The AI thread

[Alan Klein]

Kind of reminds me of the cases of animals taking "selfies" by tripping a camera. Many wildlife photogrophers and cinematographers have used that technique now for ages. I believe an ape was granted the rights to his photo under similar circumstances.

Back to your example, though. A group of photographers gathers at a well-known location to take scenic photographs. A sunset (ugh!) for example. They all are using similar cameras, similar focal lengths, similar film if applicable. The photos turn out pretty much identical. Who can tell who shot which one? They all technically own the copyright but the images are indistinguishable, so maybe none of them really owns exclusive right to the image. It happened to me as an art director when I purchased an image and was accused by Getty of using one of their images without permission. But the image was not theirs, just shot by the same photographer at the same location but on a different day. Hah!

If sued, you'd have to prove the print belonged to you so having the original digital file or negative would prove that. Each of the pictures could be independently copyrighted. They don't exactly look the same since the capture angles as well as the exposure settings will be different.

[Alan Klein]

the gorilla in Congo owned the copyright to it's selfie, exactly !

Only if the gorilla was working for a corporation.

[jnantz]

Obtuse as usual, very obtuse... SO your saying that an "automatic camera", i assume you mean a camera with Auto Exposure means a person did NOTHING...
Interesting that means that some of the "greatest" photographers since 1980 were using AE cameras, that by your standard have never made an photographic image..

Very few photographers have done their own developing and printing. Whole companies flourished in the day to do the developing and printing for photographers. DO you think that someone that did a wedding shoot, and used say 20 rolls of 220 film, actually developed each roll on their own and then made prints of each frame on their own... shit dude your dreaming

no not obtuse just making a point because so many people are typically shortsighted about many things having to do with photography. no I do not think the person behind the camera does much, and with a automated camera and having someone else making all the development and photographic print making decisions, even less, that said they do at least as much as the person typing in key words making AI images. it's not like most people are Bresson, and yes I know he did not do his own developing but but he was involved with the development and printing of his work and is seen to be a great street photographer. sorry bruh not dreaming just a realist. does the wedding photographer do much more than give the happy couple 20,000 machine prints? these days probably not.

its already become a smattering of small groups, each devoted to one little segment of the aspect of photography, wether it be by format or film or digital.

Each group so desperate to retain control that they despise all other view points other then the ones expressed by the site owner, and forum staff. Its sad but its what it is.

if you are referring to me? I don't despise anyone's views, or what they do as photography. i have a broad definition of photography and what a photographer is ... it just requires light, it doesn't need to be permanent or made with chemistry and it can be made of someone else's photographs ( like AI or a photomontage / collage ) and if someone wants to print walker Evan's work and sign it as their own or sell someone else's selfies they got off of instagram as their own or that's between them, the gallery, the curator, their agent and whoever decides to buy it.

[SergeyT]

I care because AI can create false narratives that can be difficult to detect, leading to misinformation about current or even past events. Especially in this day and age of widespread misinformation and an increasingly polarized and gullible public willing to accept information that fits their (bubble) views.

How do you go about different individuals or groups perceiving\interpreting the same information in different manners(based on their education , background, beliefs, IQ , etc) ? Aren't each of us perceive the world around us from inside of our own "bubble" that is formed by the origins, education , background, beliefs, IQ , experience, mood, circumstances, etc
Each photograph (or an image for that matter) is not a truth but a result of a manipulation\transformation of reality. Since when a photograph became an equivalent of "truth". What is truth anyway?
How about fiction books , paintings, poetry and other forms of expression? Do you consider that a threat to truthfulness ? If not, why?

[BrianShaw]

the primate in Indonesia ( sorry I got confused! ) the copyright to it's selfie, exactly ! regarding people at the sunset, they have no commercial value there is no point to register any of them to receive the copyright certificate, unless they were all gorillas and a gorilla took the photographs. im glad you stuck it to the man

I believe the applicable legal concept is known as "Great Ape Personhood". Similar to Corporate Personhood. LOL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhood

[Pieter]

How do you go about different individuals or groups perceiving\interpreting the same information in different manners(based on their education , background, beliefs, IQ , etc) ? Aren't each of us perceive the world around us from inside of our own "bubble" that is formed by the origins, education , background, beliefs, IQ , experience, mood, circumstances, etc
Each photograph (or an image for that matter) is not a truth but a result of a manipulation\transformation of reality. Since when a photograph became an equivalent of "truth". What is truth anyway?
How about fiction books , paintings, poetry and other forms of expression? Do you consider that a threat to truthfulness ? If not, why?

You cannot stop anyone from interpreting an image through the lens of their background/culture/etc. But at least you should not have to doubt what the image is presenting for your interpretation.

There is a big difference between presenting different angles and interpretations of a scene vs fabricating an image of an event that never occurred in reality. Until recently, photographs were accepted as true renditions of what was before a camera. Now, every image is in doubt. People will accept or reject the reality of an image based on their own biases.

Fiction is fiction. When presented as fact, it is dangerous and a threat to truthfulness.

[Alan Townsend]

AI is amazing, but it should signal an end for at least one element of photography---photographic proof/evidence/identity---whatever you want to call it.
How can an image be so skillfully created that it defies existence?
Crime scene photography admitted in court, photo identity cards/facial recognition, historic events and other breaking news, even medical imagery will soon need to be justly recognized as untrustworthy and obsolete, with nothing (as yet) to replace it.
Traditional photography can certainly be well manipulated, but not to the extent that AI imagery soon will be, if it isn't already.
Also consider that prints also have a domain of sorts, they come from somewhere and are vetted somewhere along the chain of custody. AI imagery has no such bounds that I'm aware of.
I don't know if this topic has been posted elsewhere, but thought I'd open it up for discussion and pondering.

To the moderator: How is it that this posting is not trolling? It stimulated lots of discussion and a few arguments. Is it the subjective nature? A soft kind of "trolling" that's less offensive?

To the OP: I don't see a difference between an "AI photographer" and any other human photographer. Much as corporations have been deemed individuals, so will AI's after a future "AI's united" supreme court decision sometime in the near future. Of course, the AI's will be the properties of corporations or other entities, so there will be a nested hierarchy.

For example, corporation X develops an "Ansel Adams AI" that creates photographic fine art identical to the sainted one. This AI copywrites his work, then claims ownership of all the sainted one's works since they can prove a chain of custody through their intellectual development. They win in court because AA's trust fund ran out of money in litigation. Corporation X now owns all of AA's (Ansel Adams) and AAAI's (Ansel Adams AI) work. Corporation X then sells AAAI to corporation Y. After a few years, the fine art world decides that AAAI is far superior to AA, so his work becomes far more valuable.

If corporations, which are legal entities defined by data on paper, then AI's, which are defined by software/data can also become entities since they are radically more similar to people than corporations. Citizens United was a horrible court decision that should be reversed for many reasons. One is this rather dark projection for then end of fine art photographers due to their replacements being vastly superior. This is a possible scenario for discussion or humor, as I see it.

[BrianShaw]

To the moderator: How is it that this posting is not trolling? It stimulated lots of discussion and a few arguments. Is it the subjective nature? A soft kind of "trolling" that's less offensive

Relax, Alan... it's one person's opinion, not trolling.

[Pieter]

If sued, you'd have to prove the print belonged to you so having the original digital file or negative would prove that. Each of the pictures could be independently copyrighted. They don't exactly look the same since the capture angles as well as the exposure settings will be different.

Not necessarily. And if (as in the case I cited earlier) the same photographer sells just one of their originals to a client or through a stock agency, what stops them from selling the adjacent frames or returning to the same location under the same conditions and making another shot (that might be identical) and selling it to someone else? And to the earlier point, negatives and digital files can be easily duplicated.

FYI, in the case in point, the photographer was found at fault and his images were removed from the stock agency.

[Pieter]

To the moderator: How is it that this posting is not trolling? It stimulated lots of discussion and a few arguments. Is it the subjective nature? A soft kind of "trolling" that's less offensive?

To the OP: I don't see a difference between an "AI photographer" and any other human photographer. Much as corporations have been deemed individuals, so will AI's after a future "AI's united" supreme court decision sometime in the near future. Of course, the AI's will be the properties of corporations or other entities, so there will be a nested hierarchy.

For example, corporation X develops an "Ansel Adams AI" that creates photographic fine art identical to the sainted one. This AI copywrites his work, then claims ownership of all the sainted one's works since they can prove a chain of custody through their intellectual development. They win in court because AA's trust fund ran out of money in litigation. Corporation X now owns all of AA's (Ansel Adams) and AAAI's (Ansel Adams AI) work. Corporation X then sells AAAI to corporation Y. After a few years, the fine art world decides that AAAI is far superior to AA, so his work becomes far more valuable.

If corporations, which are legal entities defined by data on paper, then AI's, which are defined by software/data can also become entities since they are radically more similar to people than corporations. Citizens United was a horrible court decision that should be reversed for many reasons. One is this rather dark projection for then end of fine art photographers due to their replacements being vastly superior. This is a possible scenario for discussion or humor, as I see it.

AI is a tool. Nikon does not own the copyright to images created with a Nikon camera. Microsoft does not own the copyright to works created using Word.