It all depends on exactly how it was created - was it just text based prompts, or is it a combination of an actual photograph and text based prompts.
It all depends on exactly how it was created - was it just text based prompts, or is it a combination of an actual photograph and text based prompts.
In such scenarios, it's inevitable that someone will be suspected of cheating when they didn't, while someone else will get away with it just for the pleasure of hoodwinking the game.
Nope. Dictionaries are the arbiters of meaning. Rationality cannot be dispensed with. Unless one is pontificating about "art."Originally Posted by faberryman
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass
Getting a copyright for an AI image is an interesting question. I'm not a lawyer. But to have a photographic copyright, you have to start with a photo. If an image is entirely generated within a computer, can you get a copyright? After all, many would argue, it's not a photograph.
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
You can copyright writing. You can copyright artwork, photographs, any image at all. No one except a bunch of photo nerds cares whether AI generated images are photos or not. The sticking point is whether something generated by a computer program without human intervention beyond word prompts is copyrightable. I guess that would apply to text, too, "written" by something like Chat GTP.
Big Dictionary leading the flock.Nope. Dictionaries are the arbiters of meaning. Rationality cannot be dispensed with. Unless one is pontificating about "art."
I think you forgot Sherrie Levine ... you know the artist is dead. ...
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.
it's hard to know if you are being sarcastic or not. LOL. maybe im an outlier but I don't think art is a meaningless word, it is a very specific word with a very specific meaning. I think the accepted dictionary definition of photography is still under construction because the method of making photographs has changed since it was invented and the dust might not settle for a while. I don't know if AI images are photography, I thought they might be because they are made from individual photographs or their essence, but I might be wrong.
Was she ever taken to court over her appropriations? I know Walker Evans' estate bought all the copies from an exhibition to prevent their sale to anyone else and Sherrie ended up donating the rest of her Walker prints to the estate.
I expect the defining issue that settles the definition of photography will be the making of an image with light. AI imagery does not involve light - period.
As for AI images being made from photographs - in essence, they are; other people's photographs, taken without permission in direct violation of copyright and Intellectual Property Rights. The companies generating the datasets for AI work are completely ignoring the fact that they are scraping the Internet for any and ALL images they can find, with ZERO attention to the fact that a percentage of images people have posted are copyrighted, protected from theft and misuse by IP Rights law. I'm having difficulty understanding why this fact doesn't generate serious concerns in this community.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks