How AI is not Art theft, answering the basics
Hello, everyone. I wanted to make a quick blog post addressing the current sort of politics around the AI debate, ethics, legal concerns, and so forth. Since a lot of places cover AI in detail, but are grossly unknown compared to videos and articles that LOVE to romanticize victim hood and sensationalism fear for clickbait.
Aside from my last blog writings, I decided to make this a more one-sided response than normal JUST because there are enough "AI is evil" content out there already. So I won't attempt to "win" anyone over by diving deeper into specific sob stories about why you should support AI, rather I'll simply detail the opposition and let you all decide if these are valid reasons to agree with.
1.
AI is using public accessible "copyrighted material" for its database. Therefore, does AI use "stolen" art?
AI uses a blend of training data plus whatever is being tasked to do in order to create it's OWN generation. For example, using a learning algorithm AI works by attempting to construct a new image from a seed noise by both knowing what a house looks like, what the author prompted a house to look like, and together creating a new house based on this new input. So, unlike most rumors that AI simply copy pastes "stolen" art, AI depends heavily on a human user to create a NEW image. The higher detail the source image, the better the final output will be. Although, it always takes a human to tell the AI what to create, how to co-create it, and how to design something a human has a concept for. In a way, you could say that people have a memory of what a house looks like, AI has training data about what a house looks like, and both create an image when the final generation is rendered.
So, concerning my fellow artists.
Is my art now stolen? No. Just because someone uploads a drawing on the internet does not mean the internet automatically owns your drawing. Rather you decided to share your drawing online. The internet is a public space. It would be the same if you were to step out of your house and show your drawing in public allowing others to see, take pictures, etc.
Furthermore, AI uses a database for its learning algorithms. Your drawing might be included in that algorithm in order to maybe teach the AI code to recognize things like color, shapes, forms, ideas, etc.
Not like its money, when you take a dollar from everyone, everyone loses a dollar. Where did people steal your precious art? Did you lose the ability to make copies? Did you lose your original? Did you lose your IP?? Same with music. Nobody lost their song, they just sucked at protecting their own distributions. but then just because I own a copy of justin bieber's track does not mean I can now legally sell the song. This is the basics of what private and public mean: Do you make a movie and sell dvds like a normal creator? or do you live in fear of the world and just stream a movie behind a paywall plan and privatize ownership? Furthermore, what does it mean to enter the public space?
"AI IS TAKING YOUR ART WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT!"
-Um, nobody online right now is "innocent." Most of us already gave out our permission the instant we decide to post our art, photos, and data online. Consent? Ignorance is not an excuse.
Example 1: You walking into a giant retail store with cameras recording your face. Did anyone ask for your permission to record your face? Did anyone need your permission in the first place when you decide to join the public/private spaces?
Example 2: A teen with a phone is taking photos with their friends on a busy beach boardwalk. You appear in the background as you are walking home. Years later you find your face on the cover of a New York times best selling book when the teen was posing with their friends. You feel enraged. Angered. You were never consented to be shown. etc etc
Do you guys start seeing how dumb it is now to be over dramatic about not being asked for "your permission" when it comes to what is in the public space? News, teachers, have all been living the cozy lifestyle for a long time under their own safety belt of "its okay as long as its editorial" even if an image can be used for clickbait, political slander, celebrity gossip, and so forth.
Conclusion: the reason something entering the public space is not considered a violation is because no one is the center of the world, everything eventually falls into the public space in one form or another whether that's you telling your friends about your book idea, you sharing your photo on a school yearbook, you running a red light, you entering a store, you being interviewed for what you said at anytime, you deciding to upload your art or photo selfies on social media. Everything can and will eventually enter the world view despite how much we "object" and demand permission in our entitled little high horse. In fact, the harder someone demands not be turned into a meme, the more people will turn their face into more memes. Welcome to the reality of free will.
Therefore, when it comes to AI databases, their sole job is to be trained on human artwork, photos, ideas, colors, human concepts, all in order to accurately accomplish their task of learning that a dog has 4 legs and not 4 fins, or the difference between comic art and rococo art, or oil paint vs digital paint.
2. Copyright Ips vs Derivatives (spin offs)
Ai attempts to REPRODUCE work that is "copyright material," therefore aren't AI generations considered PLAGIARISM?
AIs do not revert a generation to a single trained image, that's not what AI models are purposed for otherwise AI models would just be printers. You put 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 photos of an apple, how likely is it going to be Apple number 55? Its more likely going to be Apple 10, 330025, 50878, 785544, 825257, etc all into a new form of an apple.
"random internet comment: I have no clue how people can't see how AI is a fakery and how it's a copyright infringement machine.
my response: its not fakery, its AI generations. artwork made by AI. Its not copyright infringement to use learning databases. Its copyright infringement to replicate originals,"
First we have to understand the difference between someone using AI to attempt to replicate a copyright IP of apple #55 and a new and ORIGINAL never before seen apple nobody has ever made or owns the IPs to. Which, plot twist would be the same art rules as any other medium. Plagiarism (attempting to reprint just #55 by using AI as a printer).
Nobody that uses AI is attempting to reproduce some random #55 Apple, at least no one with good intentions. That would literally just be prompting the word "apple" and hopping for a match in infinite seed, sampler, model, denoise,etc.
Plagiarism can be found even without the topic of AI. When someone deliberately attempts to make copies of Mickey Mouse and sell it off as their own. But what if someone makes Tommy Mouse? Or Michelle Mouse? New and never before seen images on their own right? How can someone claim plagiarism on Tommy Mouse? A character no one has ever made before? Where is the owner for Tommy Mouse that can arrive to court and say, "look, this is Tommy Mouse! I have the original drawing!" No one. BUT. How easy would it be if the tables were turned for the AI artist, after creating Tommy Mouse, have a random person see the character, open up a sketchbook, doodle Tommy Mouse and then sue the AI artist in court? Now that's something to consider! Shouldn't the AI artist have copyright protection if they were the first ones to create this new Tommy Mouse character? Wouldn't the proof be in the date it was created? Why then don't people that use AI tools receive the same protection as others simply because people are debating nowhere on the lingering AI legalities?
Plagiarism is taking an existing work and attempting to pass it as your own. For a work to be considered yours, it requires a both a 1 to 1 similarity or a certain degree of IP traits to claim. The closer two works of art resemble each other, the easier it is to be guilty of simple copy pasting work.
Which means Plagiarism also depends heavily on Intellectual Property Copyrights. Copyright traits will include checks such as Mickey Mouse being a black mouse, with a white face, red button shorts, gloves, etc.
This also means that a black dog, with a yellow face, blue shorts, and finger-less gloves does not violate copyright, infact, it earns it's own copyright as a derivative, a spinoff, a "rip off" and so forth.
Example 1: Using AI to actually commit plagiarism would be attempting to generate a 1 to 1 replica of The Mona Lisa, the face of an existing celebrity, or simply attempting to recreate an existing photo without the purpose of restoration. Ironically, that's exactly what an AI critic at PetaPixel did in their article denouncing AI...by using AI to recreate (plagiarize) existing material i.e. https://petapixel.com/2024/03/07/recreating-iconic-photos-with-ai-image-generators/
Ai isn't built to copy paste images, its built to create new images through learning shapes, colors, knowing what a person looks like, being trained to understand perspective.
Do articles receive permission
to use an image for their clickbait in the noble grounds of "editorial"? No. They simply paste first, add credit later, and maybe contact the original owner. So why isn't journalism a violation? Because the noble ideology of journalism is rooted in the public space, open source, and the unstoppable freewill of the world to speak and write about topics.
Does google ever ask permission to share our photos online? No.
This old "permission" issue has been debunked by none other than Google in past court to prove you CAN use someone else's work for different purposes, including education, journalism, even training data. Why? Because the reasons are either non commercial, derivative, fan fiction, new creations, etc.
Which ARE what AI databases do, create new and never before seen images according to the person telling the AI what to do. You can't say "this AI image is infringing on Mickey Mouse" if the AI image is a yellow dog with blue pants. AI images do not get any special treatment just because they are new tools. If someone creates an image of Mickey Mouse with AI, that's IP plagerisim. But if someone creates a dog with blue pants, that's a new design. The "infringed" data is not the issue here, the "user" is one that's responsible for what they create with AI in the same sense as ANY other tool.
People that draw
fan art KNOW better than anyone else that a simple derivative work is
not infringing on someone else's drawing unless they're using the exact
IP traits or claiming the IP trait as their own original design. Yet, unless a fan art is 1 to 1, its no longer a fan art, its
a copy.
Which brings up the further question, what is an IP and what is a derivative and how different can it be until the derivative fan art is an original and not just a 1 to 1, smack the two over each other and see the pixel lines match?
Answer: its the same with AI as in any other tool, we ourselves have to be responsible for our copyright infringement tight ropes.
Conclusion. Copyright, in all logic is a human problem of what is considered "legal." Not all Copyright courts are the same, nor are all cultures behind what is considered a copyright offense such as the difference between Japanese Doujinshi fanart vs quick-to-sue Western fanart.
3. bots vs people
AI is work produced by computers. Art can not be produced by Computers, only humans!
Ah yes, the common lame man's stereotype of "computers have no soul!!!" Did people forget its People AND computers, not just Computers AND Computers?
Firstly, humans use computers. Okay. Let's just accept this fact. All technology is human made with human purpose and human ideas and work. That includes computers. Computers are dumb little machines that can't do anything on their own without a human to give them purpose. Why? Because computers are an object. They are stationary. Dust. They are a tool.
I have HAD IT with the average person using the Hollywood stereotype of fear movies like The Terminator or Irobot to justify their fantasies of fear mongering and whimpering about technology and buzz words of anything being called "Artificial Intelligence."
News Flash. Just because you can make a windmill move by placing its levers turn on water currents does not mean the windmill powering a production line of conveyor belts itself is now moving with its own "artificial intelligence" when a person walks in and sees a mechanical hand move up and down on its own.
Intelligence requires a living organism. Autonomy. Free will. Artificial Intelligence is a buzzword. A trope to indicate a similarity of self governance. A duck-tape. A computer being tasked to perform calculations. A TV being coded to switch between channels. A door to be digitally alerted to open automatically when a person enters. A tool made by humans, for human purpose. Like the video at the end mentions.
Example 1: A human artist deciding to use a computer to digitally enhance their painting. This is a form of humans using computers (a tool) to refine their art. The soul is in the person at the computer, not the digital enhancements, but the enhancements decided by the person. i.e. turning a backdrop pink, turning a character black and white, increasing contrast to shadows. These manipulations are computer done, but with human purposed.
Example 2: A human using a computer program like MS paint or Photoshop to add in a photo of a dog, digital brush strokes, remove details, add in a photo of a cloud, place together a collage of roses in the corner, and changing the canvas to a 4 layer palette filter.
Where is the "soul" in this example if all things were done solely on a computer program? Did the computer design everything on its own free will? No. A computer was used BY A HUMAN to create a digital art work. Humans using computer tools. Not Computers using Computer tools.
Example 3: A human using an AI to prompt an image of a dog, with digital brush stroke flairs, a picture of a cloud, and a variety of roses in the corner in the style of a vaporwave color palette.
Where is the "soul" in this example if all things were created by a program, but designed by a human? Did the human not decide what to prompt? Did the human not exist? Did the computer awake on its own, boot up its program, and decide to make a vaporwave concept it has no purpose or value to make? No. This was another work made by a human with a human concept and human design and a human purpose. The computer is the tool. The taxi driver being told where to go. The machine being limited. The computer being tasked for a human to create human art.
Even an "autonomous" tool can do nothing without being tasked by an intellectual first because without a living person a factory of machines will just relay work into their production until the ovens overheat, the battering machine overfills, the sewers clog, the warehouse floods with dough, and the "autonomous" machines continue to whip the invisible cooking batter in the air until they drain their own battery...or explode.
Conclusion: Even a computer bot, an "artificial" tool can do nothing and does nothing if not tasked by a person first. This includes AI image generators. When it comes to digital bots, one simply needs to look at previous examples in videogames like MMOs that can be easily identified by their mindless and suspicious performance. The answer? The most obvious. To verify for an owner, a human.
The same can be asked of AI images in the concerns whether an image was made by a "bot" or a person using AI. If no person can be identified, then the image belongs to a bot. If a person CAN be identified, then they would have verified proof of their generation data. Although, this also does not guarantee in all circumstances when a human is using a bot to simply print a 1,000 copies of the same image, prompt, or an idea. Even with Ai Artists, more experienced users might have a higher chance of identifying people using lazy prompt copy pasting or seeing the merit inbetween the person's AI work if the person simply relied on bots, or AIs to create the prompt for them. But that's another topic in itself of "is a person using a bot" and no longer an issue between "what is a bot and what is a person."
4.
An artist is someone with hand-crafted talent, years of practice, not someone using a computer!
False. An artist is anyone that does anything, using anything, on any level of experience. They say art is subjective, but its always clear to see the line between a novice and a professional. But, we're not here to bully either side. We're here to establish that there is a difference between someone that is a novice and someone that is a professional. Sure, both have different details in their work, but whether one is more valuable than the other is simply an idea of SOCIETY since value is a social idea as much as it is a personal idea.
In lame terms, years of practice is never a requirement, it is an evidence of refinement through time, i.e. experience. Furthermore, what is "good" art and "bad" art is both subjective and a matter of "is the cake that was baked in 2 minutes" better than the "cake that was baked in 2 hours."
When it comes to computers, there's NOTHING holding anyone back from likewise being a professional and skilled in what they do.
Example 1: If for example a person decided to paint a certain brush stroke on a blank wall, eventually they will become a professional at this certain niche skill by the time they are eventually 30 years in the future with the experience of doing this one brush stroke on a blank wall compared to someone that has never once painted on a wall. That's experience difference.
Example 2: If for example a person opened a computer program and composed a song entirely made on digital audio, eventually in 30 years that person would become a professional in their own right, even to "actual" musicians. A traditional pianist with 30 years of experience will sound differently, with their own merits, but will be absolutely amateurish if they attempted to use a digital program for the first time. In contrast, compared to the other person that already has 30 years of experience working with digital tools and vice versa. That's experience difference.
Conclusion: An artist can work and begin their craft on ANY medium and tool they prefer. It DOES NOT require a computer, BUT a computer also counts as a medium! Some examples of this are people that are master designers in pixel art, digital animation, 3d models, digital composers, beat engineers, and yes even the contemporary use of programs like photoshop and now the emerging rise of AI designs made by people.
5. the tool vs the artist
So where do we draw the line for the tools people use, and the artist themselves?
A tool as mentioned above is a simple medium. Everyone can uses a tool in one way or another, EVEN TRADITIONAL PAINTERS. In fact, the tools are simply obvious and even forgettable once learned. I.e. To watch a painter like Bob Ross use various brushes and objects to create art might seem amazing to people that have never painted, but to Bob Ross and other painters its simply "just another day." This is the basics of how people adopt their tools in order to produce their work, be it on a blank canvas, on an acrylic surface, on sand, on welding, in culinary arts, even on computers and digital programs. Art can be created without tools, and with tools. If you took away the tools, the artist is simply left with their fingers and toes to paint, their hands to sculpt stone, their fingers to manually type in digital coordinates for x, y, z, hex colors and manually inserting mathematical formulas to tell a computer to flip an image to the left or right.
Tools are our human right. Our step forward. What our parents left for us to learn. What someone at some point sacrificed to figure out. How to produce the color teal. How to make silk. How to write words. How to express emotions. Even in computers, it never started with a simple "opening photoshop," to started with the fundamentals of hex and pixel art coders to be able to use the tools we continue to use today, faster, and more accurate.
A great argument on this topic came from my favorite deviant AI advocate, in this blog post explaining how we should all just go back to "using berries on walls." here.
Conclusion: People have always used tools, people develop tools for a reason, and tools will always be used even for applications such as art. The line does not exist. Our restrictions are all subjective.
7.
What is considered, art?
Art is creativity.
It is an expression.
Something that can be made with any medium including paint, music, dance, computers, construction, baking, sand, etc.
People use ANY tool to express this creativity.
People can express themselves even with computers.
Art is a concept. A human value. A human idea in observing and thinking in reality.
Can a dog understand what is "art"? I don't know. I've never heard a dog talk. Neither have I been around an ape that can sign language me if they can notice what is a picture of a tree and what is a painting of a tree and which are considered "art."
Why? Because art is a concept. Just like how animals recognize what is music, people can recognize what is art. And I'm pretty sure even animals can too. How? Because we're both ALIVE. We have free will. We are autonomous. We can recognize noise waves and musical waves and give both purpose. A broomstick can't do that. A car can't do that. A chair can't do that. Not even a computer can do that without a LIVING BEING to tell them what is "noise" and what is "music."
Conclusion: Like my previous section at the start, LIVING BEINGS create Art. The "soul" in a painting was done by a person. The "soul" in a song is done by a person. The "soul" in a pixel image of Mario is done by a person. The "soul" in an AI image is done by a person. People use tools. People use computers. People are the living beings that embed their "soul" into what they create, even on computer tools.
With all these topics covered. How could someone safeguard their work from being used for AI?
answer: it's the same as any other topic. You yourself have to be responsible on what YOU decide to make public and HOW you control your own media. There are guidelines for all things including digital such as cropping, distribution, server hostings,disclaimers, watermarks, and lastly court if you encounter someone selling your work, or selling work with similar IP traits as your own.
JUST REMEMBER. IP traits are a copyright topic. Not all things can be copyrighted including "styles," brushstrokes, color palates, sound resembles, and so forth.
main points covered in this blog post(by chatgpt):
AI and Copyrighted Material: The blog argues that AI uses public-accessible copyrighted material for its databases, raising questions about whether AI-generated art constitutes "stolen" art. It emphasizes that sharing art online does not automatically transfer ownership to the internet, likening it to showing art in a public space.
Copyright vs. Derivatives: The distinction between copyright infringement and creating derivative works is discussed. AI is seen as generating new and original content rather than reproducing existing copyrighted material directly.
Bots vs. People: The blog addresses the misconception that AI creates art independently, emphasizing that humans are the ones using AI tools to create art. It argues that AI is merely a tool, and the creativity lies with the human user.
Defining an Artist: The blog challenges the notion that only traditional, handcrafted art produced by humans qualifies as art. It asserts that anyone using any medium, including computers and AI, can be considered an artist.
The Role of Tools: It argues that tools, including computers and AI, are essential for artistic expression and that there is no need for rievery between the artist and the tools they use.
What is Art: The blog defines art as creativity and expression, emphasizing that it can be made with any medium and that the essence of art lies in the human ability to create and appreciate it.
Safeguarding Art from AI Use: The blog advises artists to take responsibility for controlling their own media through methods such as cropping, distribution, disclaimers, and watermarks. It stresses the importance of understanding copyright laws and protecting intellectual property.
Below is a great video that discusses more on copyright, art, and AI.
OF COURSE, NEGATIVE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DISMISS EVERYTHING IN THIS BLOG AND CONTINUE TO CIRCLE AROUND WHAT I ALREADY EXPLAINED --CONSTANTLY DEFLECTING AND MOVING THE "GOAL POST" TOO STUBBORN TO ADMIT AN ARTIST CAN USE A COMPUTER IN THE 21ST CENTURY.
EXTRA
Bonus:
"If I put food in a Microwave, does that make me a Chef?"
ha-ha-ha!
"What if you placed 7 types of foods into 1 magical microwave that can heat everything up
then you take them out and combine into 1 plate? You might not be a Chef,
but you might be a culinary artist!"
Jokes aside, technically a Chef doesn't create anything on their own either because they use farm-delivered ingredients to make their meals and machines(tools) to cook for them. A Chef is a job profession and a Cook is person that can labor in a kitchen.
Nevertheless this common joke fails to mention that a microwave meal is not the same quality as a cooked meal although they are both meals. Same with AI. Images made by AI should be seen as "AI Art" and should not be compared to Images created by Graffiti Art, Oil-painted Art, Acrylic Art, and so forth despite ALL being a means to create Art.
Oh wait, sorry. I wasn't meant to correct the joke. I was just meant to laugh as this joke simply mocks AI artists.
