The AI thread

[Alan Klein]

I don't see AI being more larcenous than people just stealing photos off the web currently. Legitimate companies who use legitimate image leasing resources such as Magnum, Adobe, will just continue to pay for their services when using AI.

[Alan Klein]

I give up. I'm done here.

Paul, What did I say to upset you?

Quote Originally Posted by Alan Klein View Post
Paul, Doesn't that depend on what they do with the pictures? Can't they use them for Fair Use without violating copyrights? If so, you get down to whether what they're doing is considered Fair Use. No?

[Drew Wiley]

If I were a commercial photographer, I'd certainly be concerned about a serious erosion in fees, just like happened to stock photography once it went almost entirely digital, except that now there will be a Wild West shootout clear to the bottom of the OK Corral muck hole. But the footprint of stills has been diminishing for quite awhile in advertising anyway. And I'm not in that game at all anymore, and only dabbled in it anyway, and am certainly not going to be affected regarding my own work or its integrity. And as far as all the inevitable abuse of Ai in social media goes, I don't subscribe to any of that nonsense anyway. Forums like this one is as close as I get.

[Tin Can]

https://petapixel.com/2023/10/12/pho...able-for-free/

Good for him!

[paulbarden]

This is one of the possible outcomes of having introduced AI into photography: people making clearly AI-generated imagery and tagging it as genuine film-based photography: https://flic.kr/p/2p63BwY

I hate this shite, I really do (the imagery and the disingenuousness of it all)

[Alan Klein]

I think there's a significant possibility he'll regret that decision - someone is going to download a bunch of those photos and repurpose them somehow, for profit, and buddy boy ain't going to get a penny, and he'll have lost control of how they're used, to boot.

Having skills or products and not being able to market them has no financial value to him. So what he's doing is sort of like when people carve their initials into the tree trunk or paint them on a wall inside a cave, for posterity purposes. We all want to be remembered.

[Pieter]

At this point, only a neophyte would not be able to distinguish AI form "real" photography (that could change soon). And anyone paying for such stuff deserves what they get. Unless the end use is online, most imagery posted to the internet is pretty worthless as far as reproduction quality, so thieves just end up with crap anyway. Those who complain about losing any significant income from image theft tend to be whiners and don't make any significant legitimate income from sales anyway. My opinion. As yet, I have not read or heard about any real losses incurred through AI scraping or learning from a photographer' images. And I really don't feel sorry for the stock agencies, they mostly treat photographers poorly.

[Drew Wiley]

Many photographers once made handsome livings via stock sales. That was back in the days of real film and preferably large format chromes. Now that kind of thing is just an over-abundant electronic commodity open to almost anyone. And hard-copy publishing and its demand for quality images has given way to web and phone applications with much lower expectations. Neither advertising nor propaganda care about "reality". It's all about grabbing attention.

[Pieter]

Many photographers once made handsome livings via stock sales. That was back in the days of real film and preferably large format chromes. Now that kind of thing is just an over-abundant electronic commodity open to almost anyone. And hard-copy publishing and its demand for quality images has given way to web and phone applications with much lower expectations. Neither advertising nor propaganda care about "reality". It's all about grabbing attention.

Even then, the best money was through direct stock sales. Most stock agencies reamed the photographers.

[Sal Santamaura]

This is one of the possible outcomes of having introduced AI into photography: people making clearly AI-generated imagery and tagging it as genuine film-based photography: https://flic.kr/p/2p63BwY

I hate this shite, I really do (the imagery and the disingenuousness of it all)

I have no dog in this fight. I don't sell photography and, other than a short time doing weddings on the side while a student in the early 1970s, never have. I also don't pay any attention to things like what you linked to. However, the hatred of it puzzles me. How does that fakery differ from what a painter could have been doing for centuries? Disingenuous excrement has been with humankind for a looong time. So what? I do what I like, you do what you like and the AI users do what they like. Can't we all get along?