Fundamentally, AI image creators stitch together images, then try to apply an art style.
You might call it “unique” because it stitches things together wrong (hello 10 fingers on one hand), but it is still fundamentally just copying, pasting, and then deforming lines together.
People claiming that AIs understand what they’re doing and that what AIs do is not fundamentally copying and pasting are the ones who have the burden of proof here.
That's called "photobashing", very common to see used by concept artists. Also, it's fair use.
So now you've got a bigger problem in that almost all concept artists are engaged in theft I suppose? Since they are "only" copying, pasting, and then deforming things together?
It is also massively frowned upon in art sharing circles.
[[citation needed]]
>a somewhat ambiguous grey area at the moment
That's a funny way of admitting I'm right.
>It is also massively frowned upon in art sharing circles.
Who gives a shit? What part of "commonly used in concept art", and among professionals in drafting and conceptual stages in general, do you deliberately seek to not understand?
You mentally unwell or are you just an internet troll?
I am not the one arguing that a computer has thoughts, feelings and intent as you are here. It is you that is deliberately attempting to misunderstand through ignorance, lies, and insult.
https://www.owe.com/is-fan-art-legal-fair-use-what-about-mas...
Your “carte Blanche fair use” claim is nonsense. Copyright owners can, in fact, today stop derivative works that they know about, including photobashing.
By your own admission, AI is barely doing photobashing, so is very obviously not creating original works and is subject to copyright claims.
It gets tiring listening to HN AI enthusiasts pretending that AI is an actual comparison to human intelligence when it’s actually demonstrably a specialized search engine that does little more than copy and paste. If this were not the case, then:
-An AI would be able to feed itself without becoming shit tier nonsense
-An ai would be able to create materials not discernible from its training material
Neither case is true for any AI, including diffusion models.
Since you seem to not be aware of this: Fair use is an affirmative defense. By definition nothing I have written is therefore "carte blanche" as no defense of fair use can be ever said to be "carte blanche". This is pure sophistry on your part and transparently so.
>Here’s an article specifically on the legality of photo bashing
And mashups, photobashing, and many things likewise, remain legal and with fair use defenses in the courts as precedent. You continue to reach to any dishonesty or deflection including projection to avoid dealing with any of the points anyone has brought up.
That it doesn’t copy it’s very easy to prove: ask for something that is not in the training set. Does it generate it? Then it’s not a copy.
“Copy-pasting and deforming lines” is such a generic description (and to a certain extent a misrepresentation of what is actually happening) that I don’t see how it’s useful, or relevant. Even if we supposed this was true, you would be claiming that many of Duchamp’s works or potentially Arcimboldo’s or mosaics or collages are “just copies”.