The AI thread

[Michael R]

Okay. I have taken a deep breath (as suggested) and given it a great deal of thought.
AI = Anti-Intelligence.

Careful not to insult the AI or it’s going to get you!

[axs810]

What do you all think of Adobe's "colorize" neural filters?


I'm on the fence about it...but being able to shoot black and white and use the neural filters to colorize it has been pretty interesting.

https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/colorize.html



edit/ People used to have to be skilled to colorize photos. Now anyone can do it at the click of a button lol.

[jnantz]

It's not? If anyone can decide what "art" means, why can't anyone decide what "photography" means? You know, all that "it's their own truth" "stuff."

are definitions of things "static" ?

[Alan Klein]

Below are the rules for entrants for NJ photo exhibitions. AI and other issues discussed here have been addressed in their rules.

Image and Entry Requirements:

Image Creation - Entries must originate as real photographs (image-captures of objects via light sensitivity) made by the entrant, acquired and printed from emulsion-based material or digital capture. Alternative process, mixed media, composites, and collage work are welcome from original elements created by the entrant. Works created using AI software (Artificial Intelligence, such as MidJourney or similar software), or primarily composed of AI-generated components, cannot be included as a part or as a total image in submissions and will not be accepted.

Alterations - By virtue of submitting an image, the entrant certifies the photograph as their own and not AI generated. Images may be altered, either electronically with software or apps, or by hand with art materials by the entrant. Images may not incorporate elements produced by anyone else (for example: clip art, or art by others downloaded from the Internet). The entrant may use traditional image processing tools (such as Photoshop, Lightroom, Snapseed, Topaz, NIK, etc.) to employ filters, overlays, adjustments, textures, cloning, or other manipulations to enhance or modify their original image, even if the tools use underlying AI technology.

Complete rules. https://www.njphotoforum.com/Upcoming_Exhibits

[Pieter]

Now the issue is individuals and companies want to be able to copyright their AI creations. Unless they were created with imagery that they already own the rights to or pay the original copyright holder or stock agency, this is going to be a mess. There seem to be judgements on both sides of the issue, such as the recent Andy Warhol case, Shepard Fairey's Obama poster, Jeff Koons and of course all the appropriation by Richard Prince.

[Sal Santamaura]

It's not? If anyone can decide what "art" means, why can't anyone decide what "photography" means? You know, all that "it's their own truth" "stuff."

are definitions of things "static" ?

Nope. Definitions change over time, tracking how the things they define morph. However, whereas there can be a reasonable discussion about whether or how much "AI" functionality ought be acceptable before accepted dictionary definitions of "photography" no longer apply, "art" is a meaningless word that conveys nothing, since it "means" anything anyone wants it to "mean." You knew I was being sarcastic, John.

[faberryman]

Nope. Definitions change over time, tracking how the things they define morph. However, whereas there can be a reasonable discussion about whether or how much "AI" functionality ought be acceptable before accepted dictionary definitions of "photography" no longer apply, "art" is a meaningless word that conveys nothing, since it "means" anything anyone wants it to "mean." You knew I was being sarcastic, John.

All words can mean anything anyone wants them to "mean". If I show you a cantaloupe, you can say it is a car jack. It doesn't make cantaloupe a meaningless word.

[bdkphoto]

Now the issue is individuals and companies want to be able to copyright their AI creations. Unless they were created with imagery that they already own the rights to or pay the original copyright holder or stock agency, this is going to be a mess. There seem to be judgements on both sides of the issue, such as the recent Andy Warhol case, Shepard Fairey's Obama poster, Jeff Koons and of course all the appropriation by Richard Prince.

Purely generated AI images cannot be copyrighted, however if there's a combination of AI along with human created imagery ie - a portrait of someone with an AI generated background then a copyright may be applicable. The examples you presented have nothing to do with AI issues - those cases hinged on appropriation artists and if the resulting work was transformative or derivative. The Warhol foundation, Shepard Fairey, Koons, all lost their cases and Prince was a mixed bag depending on which suits you are referring to.

What will be interesting is to see whether the companies that trained their AI algorithms by using collections like Getty's without permission or licensing were infringing.

Without copyright the value of an AI image is minimal in the market - I can't imagine a major company basing their branding or an ad campaign on imagery that they don't have exclusive rights to control.

[paulbarden]

What frightens me is the younger generations can't tell the difference between AI imagery and actual photographs. They have been looking at so many video game characters and heavily retouched photos that they don't know what reality looks like. An example: The official Ilford Instagram account recently reposted a portrait of a young lady that was very obviously AI generated. It only leads me to believe whoever is running that account doesn't have a clue.

You may be interested to know that this morning Ilford deleted that post from their IG feed. No comment from Ilford regarding the matter, but at least they recognized the mistake and removed it.

[Pieter]

...a portrait of someone with an AI generated background then a copyright may be applicable.

So the Pope wearing Balenciaga could be copyrighted?