![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
AI as a tool
Dec. 11th, 2022 11:24 am I'm not a digital artist. So, I don't really a horse in this race, but I think Clip Studio Paint had the right idea on how to integrate AI technology for the benefit of "human artists".
Unfortunately, they used Stable Diffusion for their database. I agree that that was the wrong move. It's a shame that there doesn't seem to be an ethical dataset for them to rely on.
Part of the appeal would of been the ability to bypass Googling for stock footage. Which itself can lead to iffy results since it's difficult sometimes to verify that the uploader is the one who developed the original image.
Plus, by the looks of things, part of the AI component was the ability to easily create an image with desired composition. Something not easily found when scrolling through pages of stock images to find the right one that I'm willing to pay to use.
Would this have hurt stock photographers? Probably.
An ethical datase would of most likely had struck a deal with a big name rights holder such as Getty Images with little to no commission to the original photographers.
At the moment Getty Images has banned the sale of AI generated work on its service over copyright concerns, but is also working with Bria to use AI to edit images.
Shutterstock is more open to the idea of selling AI generated art, but also seems to be willing to compensate participants who have contributed their work to catalogs for training AI. But I haven't seen much discussion about this.
On another note, Adobe allowing AI submissions to their stock resources services seems irresponsibly bad. It comes with restrictions, but it's the same model release and property releases that you can expect a "human artist" to adhere to. An AI artist can easily mimic the likeness of a model or IP character without obtaining the releases rights and can probably make a case of "fair-use" if Adobe does continue to allow the sale of AI generated images made from unethical AI generators.
Unfortunately, they used Stable Diffusion for their database. I agree that that was the wrong move. It's a shame that there doesn't seem to be an ethical dataset for them to rely on.
Part of the appeal would of been the ability to bypass Googling for stock footage. Which itself can lead to iffy results since it's difficult sometimes to verify that the uploader is the one who developed the original image.
Plus, by the looks of things, part of the AI component was the ability to easily create an image with desired composition. Something not easily found when scrolling through pages of stock images to find the right one that I'm willing to pay to use.
Would this have hurt stock photographers? Probably.
An ethical datase would of most likely had struck a deal with a big name rights holder such as Getty Images with little to no commission to the original photographers.
At the moment Getty Images has banned the sale of AI generated work on its service over copyright concerns, but is also working with Bria to use AI to edit images.
Shutterstock is more open to the idea of selling AI generated art, but also seems to be willing to compensate participants who have contributed their work to catalogs for training AI. But I haven't seen much discussion about this.
On another note, Adobe allowing AI submissions to their stock resources services seems irresponsibly bad. It comes with restrictions, but it's the same model release and property releases that you can expect a "human artist" to adhere to. An AI artist can easily mimic the likeness of a model or IP character without obtaining the releases rights and can probably make a case of "fair-use" if Adobe does continue to allow the sale of AI generated images made from unethical AI generators.
