Why This Award-Winning Piece of AI Art Can’t Be Copyrighted::Matthew Allen’s AI art won first prize at the Colorado State Fair. But the US government has ruled it can’t be copyrighted because it’s too much “machine” and not enough “human.”

  • El Barto@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Eh. I’ve seen abstract art that people are in awe with throughout my life. And like the uneducated swine I am, I’ve never thought they were impressive either.

    Art appraisers are weird.

    Edit: I saw the piece in question. This one is a tricky one, because if a human painted it, it would be impressive. Very nice details. But since it was generated by a machine in minutes… eh.

    • Zarxrax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      But according to the article, it wasn’t generated in minutes. The artist went through over 600 iterations of tweaking the prompt to get what he wanted. Sounds like days or even weeks of work probably. And then made additional tweaks via Photoshop.

      Not too say that makes it any more impressive, but it wasn’t something that was without effort.

      • El Barto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Point taken. In that case, I guess one can recognize the effort. Still, the impressive part of the piece is the style, which, if one were to assume was made with actual oil paint, it would be impressive.

        With AI, I would explore styles that are inherently difficult to produce digitally. And yes, “oil paint” would be difficult to produce with digital tools alone outside of AI (maybe there are good plug-ins for it?) But you know what I mean. I don’t even know which styles those would be.

        • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You can make digital illustrations with a graphic tablet and the right digital brushes that look remarkably similar to oil paint. Because with a graphic tablet and pen you can utilise tilting, pressure, speed, etc. The colours will often simulate how actual oil paints work (well, at least they try). It’s kinda like a very easy casual mode of actual oil painting.

        • Zarxrax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          When I commission an artist, I’m probably not looking over their shoulder the entire time telling them exactly what to do. But that does bring up an interesting point. Assume I have no use of my limbs and an artist agrees to help me make a painting. I tell them exactly what to do, which colors to use, where to make paint strokes, etc. I am guiding the image, but they are actually painting it, and their own skill and technique and style will obviously play into the final image. I don’t know who would have more of a claim to the image in that case.

          • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You don’t tell the AI where to make each stroke, exactly what colours to pick and mix, every detail of the composition. The AI preselects everything for you by considering what the majority of people like in pictures.

            No one would say the person “guiding the image” is the one who created the image. This is why ideas aren’t copyrightable. Everyone has a ton of ideas. It’s the execution that matters, which takes skill, patience and dedication.

            Most clients have a very defined idea what they want to have drawn or designed. Especially in a higher price segment. This often takes weeks or months and multiple lengthy discussions between the artist and the client. Never have I seen a client later say “Well that took a lot of talking from my side. I guess it’s basically me who created this picture!”

            I think a lot of people underestimate how much work it takes and since you don’t really see anyone creating the image, you get the impression you somehow magiced it into existence by yourself.

    • Dkarma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Read the article. He added details and the description fed into the prompt was 624 words long. He basically wrote a page describing the scene he wanted created.

      • El Barto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Which I can also do. “Imagine a cave full of cats. The first cat is pink with yellow dots. The second cat glows in the dark. The third cat…”

        I guess art involves expressing what you want to express it, sure. But also how you express it is part of it as well. If you make the strokes yourself, it’s more impressive. A machine? You gotta do better than making it look like someone painted it.

        It’s like 3D printing. A 3D-printed statue? Neat. But not terribly impressive. A 3D figure that defies all optical illusion explanations? Now we’re talking.

      • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is it your art and are you the artist when you describe a painter or illustrator what they should draw? I can tell you, many clients use more than 624 words.

        • Dkarma@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you wrote 624 words into a machine like a typewriter and published it it would be copyrighted. But those same 624 words fed into another machine can’t be. Funny.

          • Thymos@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The words can be copyrighted alright, that’s not the problem here. Even without publishing them, the creator already has copyright over his 624 words. There’s probably nobody who would be interested in publishing them because, let’s face it, they aren’t that interesting on their own, unlike a novel or a poem. All the stuff that makes this a piece of art is added by the AI, whereas a printing press adds very little to nothing to a book.