open for commissions~ ♡

[RepresentingEnvy]

If you can prove that everything used in the AI model to generate the image was owned by you, it might be legal to use. But proving so is hard. Also, if you bought it from Deviantart, .

Here's some excerpt from an article talking about the steam game that was banned temporarily for having AI generated content in the files.

I would hate to be a lawyer for this issue. I commissioned artwork before, and I had to tell the artist I was putting it on SH for a commercial use fee. The website I was using to generate claimed all images are owned by you, the creator. But how would you even try to protect copyright for an AI image? Can't someone just buy a deviant art image that is AI and resale it?

 

[Succubiome]

So, right now the AI art issue is a big legal grey area and no one knows for sure where the chips will fall once there are actual rules. A branch of the government's working on that right now, from what I understand.

There is no way to copyright AI art as far as I am aware, which means some places don't wanna deal with it... and some people also have a moral issue with most of it functioning off of mass harvesting from people's art without their consent.

That said, getting good and specific results from AI does take some amount of real skill/time/effort, from what I understand. It's just... right now people can outright steal AI art and you don't have much in the way of legal remedy, yeah.

Regardless, though, offering to sell AI art without telling people it's AI art is pretty sketchy.

 

[tiaf]

There was a AI generated webtoon that was stripped of "all right reserved". The court stated that an IP can only be own by a real living individual. AI is none of that, thus makes is public property.

If you can buy AI art, then I would think it's the same as buying stocks. You buy the right to own it, but the widespread distribution and commercial use is only partially to not allowed.

So, right now the AI art issue is a big legal grey area and no one knows for sure where the chips will fall once there are actual rules. A branch of the government's working on that right now, from what I understand.

There is no way to copyright AI art as far as I am aware, which means some places don't wanna deal with it... and some people also have a moral issue with most of it functioning off of mass harvesting from people's art without their consent.

That said, getting good and specific results from AI does take some amount of real skill/time/effort, from what I understand. It's just... right now people can outright steal AI art and you don't have much in the way of legal remedy, yeah.

Regardless, though, offering to sell AI art without telling people it's AI art is pretty sketchy.

Originally AI wasn't meant to be used as artist substitute, but a way to speed up and making the process of creating content more efficent.

But alas, that usefulness is overshadowed by scamming issues and moral debates.

Not mentioning it's AI when it's so obvious is either totally oblivious to society or right out scam lmao

 

[SailusGebel]

Not mentioning it's AI when it's so obvious is either totally oblivious to society or right out scam lmao

Based fishy.

 

[Succubiome]

Originally AI wasn't meant to be used as artist substitute, but a way to speed up and making the process of creating content more efficent.

But alas, that usefulness is overshadowed by scamming issues and moral debates.

Unfortunately, a technology's effects don't exist in a vacuum.

 

[Erios909]

There was a AI generated webtoon that was stripped of "all right reserved". The court stated that an IP can only be own by a real living individual. AI is none of that, thus makes is public property.

If you can buy AI art, then I would think it's the same as buying stocks. You buy the right to own it, but the widespread distribution and commercial use is only partially to not allowed.

Originally AI wasn't meant to be used as artist substitute, but a way to speed up and making the process of creating content more efficent.

But alas, that usefulness is overshadowed by scamming issues and moral debates.

Not mentioning it's AI when it's so obvious is either totally oblivious to society or right out scam lmao

If you're referring to Zendaya of the Dawn, that's not true.

The art of the individual frames was not copyright-able since they were unedited and just prompted and done by MidJourney, was the USCO determination. If the author had put in human effort and edited them enough to become derivative works, then they would have been copyrightable.

Either way, the webtoon composition and text was done by a human -- and that *was* 'copyrightable' and it had it recognized by the USCO after their lawyer's reply to the USCO ruling.

However, AI haters blew that up as a flagship news piece and information thing as "ALL AI IS NOT COPYRIGHTABLE HAHAHAHA DIE!", so I'm not surprised that the nuance was lost as it so often is these days with how political the subject has become.

 

[tiaf]

If you're referring to Zendaya of the Dawn, that's not true.

The art of the individual frames was not copyright-able since they were unedited and just prompted and done by MidJourney, was the USCO determination. If the author had put in human effort and edited them enough to become derivative works, then they would have been copyrightable.

Either way, the webtoon composition and text was done by a human -- and that *was* 'copyrightable' and it had it recognized by the USCO after their lawyer's reply to the USCO ruling.

However, AI haters blew that up as a flagship news piece and information thing as "ALL AI IS NOT COPYRIGHTABLE HAHAHAHA DIE!", so I'm not surprised that the nuance was lost as it so often is these days with how political the subject has become.

I just saw a short twitter mentioning it and didn't researched further. But the essence is the same. AI art itself can not be copyrighted, art needs a human behind it to claim copyright.

 

[AliceShiki]

I just saw a short twitter mentioning it and didn't researched further. But the essence is the same. AI art itself can not be copyrighted, art needs a human behind it to claim copyright.

I did some googling about to see if I could understand the case better, and apparently the story itself was using a celebrity as basis to make the main character of the story be consistent throughout panels, so that may have influenced the case.

The decision also seemed to point out that the software used (Midjourney) was not something that was enough within the control of the person making the prompts to let the AI art be considered something that was done by a human... As in, the text prompts functioned more as "suggestions" and not as "orders", so that was not copyrightable.

However, if a different software was used for AI Art in a way that could reliably lead to the results you wanted, then it could maybe be allowed to receive copyright protection.

It was essentially something similar to how copyright of photographs work, where you can make the exact thing you want by pressing the camera button... If someone can make an AI art that does the exact thing they want, then it might be able to be copyrighted by pressing the "Generate" button in the same way a photo is copyrighted by pressing the camera's button.

At least that's the gist of what I got. The author of the work was apparently also experimenting with new AI generation techniques to see if they could get their work copyrighted if they used a different method to generate their images, but... Well, the articles I read about it were around March-April 2023 and I found nothing about how things worked out for this new work attempt (assuming it was finished, I dunno if it was).

So... Right now, it seems like the ruling is, "The standard methods of generating AI Art by themselves do not generate copyrightable art, but different methods might be ruled out differently."

That's the gist that I got from googling at least... Seems like it's still a complex situation rn.