[OC] Barplot of artist survey responses to “A person has the right to claim AI generated art as their own work”

Posted by art_regarder

25 comments

  5. I’d argue that it depends. If for example the AI is literally only trained on one single Artists’ work, it’s reasonable to argue that anything created by that AI could be considered that Artists’ work.

    If not it’d be significantly harder to justify.

  6. Well it makes sense. I’m not an artist because I’ve never drawn, and I certainly don’t say I am if AI creates it for me. In fact, you’re the opposite: you’re against art, which is technique, commitment and creativity.

  7. This will be an interesting battle over rights. The AI developers themselves are claiming all of this scraped data is theirs. Gemini has information from books that are only available for huge amounts of money or from torrent sites.

  8. I’m sure there were plenty of sketch artist who also said photography wasn’t art.

  9. Would love for the same survey to also have had a statement *”Re-drawing an existing image on top of an overlaid layer, a see-through paper sheet or side-by-side reference is not plagiarism.”*

  10. Wonder if they defined AI “artists” as Artists in the Number of Artists.

  11. As a profesional artist, I think its not their work, its more like a collaboration.

    Like when a game studio, a junior 3D Artist will receive a character already almost done and they have to fix stuff up and touch it up to get it ready for production.

    Is the whole piece “Their own work”? Well, not really, but it also isn’t the opposite, “not their work”. Its a collaboration.

    I think this applies to AI the same. The properly resourced and trained AI’s are a “collection of artists styles and characters” that create the base where an artist can work from in order to save time, creating a collaborative artwork.

  12. Before AI image generators existed, if someone wanted to have an image created they would commission an artist to create it, they did not claim to be “commission artists” because they had the idea and commissioned it to be made, and they didn’t say it was their own work.

    The fact that they are not artists, that they did not create it and it is not their own work doesn’t change just because they had a machine make it instead of a person.

  13. I once printed a picture of the Mona Lisa and I still claim it as my own work. I told the printer to print it, after all.

  14. This debate has already been settled.
    Art is what the artist says is art: a sculpture, an oil painting, a photograph, a wall urinal, a tin can with faeces, a banana taped to the wall, a flower generated by AI. All this can be art.

  15. Of course you can claim it as your own work, as long as you say the medium is AI. This doesn’t feel wildly dissimilar to how we would have talked about photography 150 years ago. Yes, you can snap a photo and it will look more lifelike than anything you could have painted but that doesn’t mean it’s not “your work” it’s just a question of “is it good” and in both cases the vast majority of the time the answer is no. But I’m certain there will be art (and I don’t mean ChatGPT make a painting of a big titty anime girl in the style Caravaggio) where the artists is bringing something evocative to the table and where the medium was AI.

  16. Yeah, but what about the opinion of the average person?

    Of course an artist is going to denounce AI, their career is being rendered obsolete.

  17. I’m much more interested in how the general public views it.

    It was pretty obvious that artists would respond this way. However, since AI art is being generated in massive amounts regardless, this suggests that the general public doesn’t agree with the artists. It would be interesting to see to what degree they disagree.

  18. So this means artists can’t claim ai work as their own, even if it was trained off their art

  19. This question is so subjective since art is so subjective. In 1917, Marcel Duchamp enter a urinal with just a name signed on it into an art exhibition. It is considered avant-garde by art historians. Duchamp didn’t make the urinal himself. He bought it retail, then just added the signature. Readymade art is considered art.

    We also have the case of the Monkey Selfie. David J. Slater set up a camera near some Monkeys. PETA argued that the monkey took his own picture thus the copyright for the picture belonged to him and not Slater who created the situation. The courts decided in the end that Slater owned the copyright.

    AI is a tool. Both Duchamp and Slater are considered Artist, even with the minimal standard of Duchamp and being a creator in the case of Slater.

    The argument of what is ‘art’ is subjective, thus who is an artist is also subjective. If we discount AI creators then do Slater and Duchamp deserve to have their copyright removed too? Something to consider.

    edit: typo

  20. AI art you generate is _yours_ in the same way that the number 4 is mine because I rolled it on a d6.

  21. What a ridiculous survey.

    “Hey people who hate AI art, do you think people who make AI art are allowed to claim it as their own work?”

  23. Looks like the only thing more organized than my thoughts is this bar chart.

  24. Wow look at this completely useless graph. Of course artists will disagree. You could ask billionaires if labor laws are good and get the exact same useless graph. For something like this you need to ask the general public not just the artists who sniff eachothers farts.

  25. It’s like photography. it can be art. but if you are using a camera to take pictures of art pieces in a museum, then its hard to say that your photograph of Starry Night is your own work. and you can sell reproductions of the painting. AI is just a tool, you can definitely make it do creative things.

Comments are closed.