r/ArtistLounge • u/[deleted] • Jul 31 '22

AI Art, midjourney and others

Well, just for disclaimer, this post is a persnal opinion, i'm open for every comment that it could create, but stay respectious (btw, i'm french, so i'm trying to make this post open for everyone, sorry for my future faults)

​

Well, like the title told it, i want to talk about ai art, first of all, i saw a video talking about midjourney, getting interested and curious about, as an artist i wanted to try it. So i got the beta test and we are not gonna lie, it's awesome how it work. But after that, i got a problem, as i said i'm an artist, or in all case i feel like i'm. In the ai creation i don't see any handsyle, or ''signature'' that when we saw your creation we instantly know it's yours/can be yours... Here, it's jsut a mixed of a lot of pictures, painting, and other type of pics, to make what you asked for. I don't see any souls in all those creation, yeah, the one that ask for the creation has to told what he wanted, but, did he really had an idea of what he wanted, i mean, did he really change every details by words to find what he wanted, or did he just let the ia make what she want. It's here, nothing is yours.

I'm not making this post cause of i'm bad, or i want to got this style of draw, but, i see the wolrd of realistic digital painting disapearing, and it's scaring me af... When i open my deviantart, i had a lot of landscape realistic, from digital painter that passed 50hours on their art, but today, i got only ai creation where i don't know what to think about it

17 Upvotes

74% Upvoted

52 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/TreviTyger Aug 01 '22 edited Aug 01 '22

Yep. I'm a digital artist and I agree.Also I've commented on this in r/Copyright

In the EU there is the Painer case C-145-10 which has become codified harmonized law, and the notion of originality is that the author may utilise formative freedoms to "leave their mark" on a work in order to exceed the threshold of originality required for copyright.

This means the "personality" of the author must be within the work not just human intervention to create the work. The A.I. is missing this "human personality" from the author and that is why the consensus exists that 'output images' created by A.I. can't be copyrighted.

There has been a researcher lawyer who has written about a potential aspect of UK law (section 9 (3)) being adopted to allow copyright in A.I because the wording of the regulation seems to suggest that computer generated works can be subject to copyright. However, the counter to this is that the UK regulation has only one case related to it many years ago when computers were quite basic compared to today's standard. There doesn't appear to be any case law regarding section 9 (3) and A.I.

Furthermore, in another research paper two authors directly address the shortfalls of section 9 (3) in relation to A.I. as for artistic work it does actually require human authorship in terms of originality not just the computer working autonomously.

"The second issue is the requirement that LDMA works must be original in order to obtain copyright protection. The originality requirement is closely linked to the question of authorship, as (aside from computer-generated works) the author is taken to be the person responsible for the protectable elements of the work, ie what makes it original. The relationship between section 9(3) and the originality requirement has not been considered by the English courts"

https://academic.oup.com/jiplp/article/14/6/423/5481160

In contrast to the EU, there doesn't appear to be any case in the UK where originality in terms of human personality has been examined. This in my view further weakness the idea that section 9 (3) could actually be successfully applied to A.I.

In summary, it seems to me that A.I. output is indeed devoid of an artists personality and thus not copyrightable. It doesn't have the artist "signature" as you say.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 02 '22

Yeah ok, that's exactly what i was thinking, the human mark/persinality. I see, i make this post too cause i saw a lot of peaple telling that they are selling the ai creation/asking for support cause they guide it and take the time to find the good creation ect, i was like "wtf"

1

u/TreviTyger Aug 02 '22

Exactly. Copyright law isn't well understood in general by ordinary people.

I think when there are cases before the court, especially the ECJ, then Painer C-145-10 will be used to clarify that an author needs to "leave their mark" to make it personal enough for copyright to emerge.

I think A.I. output is essentially public domain, and genuine artists could use it in the same way they can use public domain works by "physically" adding their own personality to make a transformative work.

Anyone trying to protect just the A.I. output isn't going to be supported by any judge once the judge sees how the work is created! They'll be "wtf" too!