Everyone can write a prompt. Not everyone can write a prompt that gets around vulgarity filters and outputs an image of Jesus twerking. That’s where the real value is IMHO.
I can’t imagine there’s a market for it. AI art isn’t copyrightable, and even if they just post a low res preview then that allows anyone to simply use an AI upscaler on it to get a satisfactory output
Here’s what the US copyright office says about when AI art is or isn’t copyrightable:
In the case of works containing AI-generated material, the Office will consider whether the AI contributions are the result of “mechanical reproduction” or instead of an author’s “own original mental conception,
to which [the author] gave visible form.” 24 The answer will depend on the circumstances,
particularly how the AI tool operates and how it was used to create the final work.25 This
is necessarily a case-by-case inquiry.
So if an image looks like AI and you decide to just take it, legally that could be a risky proposition if you don’t know the artist’s workflow and the situation doesn’t exactly match up with settled case law. Afaik most of the market is for custom images, so in practice most of the time it’s not going to be a situation of just putting in a prompt and handing over the result but rather a multi step process and a hybrid of different techniques, which could weigh more towards generated content or more towards traditional drawing or image manipulation. The reason to pay someone for that instead of just using AI yourself would be the same as the reason for paying for non-AI art; they have the skills to get better results than you easily can on your own. The reason an artist might use AI is that it improves quality and/or reduces the amount of work.
I sort of agree, but I think it depends on effort.
Type one word in and try and sell the easiest generated image? Low value.
But typing the right combo to create assets to create something larger than the model is capable of? That’s more valuable.
Criticizing AI or artists that leverage AI is like criticizing an artist for using a printer instead of drawing by hand
Or saying someone’s digital work is inferior because they used a tool to help make their image…
On that note, when working on a large project, is an AI artist as pretentious as the artist in the comic because they got some help generating the project from an AI instead of another human? Or is someone’s work ethic less credible for Google searching instead of asking a person? Are works of art valuable because they’re entirely original and uninfluenced by anything else but the artist themself? Because with that metric no artists are valuable since nothing is entirely original anyways
I honestly think if an artist makes their own model based on only their own work and then use that model to create more of their work, then it’s completely fine if they want to sell it. I imagine if there’s future for AI art then that’s probably the best future, one where the AI creates most of the image and then the artist does some touching up where AI wasn’t good enough.
I don’t oppose AI pictures at all. However, considering that all generative image models have been trained on human generated data, it is only fair that these models and art created by them be under copyleft licenses.
If AI prompting is the only tool involved I agree. If it’s being used as just another tool in the artists toolkit it’s a different matter. For example I’ve seen people combining their photography with AI via masking and it’s about as respectable as collage art in my opinion.
I don’t mind people making and sharing AI pictures for fun, but if you sell those pictures, that’s kinda cringe tbh.
Everyone can write a prompt. Not everyone can write a prompt that gets around vulgarity filters and outputs an image of Jesus twerking. That’s where the real value is IMHO.
Imagine writing a prompt for ChatGPT to generate the prompt to get around vulgarity filters.
And if that person can manage to find a market that will purchase that Image, they deserve to sell it
I can’t imagine there’s a market for it. AI art isn’t copyrightable, and even if they just post a low res preview then that allows anyone to simply use an AI upscaler on it to get a satisfactory output
Here’s what the US copyright office says about when AI art is or isn’t copyrightable:
So if an image looks like AI and you decide to just take it, legally that could be a risky proposition if you don’t know the artist’s workflow and the situation doesn’t exactly match up with settled case law. Afaik most of the market is for custom images, so in practice most of the time it’s not going to be a situation of just putting in a prompt and handing over the result but rather a multi step process and a hybrid of different techniques, which could weigh more towards generated content or more towards traditional drawing or image manipulation. The reason to pay someone for that instead of just using AI yourself would be the same as the reason for paying for non-AI art; they have the skills to get better results than you easily can on your own. The reason an artist might use AI is that it improves quality and/or reduces the amount of work.
I sort of agree, but I think it depends on effort.
Type one word in and try and sell the easiest generated image? Low value.
But typing the right combo to create assets to create something larger than the model is capable of? That’s more valuable.
Criticizing AI or artists that leverage AI is like criticizing an artist for using a printer instead of drawing by hand
Or saying someone’s digital work is inferior because they used a tool to help make their image…
On that note, when working on a large project, is an AI artist as pretentious as the artist in the comic because they got some help generating the project from an AI instead of another human? Or is someone’s work ethic less credible for Google searching instead of asking a person? Are works of art valuable because they’re entirely original and uninfluenced by anything else but the artist themself? Because with that metric no artists are valuable since nothing is entirely original anyways
I honestly think if an artist makes their own model based on only their own work and then use that model to create more of their work, then it’s completely fine if they want to sell it. I imagine if there’s future for AI art then that’s probably the best future, one where the AI creates most of the image and then the artist does some touching up where AI wasn’t good enough.
I don’t oppose AI pictures at all. However, considering that all generative image models have been trained on human generated data, it is only fair that these models and art created by them be under copyleft licenses.
If AI prompting is the only tool involved I agree. If it’s being used as just another tool in the artists toolkit it’s a different matter. For example I’ve seen people combining their photography with AI via masking and it’s about as respectable as collage art in my opinion.
What’s more cringe though? Selling off the wall AI generated images or selling pictures of your butthole? (Asking for a friend.)
How much would your friend charge for a 12’x12’ oil painting of their butthole?