
@Majoraz 4 days ago (edited) This was a fun video, and I dig the attempt to educate about the issues with Al art, but like many videos it doesn't explain and even misrepresents how copyright, intellectual property, and fair use actually works, and I think that's leading to misunderstandings about stuff like if the Al is "stealing" or the role of "creativity" in these debates. For context, I'm not an Al guy (in fact I do worry that corporations may undercut artists with it), but I am somebody invested in Intellectual property law, reform, and have followed cases & legislation for a decade. In particular, I'm worried that in a well intentioned bid to fight Al, artists may encourage legal changes that backfire and open human artists to liability too, not just limiting Al, as there's actually a fairly strong Fair use defense for a lot (but not all) of what Al's are doing, and any precedence set limiting Fair Use or expanding Copyright protection to stop Al might also apply and limit real artists too. Obligatory disclaimer that IANAL and that my comment here is based on US law, for other countries it might be different: For those unaware, the main thing in fair use determination is if the derivative work is "transformative". This is a legal concept that basically is asking is the derivative work is putting enough of a new spin on the original in both/either a literal and abstract sense. This is an IMMENSELY complicated concept, though, and to be honest, it's sort of impossible to cover entirely within Youtube's character limit: If something is transformative is just one aspect of many the courts consider when weighing a fair use defense: There's also Parody claims; there's the "4 pillars" (Purpose of a work, Nature of a work, how much of a work is used, and commercial impact), which a lot of sites act like are the only 4 but as i've explained there's other aspects too; and a whole host of other things. And Judges can and do invent new standards or weigh certain aspects more or less: You can satisfy a lot of requirements and still be infringing, or you can satisfy very little and still be fair use.... BUT, again, if something is transformative is usually the main factor, and this would be 12 pages long otherwise, so that's what i'm focusing on. The video here almost frames Al as almost splicing together bits of existing images, but in reality no actual parts of input images are cut out and pasted together. It's gleaning artistic principals via examine the trends and patterns between the input images, which it uses to develop an algorithm that can apply the things it "learned" to generate new images. This has a VERY strong argument for being transformative: For starters, the actual medium is changing. If you write up a text description of a painting, that's obviously not infringement, and what the Al is doing is even LESS of a adaptation then that: it's merely documenting select principals of it's composition rather then describing the work in totality, and not just from it but thousands of other works, where any one of them is merely a small part of the new whole. If anything it's more akin to saying that a book on lighting and composition would be infringing on the images the author looked at while writing the book, even if the book doesn't actually include the images or even describe them. If course, that's just discussing the Al algorithm itself, not the output images: I think that's more complex: As this entire video demonstrates, you CAN ask Al to generate images of copyrighted characters (like Goku), and that's obviously infringing on DB's copyright. You can also use Al to spruce up or "uncrop" existing images, which would likely be infringing on that image you had it modify: In both cases you can tell what the original character or image was. But if you're having the Al generate a brand new output image without specific copyrighted characters (say "Dragon in a swimming pool", then chances are no one image of a swimming pool or a dragon it used as an input is going to be obvious in the final piece, because it's just 1 of thousands of input images with little individual impact. It may not matter if the entire final image is derived from copyrighted inputs if only tiny bits of any one of them are still recognizable, but i'm admittedly not sure what the precedence is there with, say photobashing cases. I THINK it's just how much of any 1 is used based on what I've found, but I'm not sure. and there may be other factors. In any case, something I AM sure is wrong that both this video and many other people bring up, that the notion that the Al lacking "human creativity" in contrast to an artist looking at references somehow makes it not fair use or transformative. This just isn't true, at least in current law, as far as I know: Certainly, putting a themetically interesting and creative spin on a work can AID a Transformative (or especially Parody) argument when claiming fair use, but it's not a requirement. You do need human input to GET copyright protection, see Naruto v. David Slater (yes, really), but that's a separate thing. Similarly, the fact that Al's don't need to learn and practice also isn't really important in if it's Transformative, and the idea that it can replicate people's art styles also doesn't matter, as Copyright doesn't protect "Style", just specific works or characters, things, etc. This is where I think the risk with fighting Al via infringement claims starts: What if there IS a legal case or law passed changing that, and now creativity or requiring effort/practice IS a requirement in Fair use, or style IS now protected by copyright: Suddenly now you, as a actual, real human artist, might get sued because your art happens to stylistically look similar to somebody else's art. Or somebody making a piece of art that's a derivative work as a human artist now has a higher bar for claiming fair use because they have to prove it's sufficiently creative or high effort. Fair use is already WAY narrower then most people realize, and you of all people mark should know that. (If people are wondering why music Al generators only use royalty free music and care more about copyright, it's because the way copyright works with music is different: Music only has so many notes and the like vs the infinite spectrum of visual color, shapes, etc; so two people happening to make music with similar sections is common, and the case law with music infringement is ALREADY as such that in those cases, you're guilty of infringement often anyways even if it wasn't intentional. We do NOT want that happening with visual art copyright too. There's other ways music copyright is different too, like mandatory licensing) And the same giant corporations people are worried about misuing Al to undercut artists (which, again, is a real concern) would LOO00000OVE to have this happen: It would make it way, way easier for them to go after random people online with Copyright claims and C&D's: Imagine Disney Toei sueing somebody for making original characters that are just done in the Dragon Ball Style despite not actually being DB characters or using any copyrighted DB elements! In general, copyright expansions always benefit big corporations and hurt small creators: The corporations are too big to be sued for violations (such as when Family guy stole some guy's youtube clip then DMCA'd the original), and small creators are too small to fight back when the corporations sue them, even if what the creator did was fair use. Again, mark, you should know this. Of course, it's possible that a court's ruling or a law in an Al case could be worded in such a way that precedence would apply JUST to Al (Again, beyond being transformative, say, the market impact is part of fair use determination, and Al due to it's ease of use and lack of practice/skill is extra disruptive to the art market), but the courts have CONSISTENTLY passed laws and made rulings that hurt smaller artists and benefit corporations: As I explained before, ultimately it doesn't matter how many Fair use principals you do or don't meet, sometimes you win or lose anyways: In practice, how rich and powerful you are often decides things, many times before it even gets to court since big corporations can force settlements or draw cases out and the other side has to give in, or they can lobby for laws to pass. As it applies here, we've already seen the Concept Art Association's anti-Al fundraiser state they want to get the Copyright Alliance industry lobby group Disney etc are a part of to be involved, who want to use anti-Al sentiments to expand copyright. The courts will be WAY more willing to listen to the big corporations at the lobbying table or filing Amicus Briefs then they will small artists. So yeah, that's why I think framing what Al does as "stealing" or talking about how it's "not creative" or "can copy styles" is dangerous: It's well intentioned, but it's framing the issue and presenting arguments that, if they gain legal traction, could be disastrous to the rights of real human artists, as we can't guarantee that a court will rule or a law will be worded in such a way that those limitations would only apply to Al. As for how to combat it instead, I think there should be a push to get the Al companies to agree to stick to Royalty Free images on their own, like how the ESRB was formed without goverment regulation by the Games industry, and that people should just try to keep the precedence in place that Al images don't get their own copyright (which will discourage people from using Al in corporate contexts) without trying to claim the Al or the Al images are infringing. 38 se Reply

AI Art

every discourse about AI art on twitter ever

Public ✓ Pro-Al art guy: Hey luddites, mad you could never make something this good? [horrific glittery digital airbrush painting of a purple woman with a third eye holding a tiny glowing sprout] Anti-Al art girl in replies: just say u want to steal frm strugling artists so they st*rve to death and go. btw if any femmes w trauma want to support real art, i hand make smol portraits for $125 !!!!! [10x10 grid of what looks like blushing warioware characters sticking their tongues out and holding up the peace sign]
Public ✓ Pro-Al art guy: Hey luddites, mad you could never make something this good? [horrific glittery digital airbrush painting of a purple woman with a third eye holding a tiny glowing sprout] Anti-Al art girl in replies: just say u want to steal frm strugling artists so they st*rve to death and go. btw if any femmes w trauma want to support real art, i hand make smol portraits for $125 !!!!! [10x10 grid of what looks like blushing warioware characters sticking their tongues out and holding up the peace sign]

AI Art

Whether you're pro or anti-AI, you don't like the mod.

<a href="https://twitter.com/reddit_lies/status/1610669909842825222">Twitter Thread.</a>
<a href="https://twitter.com/reddit_lies/status/1610669909842825222">Twitter Thread.</a>

AI Art

Pebbleyeet’s dumbest “”joke”” yet

CHECK OUT THIS A.I. ART I MADE. YOU MEAN A MACHINE MADE. 70 STONETOSS.COM
CHECK OUT THIS A.I. ART I MADE. YOU MEAN A MACHINE MADE. 70 STONETOSS.COM

AI Art

Double standards?

Copyrights should last forever MPA Piracy is theft YouTube You've been banned for using 3 seconds of copyrighted music in a video EA Hope you like DRM Nintendo® Fangames are illegal and we will sue you if you make any I bought the rights to Vantablack so no one but me will ever be able to use it HBO max You will never watch Infinity Train again O copyright alliance Al art is theft, please give us money so we can bribe politicians to ban it No they f------ shouldn't I don't care What the f--- Hope you like piracy Why do you hate your fans Go f--- yourself Not legally, no Here's $1,000 Challenge Complete! How Did We Get Here?
Copyrights should last forever MPA Piracy is theft YouTube You've been banned for using 3 seconds of copyrighted music in a video EA Hope you like DRM Nintendo® Fangames are illegal and we will sue you if you make any I bought the rights to Vantablack so no one but me will ever be able to use it HBO max You will never watch Infinity Train again O copyright alliance Al art is theft, please give us money so we can bribe politicians to ban it No they f------ shouldn't I don't care What the f--- Hope you like piracy Why do you hate your fans Go f--- yourself Not legally, no Here's $1,000 Challenge Complete! How Did We Get Here?

AI Art

AI artist screams slander after vtuber politely asks to tag their work as such

裏方は組長の人気に嫉妬している。 @uracate The damage to my reputation as an artist due to this incident is significant, considering both defamation and the potential impact on my future work. Does COVER Corporation believe it is acceptable for their Vtubers to slander fans on social media? I find this hard to believe. Readers added context they thought people might want to know This account is a fake who generates Al art trained on the work of the original artist. Artist's website with links to to their X account: end.000 Artist's post about this account: x.com/urct/status/17... 978 Please tag your art as Al for future reference The damage to my reputation as an artist due to this incident is significant, considering both defamation and the potential impact on my future work. Does COVER Corporation believe it is acceptable for their Vtubers to slander fans on social media? I find this hard to believe. 裏方は組長の人気に嫉妬している。 @.. th I was baselessly insulted by Hololive's Ouro Kronii, who claimed, "The fan art you drew is Al-generated.' As a result, my dignity as an artist has been deeply hurt, and I am very saddened. I demand an apology from COVER Corporation. Q43 1212 01 裏方は組長の人気に嫉妬している。...th まさか 「Vtuberが自分のファンアートをAIだと 認したら、ファンを直接攻撃してもいい」だ なんてルールでもあるのかー? え? どうなん |だ谷郷元昭さんよー? 0:10 221 01 5.48 | 裏方は組長の人気に嫉妬している。 @th おうホロライブさんよ、ホロライブEN本人が約 れてくれたんだけどどーすんだよ谷郷元昭さん |よ? ファンアートを 「AIだろ?」って指摘す るのは絵を描いてきた人間に対する侮辱だって ことくらい教育しとけよ。 方は組長の人気に嫉妬している。 -23m COVER Corporation should stop making nonsensical claims like "Don't use Al in fan art. Your Al art has no value." Such statements only create new instances of slander on social media. 33 122 02 3.2K 裏方は組長の人気に嫉妬している。 This is because COVER Corporation continues to adhere to the nonsensical notion that fan art created using Al "has no value. Their ideology is creating new. instances of online slander. -25m 018 224 02 3.8K 4 裏方は組長の人気に嫉妬している。 -27m COVER Corporation conducts awareness activities against online slander, so how is it that their Vtuber slandered a fan?
裏方は組長の人気に嫉妬している。 @uracate The damage to my reputation as an artist due to this incident is significant, considering both defamation and the potential impact on my future work. Does COVER Corporation believe it is acceptable for their Vtubers to slander fans on social media? I find this hard to believe. Readers added context they thought people might want to know This account is a fake who generates Al art trained on the work of the original artist. Artist's website with links to to their X account: end.000 Artist's post about this account: x.com/urct/status/17... 978 Please tag your art as Al for future reference The damage to my reputation as an artist due to this incident is significant, considering both defamation and the potential impact on my future work. Does COVER Corporation believe it is acceptable for their Vtubers to slander fans on social media? I find this hard to believe. 裏方は組長の人気に嫉妬している。 @.. th I was baselessly insulted by Hololive's Ouro Kronii, who claimed, "The fan art you drew is Al-generated.' As a result, my dignity as an artist has been deeply hurt, and I am very saddened. I demand an apology from COVER Corporation. Q43 1212 01 裏方は組長の人気に嫉妬している。...th まさか 「Vtuberが自分のファンアートをAIだと 認したら、ファンを直接攻撃してもいい」だ なんてルールでもあるのかー? え? どうなん |だ谷郷元昭さんよー? 0:10 221 01 5.48 | 裏方は組長の人気に嫉妬している。 @th おうホロライブさんよ、ホロライブEN本人が約 れてくれたんだけどどーすんだよ谷郷元昭さん |よ? ファンアートを 「AIだろ?」って指摘す るのは絵を描いてきた人間に対する侮辱だって ことくらい教育しとけよ。 方は組長の人気に嫉妬している。 -23m COVER Corporation should stop making nonsensical claims like "Don't use Al in fan art. Your Al art has no value." Such statements only create new instances of slander on social media. 33 122 02 3.2K 裏方は組長の人気に嫉妬している。 This is because COVER Corporation continues to adhere to the nonsensical notion that fan art created using Al "has no value. Their ideology is creating new. instances of online slander. -25m 018 224 02 3.8K 4 裏方は組長の人気に嫉妬している。 -27m COVER Corporation conducts awareness activities against online slander, so how is it that their Vtuber slandered a fan?

AI Art

Twitter artist gets their art copied by AI, Part 2

Source is these tweets... "Tweet #1":https://twitter.com/zuyuancesar/status/1602263936258445313 "Tweet #2":https://twitter.com/zuyuancesar/status/1602263944672219139 "Tweet #3":https://twitter.com/zuyuancesar/status/1602266333756149761 "Tweet #4":https://twitter.com/zuyuancesar/status/1603144187670835200
Source is these tweets... "Tweet #1":https://twitter.com/zuyuancesar/status/1602263936258445313 "Tweet #2":https://twitter.com/zuyuancesar/status/1602263944672219139 "Tweet #3":https://twitter.com/zuyuancesar/status/1602266333756149761 "Tweet #4":https://twitter.com/zuyuancesar/status/1603144187670835200

AI Art

Fanartists who hate AI art but appeal to law should reconsider

Artists: Al art copies others' art style! Also Artists: TITCHPUNK IVIANDERO 5.0 (41) Draw a fictional character in disney... From $15 5.0 (77) Do disney characters in my style From $15 4.9 (3) Give character to your pet in disney st... From $10 ★ 5.0 (8) Draw your disney, cartoon, concept ar... From $10
Artists: Al art copies others' art style! Also Artists: TITCHPUNK IVIANDERO 5.0 (41) Draw a fictional character in disney... From $15 5.0 (77) Do disney characters in my style From $15 4.9 (3) Give character to your pet in disney st... From $10 ★ 5.0 (8) Draw your disney, cartoon, concept ar... From $10

AI Art

Product vs. Passion

It's been said before around here so this is just conformation.
It's been said before around here so this is just conformation.

AI Art
Meme Encyclopedia
Media
Editorials
More
KYM facebook KYM instagram KYM tiktok KYM twitter/x KYM youtube KYM discord KYM discord

Legal Information: Know Your Meme ® is a trademark of  Literally Media Ltd . By using this site, you are agreeing by the site's terms of use and  privacy policy and  DMCA policy .

© 2007-2025 Literally Media Ltd.