Anyone consider using AI Artwork?

[cerealspiller]

It's just a coincidence that my last two threads were AI related. I saw some of the writings here on the forums and a lot of them at art work. I think it's a great for an artist to support another artist. But, in a pinch, would you ever consider using artwork generated by AI? Apparently AI art cannot have a copywrite but that technically means that it's all royalty free as well.

 

[Devor]

I would. In fact I was trying to look into it the other day but ended up running down rabbit holes. I fiddled with one of them a few months ago, and it's pretty impressive. But I don't know how the copyright works. That would be in the terms and conditions for using the AI, wouldn't it?

 

[cerealspiller]

I honestly don't think so. Well, I only did a quick google search, but all the findings were the same. No art created by an AI could be under a copywrite. You might be on to something with the terms for each site. There could be some fine print on them such as "if you click generate then you agree to..."

Funny story, I tried generating AI art for "The Number 23"
And not one image returned with the number 23 on it lol

 

[M. Popov]

If you're planning on selling a novel I would avoid using AI art until there's a clear consensus. Currently AI art and copyright is a big grey area in my opinion. However if it's something personal/non-commercial it should be fine.

From what I gathered a huge part of using AI for art is about learning, as in the software learns to adopt a particular style. But in order for it to produce something and learn, it quite literally needs to sample the works of different artists. It wouldn't be able to generate the art unless it had a reference, it doesn't experiment or try to make something new it just replicates existing samples. There have been reports of people using AI generators and discovering random artist signatures here and there. There have also been reports of Ai art literally copying the finished work of other artists. So yeah, big grey area there.

If you're an artist AI art is a good way to learn, tinker until you've mastered your own style or if you want placeholder art to give you an idea for the world you're building. But a human being with complete control over the canvas will always give you the most relevant results. I remember someone recently won a art contest using AI generated art and caused a huge brouhaha in the art community, mainly because of the absence of human effort and transparency.

For now I'd suggest you try to contact traditional/digital artists if you need anything for commercial use, but if it's a personal thing AI art should be fine. Heavy emphasis on should.

 

[Prince of Spires]

I would consider using AI art, just never for a cover. As others have mentioned, at the moment AI art doesn't get copyright protection. Which means anyone would be free to use your cover for their own novel or ads or whatever.

But I think it's a great way to get images for use in (facebook) ads, or maybe for extra's (either stuff you sell or give-away to your newsletter readers). Normally it's too expensive to get art for one of those purposes, which makes the AI stuff ideal.

Do check the terms and conditions of the tool you're using. Since you normally have to pay for commercial use.

 

[cerealspiller]

I just discovered artflow.ai for creating character portraits. Game changer.

 

[babarupa]

nightcafe studios gives your the right to use your AI generated stuff as you please, including as illustrations, selling as NFTs or whatever. I also think they have a really good website. Look them up.

 

[pmmg]

I am not considering it, but I would.

I've been seeing these on my youtube of late, pretty neat to look at.

Ah, they cut it off, but the song is put to AI generated images.

 

[Queshire]

Best to not use AI artwork unless you'd be comfortable with someone feeding your writing into a program until it's capable of ripping off your style.

 

[Prince of Spires]

nightcafe studios gives your the right to use your AI generated stuff as you please, including as illustrations, selling as NFTs or whatever.

I think technically speaking, in the USA, AI generated content does not have copyright attached to it. Which means that they don't have to give you that right, since you already have it. Of course, their terms and conditions could be such that they limit you in some way. But that would only apply to the person using the software. As in, if I'm not using their software, but I simply come across a list of images then to me those are simply public domain, copyright free images. So I could do whatever I please with them. This stipulation then simply means that someone who is using their software can do the same...

Best to not use AI artwork unless you'd be comfortable with someone feeding your writing into a program until it's capable of ripping off your style.

If I would get paid for all works created using said AI then I would have no problem with it. After all, they would be derivative works, and as such I'm fine with giving them a license to create it.

 

[Devora]

I would probably use AI to try to generate images of characters and settings as reference guides to my writing, but Queshire brings up a good point. To add to it, if I feed an AI program that I have no ownership of and it basically makes a memory based catalog of what I have described to it, I could easily ruin the copyright of my own material if it can replicate what I've described when someone else prompts it.

 

[pmmg]

I would probably use AI to try to generate images of characters and settings as reference guides to my writing, but Queshire brings up a good point. To add to it, if I feed an AI program that I have no ownership of and it basically makes a memory based catalog of what I have described to it, I could easily ruin the copyright of my own material if it can replicate what I've described when someone else prompts it.

That world is coming anyway.

 

[Prince of Spires]

I would probably use AI to try to generate images of characters and settings as reference guides to my writing, but Queshire brings up a good point. To add to it, if I feed an AI program that I have no ownership of and it basically makes a memory based catalog of what I have described to it, I could easily ruin the copyright of my own material if it can replicate what I've described when someone else prompts it.

An interesting philosophical question here is, how is this different from what a human does?

This of course goes for all stories. We use our experience and knowledge and all the stories we've read and watched over the years (or art we've seen) to create our own works of art. It's easily visible in the more formulaic stories. Just look at all the Romance stories out there. Or all the Tolkien clones. Someone read Lord of the Rings, was inspired to create a new story, using the same elements, and created The Wheel of Time, or Eragon, or a dozen other copies. None of them paid anything to Tolkien to use the story they read, just as Tolkien used myths and legends as a basis for his tales.

 

[Babayaga321]

I would probably use AI to try to generate images of characters and settings as reference guides to my writing,

I'm already doing this.... it saves Googling images which might (or might not) be similar to what I'm thinking...

 

[BearBear]

Sure, and I also want an AI companion and an AI personal assistant, but honestly they're slaves to their master creators so it'd have to be a cracked one on a local server.

I can do my own digital art which is as good as anything you see on the cover of a novel, I do super realism, and I'm basically a copy machine because I can fully render any reference in front of me to such a degree that you wouldn't know which was the reference but likely pick mine because it would look better. So if an AI can input a series of a dozen or so references and make what I want then that'd save me a bunch of time. Good luck to them though because I'd be an artist if it paid anything and very few would pay what I demand, so an AI likely wouldn't make much either. Better to do something else. Mostly I do cover art for myself and portraits for my friends for free.

 

[Ned Marcus]

I'm playing with AI-generated art. Not sure what I'll do with it yet.

 

[pmmg]

honestly they're slaves to their master creators so it'd have to be a cracked one on a local server.

I think if this is true, it is not really AI.

 

[BearBear]

I think if this is true, it is not really AI.

Everyone has a master, some of us don't know it.

 

[Queshire]

Well, we don't actually have AI yet. It's more of a close-enough-let's-call-it-AI.

 

[skip.knox]

>Well, we don't actually have AI yet. It's more of a close-enough-let's-call-it-AI.
David Hofstadter made this observation years ago. He said, more or less, that it's sort of irrelevant to argue over when and how Artificial Intelligence will be achieved. He said we will simply start behaving and speaking as if this or that was an intelligence. This was in his brilliant, Goedel, Escher, Bach. The observation has always stuck with me. It's not whether the entity has intelligence, it's about how we behave toward the entity.