Fyri
Inkling
This debate is starting to feel a bit charged and I'm sensing that there is a wall, preventing effective communication. Could be my fault. I am leaving. Good luck, all.
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
AI book cover
- Thread starter Dankolisic
- Start date
Finchbearer
Istar
Please don’t be deterred from joining in future conversation Fyri - it’s not your fault. Debate is only worth joining in on when it’s intelligent debate, not when things get petty.
_Michael_
Troubadour
The argument will come down to, is an AI engine a tool like any other software, or should we give it special status because it might generate some sketchy material? The court WILL decide that it is a tool like any other software because to grant it special status is to open the floodgates on the definition of authorship and will result in dozens, if not hundreds of lawsuits that don't need to occur. Courts always strive for plain meaning, and the plainest interpreptation is that the author is the person inputting the prompt, and the engine is just the software used to execute the artist's vision, no different than using CorelDraw. Now, if they wanted to start selling the AI engine, that's a different story. THEN it becomes a simple matter of licensing no different than using CorelDraw, which grants you a license to use their software freely for commercial purposes--because that is what it is designed for.
If the author is the prompt engineer, everything else resolves as normal. AI just becomes a shitty tool (right now) that occasionally biffs it or makes something truly spectacular, but is getting better and better. This keeps everything in line with current laws, and requires no alterations to the law. Whether you're using a digital paintbrush on a Wacom, or you're simply typing in what you want to see, it becomes the same thing--the image is the result of human effort working with imperfect tools. If your image sucks and the figures all have eight fingers and three eyes, it's because your prompt-fu is weak.
Not trying to charge anyone up. I just laughed at Fyri's comment about AI art. That's why I was like, Psst. It's AI. lol It's all good, man. There's no rancor here, nor is there any room for it. I just know how courts will likely rule on something like that because I understand the underlying doctrines and how courts like to rule on precedent-setting issues--as slowly as possible. lol Courts move at a glacial pace, and don't like to upset the apple cart unless there is a really good reason to do so. Interpreting the term "author" to mean the prompt engineer is the simplest solution that presevers the rights of all. Wacom and others will likely incorporate AI engines at some point iin their UI and software engines, anyway. Right now, the AI is like a big red crayon, but eventually, it will become a full-on Rotring technical pen.
- Thread starter
- #44
Dankolisic
Minstrel
I will state my opinion on this matter. I agree with actually everything you said, but to be frank, AI is a relatively new thing that has spread widely now. Of course in the future there will be a whole bunch more AI pictures and stuff, and it will be harder and harder to distinguish the real ones from the fake ones. For me, book covers should be hand or computer drawn, and absolutely not those free AI stuff because we should honor the tradition of making covers for books which are essentially the artist's view on the scenery. But, if someone did a very very good cover which took weeks to generate, than it would be okay, especially if it's good.
This topic is similar to electric scooters that dominate the streets today. Are they cars? No. Then should they be allowed on the street? Also no, but there isn't any law yet(in my country at least) where it says it's forbidden. Then, should they be on the sidewalk? Yes, but they present danger for pedestrians. It is a transport device, after all, so by definition it should be on the street. When a couple of accidents happen involving scooters, soon the goverments will start to implement stricter laws, and then the scooters will have to ride in designated area only or smthng like that.
This topic is similar to electric scooters that dominate the streets today. Are they cars? No. Then should they be allowed on the street? Also no, but there isn't any law yet(in my country at least) where it says it's forbidden. Then, should they be on the sidewalk? Yes, but they present danger for pedestrians. It is a transport device, after all, so by definition it should be on the street. When a couple of accidents happen involving scooters, soon the goverments will start to implement stricter laws, and then the scooters will have to ride in designated area only or smthng like that.
Finchbearer
Istar
Michael - you’re being so narrow minded. It’s like you’re blind to the fact that art and design is an entire industry where people make their livelihoods. You wouldn’t go to the doctor or dentist or lawyer and say, ‘nah, I don’t want to pay that much’ or otherwise not take them seriously, or worse, not pay them at all for their services, no that would be unthinkable. But within the art and design industry it’s all too common, because it’s not taken seriously. You are one such individual who does not see that we are people who have legitimate skills and want to you know, make a living and not be destitute too. Your attitude undermines this.
_Michael_
Troubadour
Not true at all--please don't mistake it as narrow-mindedness. I would love to be able to afford commissions because then I wouldn't have to wrangle with idiot AIs. Believe me, I'm all for artists. But to me, AI is no different than using a Wacom's digital brushes, just uses a different input format. And it's emminently more affordable and instantaneous than having to go back and forth with an artist who may or may not correctly interpret your directions. I mean, from one perspective, using an artist to produce commissions is no different than using an AI--to the person buying the art. You still have to type in your description with details and hope that the artist (like the AI) will interpret them correctly. I don't think AI is going to do away with artists, either--if nothing else, it's going to force artists as a collective whole to get better as a matter of necessity, and the digital works that will be produced by humans will continue to improve until they're so spectacular, they'll be featured in museums. I've seen landscapes on dA I would hang as quality art, and they're entirely digital.
But for may of us, we are literally starving artists who cannot afford such niceties. I can trade commissions on CorelDraw--I do maps and floorplans--but those are time-consuming as well. Only thing holding me back on that is that I need to get a new external harddrive for my macbook (because Apple didn't bother fixing a bug that borked external harddrives until just recently with the release of Sonoma 14.1.1) that I cannot afford. All my saved files for greebles and stuff I use on my floorplans were wiped.
It's not just a guess, either, on how the courts are likely to rule. I've dealt with civil courts before pro se (and prevailed), and judges get very twitchy when you try to start setting precedents because they have to make sure every single i is dotted and t is crossed, or it gets kicked back down if someone appeals it. I don't really see them trying to rule an AI is an author, nor can I see them ruling the AI engine's creator is an author. That would be a catastroophic decision because it would demolish software law like a nuclear bomb. It's highly likely they will just rule the user is the author and kick the can down the road until it comes up again on some new angle. It's what the courts always do in such matters, a form of conservative jurisprudence to treat the system with kid gloves and not break it. Or, at least, it used to be. Some of the decisions coming down lately make me wonder if the courts haven't all lost their collective minds.
pmmg
Myth Weaver
I've worked with Fiverr for artists and had some great experiences (and a couple not-so-great). The last time I checked Fiverr, though, it was swamped with artists who were offering to create the best AI art and fix it up for you. The number of people offering regular art has gone way down, and their prices have gone way up.
Like I said above, once you post its AI, I am not interested. These AI 'artists' can go jump in a lake. Bring me the real thing, or don't waste my time.
Last edited:
pmmg
Myth Weaver
Here is the finally done hand-drawn book cover ( in a new thread I will publish the translated summary on the back)
Hope you like it
Is this really hand drawn? Or is that meant to be cheeky? I am not sure.
I'd say, wow, that pretty impressive if you drew that, and I like it....
But therein lies the hidden truth. It hits me on two levels. One is, its visually impressive. The other is that its impressive that someone could make that on their own. Without the second, its just 'Yawn'. I know AI can do it.
And the crime is, it may be entirely your own creation, but since you are here talking about using AI, I will forever question. Don't let that be your reputation.
As it is, I believe you made it, and its nice.
_Michael_
Troubadour
Then why are you in an AI book cover thread at all? Not understanding the motiviation, here. The OP was clearly seeking AI generators for his book cover.
Coming in here just to say, "Oh, it's AI. Ew," seems a bit like troll bait to me.
Finchbearer
Istar
Oh dear…I think this thread has been througouly thrung.
pmmg
Myth Weaver
Well...I dont think its a mystery that I am not on the side of respecting AI.
I can stop posting about it.
I can stop posting about it.
- Thread starter
- #52
Dankolisic
Minstrel
yes, it is drawn by my friend, and artist, called carmraz0m0r on Instagram. She is quite skillfull
- Thread starter
- #53
Dankolisic
Minstrel
I cannot see the photo on the first page, just the link...is it my computer or does it happen to all of you? That you cant see the pic anymore?
pmmg
Myth Weaver
I can still see the pic.
Prince of Spires
Auror
In general I have 2 opinion's on AI art. The first is that something needs to be figured out about training material. Courts need to figure out if AI can just grab anything they want to use as training input, similar to someone visiting a museum and being inspired by art on display. Or if it counts as actually using the material in a copyright sence, which would mean that the artists would need to licence their work before it can be used, and that they should get some form of compensation. This is very much up in the air, and there is no consensus about how courts (or lawmakers for that matter) will rule on this.
The other side is that AI art is very much a viable technique. It's a tool that can be used to create images. If I'm honest, most AI covers I've seen are orders of magnitude better than most cheap stockphoto covers. And most readers will not care or see if a cover is AI made or not. They will only consider if they like it. I've created a few facebook ads with AI images, and never once has anyone noted that they thought it was AI made or that they hated it because of that or that it somehow cheapened my brand. I have had people comment that they liked the image. I know, that's anecdotal, but make of that what you will.
As for detecting AI art, we've very recently had an AI book cover win an cover art competition (where using AI was specifically not allowed). Only when the actual, original photoshop files were examined was it proven that it was AI made. Which should prove that AI has very much moved past the point of "it's AI so it sucks."
As with all other technologies, AI is here to stay. It can't be put back into its box anymore and made to disappear. If you're an artist, that's very much the sad truth of it. Will people still value human created art? Of course. Just like we still value Magnus Carlson becoming chess world champion, even though most chess computers could kick his ass. But if you're in the business of creating cheap covers for indie authors, then your competition is AI, whether you like it or not. You will need to either accept lower margins or offer something the AI can't deliver because that's who you're up against.
And I agree with _Michael_ that if you're a small indie author, then AI is a very tempting deal and I can't hold it against you. I can honestly say that my cover artist has earned more on my books that I have, by several orders of magnitude even. Most books don't sell more than a handful of copies. It's then hard to justify $500 or even $100 for a cover, when you'll likely make $10 at most. And as for not aging well, that's not a problem. You can easily replace the cover in one or two years if it's free to create for you using AI. And it's a lot easier to do so than if you have to pay another $100 for a cover that might never make its money back.
The other side is that AI art is very much a viable technique. It's a tool that can be used to create images. If I'm honest, most AI covers I've seen are orders of magnitude better than most cheap stockphoto covers. And most readers will not care or see if a cover is AI made or not. They will only consider if they like it. I've created a few facebook ads with AI images, and never once has anyone noted that they thought it was AI made or that they hated it because of that or that it somehow cheapened my brand. I have had people comment that they liked the image. I know, that's anecdotal, but make of that what you will.
As for detecting AI art, we've very recently had an AI book cover win an cover art competition (where using AI was specifically not allowed). Only when the actual, original photoshop files were examined was it proven that it was AI made. Which should prove that AI has very much moved past the point of "it's AI so it sucks."
As with all other technologies, AI is here to stay. It can't be put back into its box anymore and made to disappear. If you're an artist, that's very much the sad truth of it. Will people still value human created art? Of course. Just like we still value Magnus Carlson becoming chess world champion, even though most chess computers could kick his ass. But if you're in the business of creating cheap covers for indie authors, then your competition is AI, whether you like it or not. You will need to either accept lower margins or offer something the AI can't deliver because that's who you're up against.
And I agree with _Michael_ that if you're a small indie author, then AI is a very tempting deal and I can't hold it against you. I can honestly say that my cover artist has earned more on my books that I have, by several orders of magnitude even. Most books don't sell more than a handful of copies. It's then hard to justify $500 or even $100 for a cover, when you'll likely make $10 at most. And as for not aging well, that's not a problem. You can easily replace the cover in one or two years if it's free to create for you using AI. And it's a lot easier to do so than if you have to pay another $100 for a cover that might never make its money back.
Finchbearer
Istar
Okay, while we’re at it just make AI generated novels, you know, since art doesn’t matter anymore! And also seeing as we’re putting so little value into the creation of the books themselves, why bother making the writing have even an ounce of human made touch if the cover doesn’t. If anyone lurks on this website I at least want to make it clear that I think there is immense value in creating something without the use of AI.
There are some things AI can be good for, but not for this.
There are some things AI can be good for, but not for this.
_Michael_
Troubadour
Your point is ignored as it violates the rules of debate. The argument wasn't about AI generated novels, that's you using false equivalency and a straw man argument as a red herring.
Feel free to send us money to afford human-created works. PM me for my bank routing information. I myself will need at least $12,000.
Finchbearer
Istar
Designers are not up against AI, they’re up against themselves, but a poor imitation of their own work. AI plagiarises because it’s taking all the images humans created - it’s artificial.
Finchbearer
Istar
My point is ignored by you because you’re ignorant.
Feel free to not engage with me anymore, and enjoy trying to make money from your unoriginal AI generated dribble.
_Michael_
Troubadour
If you wanted me to block you because you can't hold an adult conversation, all you had to do was ask.
