Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,958 
|
Post by Crimebuster on Aug 4, 2022 0:32:43 GMT -5
About a week ago I got a subscription to Midjourney, which is a text-based AI art making program.
Essentially, you type in commands - from the very simple to the very detailed - and it will iterate pieces of artwork based on your input.
I am finding it utterly fascinating. Collaborating with an algorithm to produce art raises all sorts of questions, not the least of which is what art is at all. I often enter specific requests and commands only to have it deliver something wholly unexpected - unexpected for me, but obviously there's some sort of input and mechanisms in place within the AI that cause it to make these connections that seem far from obvious to me.
My main interest, though, is figuring out how this can be used to make comics.
What it's really showing me at this point is how much further the AI needs to develop to be able to make comics, and how difficult it is - and what skill it is - to make comics.
The AI is tremendous at concept art, at doing different styles, at portraits, at all sorts of things. But what it seems to really struggle with are the key cornerstones of comics. It's not good at movement, first and foremost, and it's also not good at expressions. Conveying specific actions, and specific emotions, is extremely difficult for the AI to figure out. In other words, it's not good at storytelling... in basically the same ways the Image founders like Jim Lee weren't good at it. if you want people standing around looking cool on cool splash pages, the AI can kill it. But if you want story flow? Very very hard.
It's also very difficult to get it to do anything like a recurring character. I've figured out a couple workarounds, but even if you can get it to do two pictures with a similar face, having it also wear the same clothes is very unlikely. A sequence of panels with the same recurring character is almost impossible at this point, even if you have the AI work from a source image
Having said that, I am working on an experimental comic book story set within the Crimebusters universe. I think I have figured out a way to make the variability of the AI art work within my story structure. I'm sort of doing it Marvel style - I iterated a bunch of pictures, and as I find ones that speak to me, I am incorporating them into the plot, so that it changes in reaction to the art that I am making. I have a basic structure I'm plugging it into, but the story itself was originally inspired by a piece of art the AI came up with that wasn't at all what I was asking for, but really sparked my imagination.
That's the main exciting thing for me, and why I am finding this human-AI collaboration to be so interesting and fulfilling. It can't create anything without my initial ideas. but what it returns to me often sparks new ideas I hadn't considered and wouldn't have come up with without its feedback. It's also excellent at composition and design, and I feel like I am learning a lot as an artist just watching its processes.
I'll share some AI art and my process soon, but I wanted to open the discussion before getting to the actual art, and even though I'm going to incorporate some of what I am making into the Crimebusters, I thought this topic deserved its own thread.
I'm curious to hear what the rest of you might think!
|
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,958
|
Post by Crimebuster on Dec 18, 2022 3:04:43 GMT -5
I'm returning to this topic because it's become a real hot button issue in some circles. On Instagram, I pretty much only follow other indie self-published comic creators, and a lot of them are virulently anti AI art, and also very angry at anyone who chooses to use it.
There seem to be two main concerns:
1. AI learns by scraping art form the internet - it scans and copies artwork of all kinds, either through bots, or by users manually uploading images. This includes copyrighted art from individual artists. The latest version of Midjourney has gotten a lot better at certain aspects of art creation, but it's also become a lot more obvious that it's grabbing inspiration from copyrighted materials - the copyright notices are often clearly incorporated in the art. Many artists view this as theft, and some already have horror stories of people intentionally uploading their artwork, running it thorugh AI, and then passing it off as their own new creations. It's an ethical and legal minefield.
2. A lot of people are worried that they will lose their jobs to AI, especially that AI will replace a lot of entry level, lower paying gigs that artists need in order to get into the business and cut their teeth. One fear is that this will drive artists out of the industry; and since AI needs human art to study and copy, it will lead to art itself become a recursive dead end of fewer and fewer artists, and AI copying itself more and more, etc.
I have mixed feelings about much of this, and it's no fun to have a lot of vocal community members aggressively trashing anyone who uses AI art or expresses an interest in it. I do think point 1 has a lot of validity, and I'm uncomfortable with the way that AI scrapes copyrighted artwork. On a practical level I'm not sure it's possible to prevent, but a conversation needs to be had to figure out safeguards, legal or otherwise.
Point 2 I'm personally less concerned with. For me, as someone who hires artists, AI is still a long ways off from being able to make good comics. A good cover, yes. But good storytelling, no. I'd always rather have a good human artist, and all of my own AI uses aren't replacing artists; on the contrary, any money I might bring in with AI works will be used ot hire human artists to make comics. I'm also not sure how AI art will really affect comics specifically. The indie self-published world is already a boutique marketplace, where people pay a premium of 2-4x as much for a indie creator's personal work compared to mass produced stuff from the big publishers. It's possible that a proliferation of AI art will make the human work more valued by the buyers, not less. So while I get the real worries of people who are looking at potentially having their livelihood impacted, I don't think it's time to panic when it comes to comic art specifically.
I personally still feel AI art is exciting with a lot of potential to be a great tool for comic creators. And I also think the animals are already out of the barn, so shutting the door isn't going to help. But I fear a rift in the community that could get ugly.
Anyone have any thoughts on all of this?
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Dec 19, 2022 16:49:55 GMT -5
On the one hand, this feels like the debate about synthesizers that pervaded the music scene of the six decades back. Ultimately, folks who couldn't play their own music generally didn't get far unless they were using overtly synthesized sounds and mixes. In most genres, it was never accepted as a substitute for actual guitars, bass, drums, and what have you. My students can make an almost professional level track on Garage Band, and yet somehow that also hasn't made much of an impact upon the industry.
On the other hand, I've often bemoaned the death of inking and coloring in comics produced in the digital age. It's pretty to look at, but something is missing. I feel it, but no one in the industry seems to care. I'm sure a lot of excellent inkers lost jobs to young kids who were handy with a mouse and stylus pen. And, at least then, a level of skill was still involved.
Maybe it's more like lettering. Since the dawn of comics, typeset was always an option for lettering, but most companies chose to avoid it, seeing the value in using an actual letterer. In 2022, you can design/download any number of fonts to make the letters for you, and yet we still use letterers.
I think AI-generated art is incredibly cool in its own rite, giving folks who are not artistically skilled the opportunity to express themselves to some degree, but attributing full authorship to them when the program did most of the work is where this feels very wrong, as is using it in place of real artists because it is cheaper. In 2022, you can get a bot to write your script, another bot to draw your script, a third one to color it, and a fourth to letter it. Really, the technology is there. Folks just haven't chosen to exploit it yet, presumably because they assume readers can see a difference and will care.
Heck, we have the technology to insert Stan Lee into Marvel films he never lived to see, and yet we don't do it because we know there would be a backlash. Let's hope that kind of fear continues to keep people honest in their use of technology.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2022 0:15:32 GMT -5
One thing to be aware of if you are a creator making comics and using AI art, the US Copyright office has ruled that comics using AI art are not eligible for copyright protection. Story here-M |
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,958
|
Post by Crimebuster on Dec 22, 2022 2:46:38 GMT -5
I saw that, and I don't think that ruling makes any sense at all. I'm really hoping it is challenged.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this ruling essentially invalidates comics as an artform.
Even if the individual images created by AI are all public domain, the resulting comic book shouldn't be. Otherwise, it's saying that writing and storytelling cannot be copyrighted either, when we know that they can be. A human being selected those AI images and placed them in a specific order to tell a narrative, and then added the narration boxes and word balloons to tell a story. That story should be copyrightable.
All of the human contributions to the comic should be copyrightable, and thus the resulting comic should be as well, even if every individual panel of artwork isn't. Otherwise it's saying that comics are essentially a random collection of images and not a storytelling medium, and completely negates the role of writing and writers in comics.
Also, there's the issue of the art itself. If you take a public domain piece of artwork and make significant changes to it, you create a new work that is copyrightable. But this ruling seems to suggest that anything with AI can't be copyrighted even if it is altered by human artists, which also makes no sense. If I take an AI piece of artwork and draw over it to create a new work, that new work should be copyrightable even if the base AI work is not, in the same way I could use the Mona Lisa as the basis for a new work of art that would be copyrightable even though the Mona Lisa is public domain.
I can't imagine how a ruling like this could stand up to legal scrutiny, AI contributions or no AI contributions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2022 10:35:34 GMT -5
I saw that, and I don't think that ruling makes any sense at all. I'm really hoping it is challenged. Not to put too fine a point on it, but this ruling essentially invalidates comics as an artform. Even if the individual images created by AI are all public domain, the resulting comic book shouldn't be. Otherwise, it's saying that writing and storytelling cannot be copyrighted either, when we know that they can be. A human being selected those AI images and placed them in a specific order to tell a narrative, and then added the narration boxes and word balloons to tell a story. That story should be copyrightable. All of the human contributions to the comic should be copyrightable, and thus the resulting comic should be as well, even if every individual panel of artwork isn't. Otherwise it's saying that comics are essentially a random collection of images and not a storytelling medium, and completely negates the role of writing and writers in comics. Also, there's the issue of the art itself. If you take a public domain piece of artwork and make significant changes to it, you create a new work that is copyrightable. But this ruling seems to suggest that anything with AI can't be copyrighted even if it is altered by human artists, which also makes no sense. If I take an AI piece of artwork and draw over it to create a new work, that new work should be copyrightable even if the base AI work is not, in the same way I could use the Mona Lisa as the basis for a new work of art that would be copyrightable even though the Mona Lisa is public domain. I can't imagine how a ruling like this could stand up to legal scrutiny, AI contributions or no AI contributions. I disagree. It's saying you can't collect a bunch of images done by someone else, arrange them the way you want, and then claim it is your work. I am pretty firmly in the anti-AI camp. If AI can be used to generate art for comics, why can't it be used to generate plots too. Or dialogue. Just get a predictive algorithm to generate plots and dialogue, collect the art, arrange it and take the human element out of making comics altogether. Then nobody has to be paid to make comics except the programmer of the algorithm. Much more cost effective and less labor intensive that way. We can eliminate a bunch of jobs in the arts that way and move them in to the tech sector ad have to pay much fewer people to make our entertainment that way. -M |
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,958
|
Post by Crimebuster on Dec 22, 2022 14:04:30 GMT -5
I saw that, and I don't think that ruling makes any sense at all. I'm really hoping it is challenged. Not to put too fine a point on it, but this ruling essentially invalidates comics as an artform. Even if the individual images created by AI are all public domain, the resulting comic book shouldn't be. Otherwise, it's saying that writing and storytelling cannot be copyrighted either, when we know that they can be. A human being selected those AI images and placed them in a specific order to tell a narrative, and then added the narration boxes and word balloons to tell a story. That story should be copyrightable. All of the human contributions to the comic should be copyrightable, and thus the resulting comic should be as well, even if every individual panel of artwork isn't. Otherwise it's saying that comics are essentially a random collection of images and not a storytelling medium, and completely negates the role of writing and writers in comics. Also, there's the issue of the art itself. If you take a public domain piece of artwork and make significant changes to it, you create a new work that is copyrightable. But this ruling seems to suggest that anything with AI can't be copyrighted even if it is altered by human artists, which also makes no sense. If I take an AI piece of artwork and draw over it to create a new work, that new work should be copyrightable even if the base AI work is not, in the same way I could use the Mona Lisa as the basis for a new work of art that would be copyrightable even though the Mona Lisa is public domain. I can't imagine how a ruling like this could stand up to legal scrutiny, AI contributions or no AI contributions. I disagree. It's saying you can't collect a bunch of images done by someone else, arrange them the way you want, and then claim it is your work. I am pretty firmly in the anti-AI camp. If AI can be used to generate art for comics, why can't it be used to generate plots too. Or dialogue. Just get a predictive algorithm to generate plots and dialogue, collect the art, arrange it and take the human element out of making comics altogether. Then nobody has to be paid to make comics except the programmer of the algorithm. Much more cost effective and less labor intensive that way. We can eliminate a bunch of jobs in the arts that way and move them in to the tech sector ad have to pay much fewer people to make our entertainment that way. -M While I agree that I would rather read human stories -- in fact, I'd argue that if it's not created by a human it's not actually a story at all -- I think this copyright ruling causes a lot more problems than it solves. The comic in question isn't just a bunch of AI art placed in a specific sequence. It also contains a written text story element created by a person. At the least, that should be copyrighted. By denying the copyright on this comic, it's not just denying copyright protection to the art, it's actively stripping away copyright protection from the writing. That should not be. It also opens a slippery slope when it comes to comic in general. There's a long, long tradition of swiping, and drawing from reference material, including lots of tracing. There are major artists whose works are mostly comprised of drawing over photographs. And that seems to be accepted both by the readers and by copyright. But what if an artist is using AI art as their reference? If I trace over AI art to create a comic image, does my new work also lose copyright protection because I used AI art in the production of the comic, even if the AI art itself doesn't actually appear anywhere? The concept of derivative works gaining copyright protection is key to the use of public domain art of any kind. If derivative works - which I would argue this comic is by the addition of the text and story elements - no longer qualify for copyright protection then it's crippling to creators everywhere. My view is that all the artwork in the comic should be public domain, so that anybody could use any of the base panel images freely. But the comic as a whole should be copyrighted, as the writing should be protected. People shouldn't be allowed to use the text from the comic, or use that text in conjunction with the images. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2022 14:09:46 GMT -5
I disagree. It's saying you can't collect a bunch of images done by someone else, arrange them the way you want, and then claim it is your work. I am pretty firmly in the anti-AI camp. If AI can be used to generate art for comics, why can't it be used to generate plots too. Or dialogue. Just get a predictive algorithm to generate plots and dialogue, collect the art, arrange it and take the human element out of making comics altogether. Then nobody has to be paid to make comics except the programmer of the algorithm. Much more cost effective and less labor intensive that way. We can eliminate a bunch of jobs in the arts that way and move them in to the tech sector ad have to pay much fewer people to make our entertainment that way. -M While I agree that I would rather read human stories -- in fact, I'd argue that if it's not created by a human it's not actually a story at all -- I think this copyright ruling causes a lot more problems than it solves. The comic in question isn't just a bunch of AI art placed in a specific sequence. It also contains a written text story element created by a person. At the least, that should be copyrighted. By denying the copyright on this comic, it's not just denying copyright protection to the art, it's actively stripping away copyright protection from the writing. That should not be. It also opens a slippery slope when it comes to comic in general. There's a long, long tradition of swiping, and drawing from reference material, including lots of tracing. There are major artists whose works are mostly comprised of drawing over photographs. And that seems to be accepted both by the readers and by copyright. But what if an artist is using AI art as their reference? If I trace over AI art to create a comic image, does my new work also lose copyright protection because I used AI art in the production of the comic, even if the AI art itself doesn't actually appear anywhere? The concept of derivative works gaining copyright protection is key to the use of public domain art of any kind. If derivative works - which I would argue this comic is by the addition of the text and story elements - no longer qualify for copyright protection then it's crippling to creators everywhere. My view is that all the artwork in the comic should be public domain, so that anybody could use any of the base panel images freely. But the comic as a whole should be copyrighted, as the writing should be protected. People shouldn't be allowed to use the text from the comic, or use that text in conjunction with the images. Then submit the script itself without the art for copyright. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2022 14:24:59 GMT -5
Panel One and Panel Two were collections of comic strips used as a reference for prospective writers. Each individual script was copyrighted to the writer of the comic, not the author of the book. Bendis did a Powers script book where each script was copyrighted to him in addition to the book as a whole. If you are writing comics you can protect the "text" of the comic by copyrighting the script, so the "it doesn't protect the script if the comic isn't copyrightable because of AI art is a non-issue. You can get the copyright protection for your script, just not as part of a product with AI art. It's an extra step, but it is doable.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Dec 22, 2022 14:31:11 GMT -5
I don't, at this point, have a dog in this fight. I will point out that there is significant precedent that art generated by non-humans can't be copyrighted in Naruto v. Slater, No. 16-15469 (9th Cir. 2018). Different facts, obviously, and I think that case could have been decided on a different basis, but that's where we are.
|
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,958
|
Post by Crimebuster on Dec 24, 2022 2:38:26 GMT -5
Panel One and Panel Two were collections of comic strips used as a reference for prospective writers. Each individual script was copyrighted to the writer of the comic, not the author of the book. Bendis did a Powers script book where each script was copyrighted to him in addition to the book as a whole. If you are writing comics you can protect the "text" of the comic by copyrighting the script, so the "it doesn't protect the script if the comic isn't copyrightable because of AI art is a non-issue. You can get the copyright protection for your script, just not as part of a product with AI art. It's an extra step, but it is doable. -M You make a good point. I am still uncomfortable with this ruling because of potential unintended consequences regarding the use of public domain art. I'm obviously not a legal expert, but derivative works have always been copyrightable. Creating an entirely different standard for AI art opens up a lot of gray areas, and unnecessarily I think. I think eventually AI art is going to be just another tool to help human artists achieve their vision, in the same way digital art tools have developed, rather than a replacement for human artists. The worst part about AI art for me is the absolute virulence I'm seeing online about it. I love the indie, self-published comics community, and I think those of us in it need to support each other as much as possible. But I'm seeing people really go after each other hammer and tongs because of a difference of opinion over AI art. It's really discouraging.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2022 8:50:16 GMT -5
Panel One and Panel Two were collections of comic strips used as a reference for prospective writers. Each individual script was copyrighted to the writer of the comic, not the author of the book. Bendis did a Powers script book where each script was copyrighted to him in addition to the book as a whole. If you are writing comics you can protect the "text" of the comic by copyrighting the script, so the "it doesn't protect the script if the comic isn't copyrightable because of AI art is a non-issue. You can get the copyright protection for your script, just not as part of a product with AI art. It's an extra step, but it is doable. -M You make a good point. I am still uncomfortable with this ruling because of potential unintended consequences regarding the use of public domain art. I'm obviously not a legal expert, but derivative works have always been copyrightable. Creating an entirely different standard for AI art opens up a lot of gray areas, and unnecessarily I think. I think eventually AI art is going to be just another tool to help human artists achieve their vision, in the same way digital art tools have developed, rather than a replacement for human artists. The worst part about AI art for me is the absolute virulence I'm seeing online about it. I love the indie, self-published comics community, and I think those of us in it need to support each other as much as possible. But I'm seeing people really go after each other hammer and tongs because of a difference of opinion over AI art. It's really discouraging. Some people create art as their livlihood. AI art threatens the ability of many to make their livelihood. Many CCG companies and ttrpg companies are considering using AI art to produce heir products taking job opportunities away from hundreds of artists and putting them in the hands of 1 or 2 programmers already employed by the company. Anything that threatens one persons livelihood, or a whole communities' livelihood is going to generate vitriol. It could take the ability to make a living creating art away from a large number of people. Yes it could make it easier for some people who lack the time or talent to actually create the drawing of pages to make comics, but at what cost to all the people who do have the time and talent to do so and are already doing so? As for it being derivative art-I think there is a vast difference between creating derivative art and collecting images done by others to sell commercially passing it off as your own work. That's usually classified as plagiarism or fraud, which is also what is sparking a lot of the vitriol you are seeing. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2022 8:56:45 GMT -5
And I through out one more thing-If the ability to create art/comics is a valuable commodity, and suddenly the market is flooded with that commodity because anyone, despite talent to training can do it, what happens to the value of that commodity? does it disappear altogether. If anyone can do it, why should I bother with someone who is doing it?
Look at happened to the value of experts, researchers, libraries, encyclopedias, storehouses of knowledge, etc. once the internet search engine became a tool available to everyone-yes it made it much easier to do research for everyone, but it destroyed the value of and the ability to make a living of people who were skilled and trained in doing so previously, and now most research is seen as having little to no value or to be of interest because literally, anyone can do it so why bother paying attention when someone does it?
Everyone can make comics, so what does it matter if you make comics and why should I show any interest or support in what you are doing when I or literally anyone else can do it just as easily? What's special about your comic? Nit the time, effort or talent that went into it because that's the same for everyone. And we all know that quality is never a guarantee of interest or popularity. Ho hum, just someone else making a comic, who cares? Why back a Kickstarter for someone who is doing what I could do myself?
These are the kinds of things creating that vitriol you are seeing.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2022 9:04:46 GMT -5
Let me be clear-I use found art and images I have gathered from the internet all the time in my D&D campaigns and in documents for my players. It's helpful and lets me create stuff for them that I could not do otherwise. But I never pass it off as my own work, and I never try to see that as a commodity as my work.
I think AI art would be fine if it were used in that capacity. But it crosses a line when you are passing it off as your own creation and selling it as the fruit of your labor, not the labor of those who actually created the art and who are getting nothing form it in your commodity.
As a too, AI art is neither good nor bad, its how it will be used. There will be people who exploit it for their benefit, financial or otherwise, at the expense of others. That is where the vitriol comes from-in how it will be used. The question is not just who it benefits, but who it hurts when used in such a manner. History is filled with unintended consequences, especially when someone seeking their own benefit overlooks the consequences to others well-being.
-M
|
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,958
|
Post by Crimebuster on Dec 24, 2022 13:56:28 GMT -5
You make a good point. I am still uncomfortable with this ruling because of potential unintended consequences regarding the use of public domain art. I'm obviously not a legal expert, but derivative works have always been copyrightable. Creating an entirely different standard for AI art opens up a lot of gray areas, and unnecessarily I think. I think eventually AI art is going to be just another tool to help human artists achieve their vision, in the same way digital art tools have developed, rather than a replacement for human artists. The worst part about AI art for me is the absolute virulence I'm seeing online about it. I love the indie, self-published comics community, and I think those of us in it need to support each other as much as possible. But I'm seeing people really go after each other hammer and tongs because of a difference of opinion over AI art. It's really discouraging. As for it being derivative art-I think there is a vast difference between creating derivative art and collecting images done by others to sell commercially passing it off as your own work. That's usually classified as plagiarism or fraud, which is also what is sparking a lot of the vitriol you are seeing. To be clear, I wasn't talking about the AI art itself as derivative work. I don't believe that AI art should have copyright protection. I was specifically referring to work created by humans using AI artwork as a component, in this case, a comic book. I don't think we're necessarily arguing against each other here. I also think the way AI is currently working is harmful to human artists in that it ignores their legal rights by copying their art without permission. I agree that legal protections need to be put into place. However, I'm very concerned how this specific ruling may unintentionally affect human art and human creators in a counter-productive way. If I take art in the public domain and use that art to create a comic book, my new creation is considered a derivative work and has copyright protection even though the art I used to create it is still in the public domain. Except, apparently, if that public domain art happens to be made by AI. To my eye, this specific ruling isn't protecting a human creator's rights by denying copyright to AI, which is what I think the intent is, rather it's infringing on a human creator's rights by removing the copyright protection they otherwise should and would have. This creates a lot of gray areas for me because it's unclear -- to me, anyway -- just how much usage of AI art will invalidate your copyright. For instance, let's say someone uses a piece of AI art as a reference and draws an all new picture from that reference. Is that considered a new human work protected by copyright? Or has the use of AI in the process rendered the whole thing legally AI? If not, how much do you need to alter an AI image for it to be considered human work? 50%? 75%? I'm also personally unclear on what the legal definition of AI art even is. When I am drawing my comics in Clip Studio Paint, there are a number of automated tools (most of which I don't even understand the purpose of, much less how to use them). If I draw something myself and then tell the program to automatically colorize, sharpen, and distort the drawing according to whatever its programmed algorithms are, is the resulting image now considered AI? I don't think so, but I'm not sure why. There's also the problem of even determining if something is made by AI in the first place. The comic in this copyright ruling was originally granted copyright protection because the copyright office didn't realize the art was created by AI, and then had the copyright rescinded after they realized it was. Setting aside the fact that this is bizarre given that Midjourney is listed on the front cover as the artist, it raises questions about how the copyright office is going to apply this new standard. I've been seeing artists on Instagram complain because potential clients don't believe they are creating the art themselves as it apparently looks "too AI" (because, of course, the AI was copying that style). So what happens if the copyright office denies someone protection because they mistakenly believe the art to be AI generated when it was actually done by a human? How can they even tell what's AI and what's not if it isn't declared? And if you have to declare it on the honor system, then it's not really protecting anything. The whole thing just seems like a giant can of worms that could potentially have been left closed if it was ruled that AI art is public domain, but derivative works created by humans using that public domain art are protected, as they are with everything else. Though, it probably wouldn't have mattered. AI activists are going to continue to challenge the legal system to try and gain broad copyright protection for AI works, and those efforts are going to be challenged, so we're just going to have years and years of legal fights over it either way.  For me personally, I was initially excited about the prospects of AI art as a tool for making comics, but as it's become increasingly clear that the methodology behind the AI art is infringing on artists rights, obviously my position has changed. I've stopped working on the experimental comic I had been playing around with and won't be putting it out, and I'll be redrawing the one variant cover I had done using AI as a component. I personally don't have an issue with the concept of AI generated art, but the execution has been morally and legally questionable in ways that weren't immediately apparent to me, and the image scraping that is taking artists' works without permission isn't a practice I can support. |
|
