Inspiration... or stealing?
Image-generating AI “learns” from databases of artwork that already exists.
This means it can create images in the style of the human artists that it learns from.
For example, here is a “painting”, created by AI, of a Topical Talker reading the newspaper, in the style of Vincent van Gogh.
Artists were not asked permission before their work was put into AI databases.
Some artists may be unaware that their work was used.
While some people think that this is OK, others have said that they think it is unfair that AI can use another artist’s style without permission.
We want to know your opinion!
- Do you think AI should be able to copy other artists’ styles? Why or why not?
- How would you feel if someone closely copied something you had made? Excited? Honoured? Flattered? Or maybe angry?
- Should any rules be put in place for AI-generated art?
Let us know in the comments below!
It is of utmost importance to show reverence for the intellectual property rights of artists and avoid duplication or reproduction of their creative works without prior consent. The act could potentially infringe upon an artist's rightful ownership and hard work that went into creating their unique art. Therefore, it is imperative always to seek permission and give proper credit where due in order to maintain fairness and respect within the creative industry. I would feel greatly privileged if a request was made to obtain my permission prior to reproducing any of my work. Such an opportunity would enable me to share my creations with a wider audience, resulting in an increased level of recognition and appreciation for my efforts. It is imperative to implement regulations that govern the utilization of artificial intelligence. The laws should cover various aspects of AI, such as its development, deployment, and use, to ensure that it is utilized in a responsible and ethical manner.
1) Obtaining the consent of artists before reproducing their artwork.
2) Important to acknowledge and give credit to the artists.
3) Replicating the style of other artists should be made illegal.
I agree because...
from my point of view ::
I completely agree with the three points mentioned. We should all respect the intellectual property rights of artists and not reproduce their artwork without their prior consent. We should also give proper recognition to the artists and give them the credit they deserve when using their artwork. Finally, copying the style of other artists should be illegal as it is a violation of intellectual and creative property rights. Respecting these legal and ethical practices respects the rights of artists and helps build a more appreciated and respected creative industry.
I agree with you, and I want to add that the pattern is copied with consent, of course, but in a different way or with more details, or if he wants to reproduce it more, the credit must be given to the artists in order to avoid theft, deception and counterfeiting
i agree with what you have said if AI is allowed to copy allowed to copy other artist the would be invading in their privacy and it would them feel annoyed that the they spent their time doing something and another person is copying their work.
I did not think about it these way but you have made me to think about AI from a different perspective.
I agree because I feel it's essential to show reverence for the intelligent property requests of artists and avoid replicating or imitating their creative works without their initial license. I strongly believe replicating an artist's work without permission can potentially disregard their appropriate consent and the hard work that went into creating their unique art. Therefore, seeking permission and giving proper recognition where due is essential to maintain justice and respect within the creative endeavor. I also agree that cultivating an artist's permission prior to reproducing their work is a privilege and an opportunity for the artist to share their creations with a wider audience. This can result in increased recognition and appreciation for their grinds, which is essential for any artist to flourish.
I agree with you that certain rules should be issued in this regard to maintain artists' right. Today I was astonished that one of the singers give a permission to anyone to use her voice via AI, but half of the profit should back to her.
I agree with you, but artists love the field of art because of the presence of a specific person (artist) who loved his art and wanted to become like him, so he became an artist and followed his method in art and took lessons from it.
I strongly agree with you trusting _theory , because The name artificial intelligence,has already proven that it can not generate new ideas on it own,but it can support human by making use of human creation. So why should Ai produce art.
There are so many things Ai can do, it can be used in the hospital,place of work, school,house. So why should Ai be used in production of art,when their alot of things it can be used for , to make human more creative.
Ai will make human artist less important , because with the use of Ai so many artist Will loss their job because it serves as a source of income to them.
We need to economize, especially in my country, having people making use of Ai instead of human creation will cost alot of money,when these same money can be used for relevant things.
Most people will prefer Ai to human creation because it will be more easy and accurate.
But it will be wise of us to produce with little or no capital. making use of human creation will save us a lot.
Well I don't think the Ai will be able to carve out art work,it take a human creativity for Ai to work.
With the use of Ai , most artist will stop creating,and art will go into extinction.sotherefore Ai should not be allowed to copy other artists work.
From my point of view, I agree with what you are saying, because with the development of modern science and technology, especially artificial intelligence, there has been theft of ideas and their dissemination from artificial intelligence, and also that, from my point of view, there is a problem because intelligence Artificial art hides the creativity of artists, but on the other hand, if we look back, there are those who violate the copyrights of many artists. But there are suggestions that can benefit artists and preserve their artistic paintings, and I have seen many artists use this method, which is to create a separate page in which the artist shows his creativity in drawing, but on the condition that he shows himself So that theft or fraud does not happen in the name of other pages
I agree because its the artist work and the AI is just copying it and making it look different to the original piece so i agree that replicating the style of other artists should be made illegal. You made a good point in the paragraph
You have made good points but I don't agree with you,fully due to it not being a direct copy.Only using a style of an artist.Replicating the style is almost harmless because real artists use that method to get inspiration this inspiration is made using that artists style.
They must bear these burdens, because intellectual property has also been stolen during invention, and we are accustomed to the situation that even those who are artists should not care. Thought, of course, is the greatest gift and much greater than art,If there is no thought of where they came from art and creativity؟
Do you think AI should be able to copy other artists' styles? The AI is programmed to obey the person's wishes hence when they are asked to draw a picture in the style of Vincent Van Gogh, they will do so. In the economist under the topic ' A battle royal is brewing over copyright and AI' , australian singer-songwriter Nick Cave stated after telling the AI to write a song in his style, ' This song sucks. Writing a good song is not mimicry, or replication, or pastiche, it is the opposite. It is an act of self-murder that destroys all one has strived to produce in the past.' And even for other subjects within the classroom, children need to expand their creativiy and imaginative boundaries rather than following the AI. Personally, I believe that copying or plagiarising a person's ideas is not appropriate if you do not have their permission to do so and their should be an age limit to who uses the AI and who does not.
How would you feel if someone closely copied something you made? Let us all be honest. Everyone feels a hint of annnoyance that someone has copied an exact line in writing you created. Many people, even my friends, copy my writing but when they ASK PERMISSION, I feel proud that they like my idea so much, they would implement it in their own writing. However, some people in my class, choose to edit my work, when in reality, they choose to just say everything is fine with it and they just copy my ideas. I am not ok with this. That is stealing ideas not copying. A person has no right to steal someone's ideas without them knowing because, frankly, that seems to me like theft.
Should any rules be put in place for AI-generated art? Before all of the art images should be put into the AI's system, people that have produced this art should be asked if this can be uploaded on the AI thus used by other people. That is a perfect system where people's ideas are not stolen. When I an annoyed that someone copies my work, my mum says that I should feel honoured because they look up to me like a role model. And indeed, I am proud of that.
I agree with all of your points, especially your point about permission. I think that AI art is a very volatile concept and that to help it improve it does need human interaction. If people were to just give it permission to use their work I think it would be better for the AI and humans. As you mentioned, artists are having their work put in AI databases without their permission, and this is only going to cause the hate for AI to grow and the harm against human livelihoods to grow as well. You made a very good comment and I enjoyed reading all of the points you made.
I believe AI should not be allowed to copy other people's art. Whether the software uses generative adversarial networks or diffusion models, an AI art generator learns from existing images, videos, and so on, all of which come from the internet. The AI’s programmer can just take this data and feed it into their engine without telling the original owners. Some people end up seeing artworks that look like theirs that they never created. AI art generators should seek out willing participants who have agreed for that their art can be used to improve machine learning.
It is also a threat to the artist's job . According to deccanherald.com Rutkowski who was an artist had his work mimicked and since the AI copy came out, Rutkowski said he has received far fewer requests from first-time authors who need covers for their fantasy novels. His work was copied without his permission which must have angered him and due to it he was slowly losing his business.
To prevent this, artists who don't want their work to be copied should watermark them. A watermark is an image or mark on a piece of art which is visible when viewed by transmitted light. Watermarks can potentially confuse AI training sets. While small logos or text will have little effect, larger overlaid patterns can seriously affect an AI's ability to use it for training in a number of ways. If the pattern is too complex or visually similar to the underlying artwork, it may confuse the AI system and cause it to make incorrect predictions or decisions. In some cases, the pattern may even be misinterpreted as part of the content of the image. This would prevent an AI from copying it.
Well, I like your views and opinions and I think we share similar views and opinions but when you say your mum tells you that you should feel honored, I don't think everyone shares the same opinion with you and your mum. Imagine a scenario where you create something, and it doesn't get recognized and someone else does the exact thing and gets recognized for your work and doesn't even give you credit. I think there should definitely be rules put in place for AI generated art as rules create law and order. I think rules like AI should be authorized by creators if they want to replicate their art and people who use AI should be licensed and in the vase of children either supervised or there should be an age limit to usage of AI.
All in all, AI is a good thing that I think should be allowed but when misused or regulated could have negative effects.
I disagree with the idea the AI should be allowed to copy artists' styles because Artificial Intelligence has been applying in basic ways for a while, such as some artists using models to draw as references . AI produces art that causes a threat to artists as it may use other artists work without permission , credit or compensation to generate the art the artists desires.
Great point! do you think there can be a way around this if AI was to get permission from artists?
YES, I think the AI can permission from artists by leaving the artist's signature at the end of the drawing so that the artist knows that his/ her art is being used and not stolen. The AI can also get permission from the artist by giving
the artist little credit or compensation for Inspiration.
How might AI give compensation, eloquent_fly? That's an interesting idea.
I believe that the copyright laws should should not be violated because, these artists took their time to either write or design the art works for the entertainment of people. Even when the AI wants to make use of the art works, compensations should be given to the artists and can be in form of money, and public recognition and so on
I am of the opinion that artistes could be compensated by AI platforms or applications via the avenue of monetization. This could be done by encouraging artistes to sell their concept, where there could be a split with the revenue generated. For instance, the artiste could get a 70%, while the AI platform gets 30%, respectively.
In addition, they ought to ensure that credit is given to the creators of such art concepts.
I completely agree with you that the creators of such art should be compensated. This will, in some ways, make the person whose work was copied happy that his efforts were not in vain. It is important to understand that many people are disappointed to learn that their work was used and that nothing was returned to them. They are emotionally and mentally exhausted.
I disagree with you because I totally think AI should be able to copy other artists' styles. Hear me out - imitation is like the first step to creating something new, ya know? And if AI can explore different styles, it can like totally expand its own artistic abilities. Plus, it could help preserve old-school artistic traditions that might otherwise be lost. But, like, there are some legit concerns to think about. Like, who owns the rights to an artist's style? And what happens when AI gets so advanced that it can copy entire works? We gotta be real and figure out some ethical solutions as AI keeps evolving and changing the game.
I think AI should be able to copy other artists styles because AI can help produce more artists that may someday change the world and if I was an artist I would be honoured to get my art style to be put into the AI.
Although I think that there should be some rules put on the AI generated arts.
All arts created by the AI can not be used to win awards.
Good way to look at this! do you think there can be a different award ceremony for AI generated art only?
Yes, I do think that there could be a different award specifically for the AI generated arts but I think that the AI generated arts award should be a minor award compared to arts generated by humans. But if humans continue to rely on the AI there could be some negative effects on humans.
This could lead to less opportunities and income for human artists.
The criteria for such an award ceremony would need to be carefully considered. How would the judges assess the quality of AI-generated art compared to human-created art? Would there be different categories for different types of AI-generated art, such as music, visual art, or literature?
Another question that would need to be addressed is whether AI-generated art truly deserves its own award ceremony. After all, it could be argued that AI is simply a tool used by human creators to enhance their artistic vision, rather than being a creator in its own right.
I disagree because some people make money out of those art and some may not like it if their art idea is taken without their consent...
I didn't like your suggestion because you took the wrong look at the topic. For example, you said if you were an artist, you would have the AI determine your artistic style. This is a good step, but artificial intelligence can refuse or cancel your ownership so that it becomes the property of the artificial intelligence program, and it can change the drawing of the painting, for example, change its meaning and put it under the ownership of your name because this will turn against you because artificial intelligence cannot deal with it in these matters. In my opinion, this matter will have serious consequences.
I do not think that artificial intelligence should imitate artists' styles in their drawing, because each person has his own style, and has his own talent, so we should not steal it so that the painter does not get frustrated and says that there is someone who can imitate and draw what I draw, but rather we must develop his skills And to make it more and more unique.
As for me, I do not like someone imitating what I do, whether it is drawing or something else, because it makes me jealous and obliterates my ambitions that I used to dream about, and I talk to him about this thing because he works to rob the talents of others. Among the laws that must be available with artificial intelligence: Maintaining the security of the information of the person who uses it - keeping the graphics that are created on it - not imitating the methods of famous artists
Some might say that it takes inspiration from others which lots of people do. What do you think about that?
I agree because
Indeed, it may be an inspiration to others. In the end, the artificial intelligence device does not do the work on its own, but rather another artist programs the commands, and the device executes.
This artist may have liked the paintings of another artist and his way of drawing, so he wanted to take it as an example for him and to follow this method, develop it and innovate from it. Therefore, the artist should feel proud of that because he represents a source of inspiration for others
Well, I agree with you on this, but there is a big difference between being inspired and stealing a painting, or let's call it copying a painting, right??! I am sure that if the intention of the user was to draw inspiration from the painting, the owner of the painting would not object to this, but if his intention was to steal or copy the painting, wouldn’t this be theft of the other artist’s painting? Love it and be creative with it.
Yes, of course.. There are a few people who know that artificial intelligence is just art, but it also cannot work by itself, meaning that there are responsible people on this site, and the best example is artists. Here, artists have a great position that we are proud of and cherish because they made something people did not know Whether it works by itself or not, artificial intelligence has become a way to inspire others .
I agree with you on this point, as among them there are many outstanding artists who were inspired by the ideas and drawings of other artists. For example, there is Frank Brangwen, one of the first British admirers of Van Gogh. He painted a sunflower unit with some additions from it, but it was inspired by Van Gogh's paintings. But not every painting we can say is an inspiration, so the painting must have an impression of the artist as well, as well as the painting from which it was inspired, making sure that the person who painted it put effort into it and put his talent and ideas into it. Therefore, the person who was inspired by the painting must say that he was inspired by the painting of so-and-so, so that this person feels the importance of his drawing and the continuity of his talent in this matter. For example, if a painting similar to your painting is drawn in the same style as your painting,What would you feel? I think you would feel disappointed?
Artificial intelligence is really a source of inspiration for others. Artificial intelligence is just a site, but it does not do the work itself. Rather, it is a person behind these devices, and they are responsible and control these devices. The truth is that artists are a source of pride for me and some people, and we cherish them because they do things and ideas No one could do it unless it was copying or stealing a painting .
1I agree because... It is okay because Artificial intelligence can replicate an artist artwork in seconds and this could generate new ideas ,these creations could draw the emotions in the picture and give ideas for further expression of the art work.
2 I would be Honoured for my paintings to be done in another style of the modern technology.
3 Yes, this could stop the AI -generated art from displaying your painting styles in a bad way and using it without permission which could be unfair to the artist.
Well to me AI in this aspect is just in the middle of it all in my opinion because as serving a good purpose everything that has an advantage has a disadvantage; in the matter with that of inspiration ,well it does give the artist a more easier platform to make artworks but to me it removes the passion or true feeling of an artwork piece , because like they say art is expressing your innermost feelings but in this case will it be really you expressing your feelings or something helping you do it? . Now in form of stealing I am not trying to be negative but I think AI filches the idea renowned artists, well to me since it is artificial intelligence it should create its own style of art instead of sometimes imitating other artist work because to me it takes out the originality of the style. So as much as some of the artist and people think well maybe it expands their horizon it may not do that much maybe they only look towards the importance it attracts.
Your comment got me thinking - who is to blame if AI filches other people's ideas? AI itself, or the person who uses AI to copy someone else's work?
Well to me it is the person who uses AI to copy someone else's work that is at fault because like i have mentioned a lot of times in some of my previous comments, it doesn't have a mind of its own the use of AI is controlled by human beings and so whatever is going on in their own mind is then practiced with AI, so concerning who is to blame for filching of other people's ideas it is obviously human beings without conscience that the decide to use a thing meant to help humankind and the world itself for the wrong purpose of imposing other people ideas worked for sometimes knowing the consequences like being sued but still do it anyway.
Sometimes, the AI system may be solely responsible. In other cases, the humans who created or are using the AI system may be partially or fully responsible. Determining who's responsible for an AI mistake can be difficult, and it may require legal experts to determine liability on a case-by-case basis.
AI may make the right decisions based on facts, but may lack the empathy that needs to be part of those decisions. We still need humans in the middle to assess the value of insights and decisions to the welfare of humans, businesses and communities.Just like humans, AI systems can make mistakes.
According to chrome, "Experts say AI systems mainly make mistakes when real-world situations differ from the situations used in creating the intelligence. In FICO's case, it said its software expected more in-person than online shopping. This led the system to identify a greater share of financial activity as problematic. The law provides that such works will be owned by a human or corporate person, but the computer program or AI itself can never be the author or owner of the IP."
Honestly, i feel the idea of AI being responsible for filching\purloining other people's idea is not true.AI art-making models are a tool and it is within the hands of the user to either use them ethically or unethically. We all know that it is human beings that have the ability to control the use of AI, so i feel the blame should go to the person who uses AI to copy someone else's work.
In my own perspective I think it's the person who uses Al to copy someone else's work.
Let's take this illustration u were asked to attend an event but due to unplanned circumstances,you were unable to attend,so you sent your assistance when they want to take account of who was present,they won't write down your assistance name but yours.
So just like Al , when it copy someone else's work,the person's at fault is the person who created it because it's the person that programmed its to do that way
It is undoubtedly the fault of the person who uses AI to copy someone else's artwork because, First of all, AI doesn't have a mind of its own, like reliable orchard said, no matter how hard anyone wants to believe it. It's just advanced technology designed to help us perform tasks better. Artificial Intelligence doesn't decide to copy art, it is used by a HUMAN to copy it.
Second of all, Artificial Intelligence wasn't just created for art purposes. It has a lot other uses too, such as performing any task it is given, really. AI is a great gift to mankind, if we use it properly and within social and legal boundaries.
Blaming AI for copying at would be like blaming a dog who was told by its master to bark, for barking. You can't blame it, it was just following orders, and it doesn't have the capability to reason for and by itself.
Yes, in my own opinion the fact AI can copy art styles of artists is good serves as inspiration for upcoming artist and also serve as reference for the new artist giving them ideas and also serving as guideline to them. Using AI to create art with other people s style is not stealing in my opinion especially because you get the chance to manipulate it and add your own ideas to it or designs for me itis a huge source of inspiration. It becomes stealing when u don't change or add anything to the work and just claim it as yours. I also feel AI should take permission from artist before using their work or setting it as a platform for "Art inspiration" on their source for art. To avoid any issues and problems, rules should be set based on the use of any artwork, this way people will be able to use AI for art without allegedly "stealing" anyone's work.
If AI can produce any and all art, will there be space for people?
Firstly In my opinion AI can't create all art. Art is a form of self expression so new ideas can not be expressed by a non living thing. AI does not have a mind of its own It designs based on what it is programmed to do, or based on the information in its database. AI is used by most artist to achieve the best result with the help of a computer. The ideas of renovation or transformation of art are from the mind of the artist. I think the best way to rephrase your statement is "If AI can modify or design any form of art, Will there be need for plain artists? And I feel yes, There will still be need for Artist for will create new ideas, versions, forms of music to be programmed into AI so any artist will be able to work on it. Yes there will be space for people, Even more artist will be needed. The meta verse is expanding rapidly when an artist produces something with AI everyone will be rushing to it online. It will fade quickly too, therefore there will be need for more people to produce more illumination for the world of art
It is possible that there will be space for some people with strong determination, but also this will affect many artists and frustrate them and make them the ones who trust their work and not be expelled from it because this is really frustrating and sad and some of them may say: “Why am I here? There is no longer room for me in this place." Some of them also say: "I have to find another place to go to or another subject that I love. I no longer have a place here." In my opinion, it is really unfortunate to hear this from those who loved this field and excelled in it.
No, AI apps are unlikely to replace artists. While AI technology has made significant progress in generating visual and audio content, it still lacks the creativity and human touch that is intrinsic to art.AI algorithms can only generate images based on the data they have been trained on, meaning that they can only produce images that are similar to what they have seen before. Additionally, AI art lacks the emotional connection and personal touch that human art has, making it less meaningful and less impactful. While it is always possible that unforeseen events or developments could lead to the destruction of humans by AI, it is unlikely to happen in the near future. The processing of data and commands is essential to the operation of AI-powered devices. When it comes to speed, humans are no match for artificial intelligence or robots. Recently developed artificial intelligence (AI) models are capable of many impressive feats, including recognising images and producing human-like language. But just because AI can perform human-like behaviours doesn't mean it can think or understand like humans.
If the AI was to produce art 🎨 I think there will be space for human artists because, though the AI can create there own art, artist express there arts through emotions, inspiration and imagination real life experiences and more importantly human associations and culture and that AI does not have. AI can steal other artist's ideas and styles and claims as their own but artists get their ideas and styles through observing everything around them or pouring their emotions and pains into their artwork so that people can feel their work and that's what's AI can't steal.
"The AI generated art itself is probably not stealing from artists. However, the bigger question is if the creators of the AI stole from artists when they copied and exploited the works of millions of living artists without consideration or compensation. Copied?"
According to the research I've made so far, the AI doesn't actually have a mind of its own... It actually works based on what it is commanded or designed to do. And it could also be seen as piracy only when it happens that the AI didn't ask for the original copy artist's permission.
In my opinion, I would also say that it allows for fraud. For example, lets say the "Mona Lisa" artwork was being copied/pirated without anyone's knowledge, the individual who isn't aware/was never aware is capable of purchasing the pirated artwork without knowing that its a fake.
And also, I myself wouldn't like if my work was being copied because due to the fact that I took my time and put in effort to create it then a commoner or an individual out of the blues would just copy it.... I won't actually feel good about it. I would also be likably pissed off.
You've picked up on a good point here, agreeable_language. If AI cannot think for itself, who is responsible for stealing other artists's ideas? How do you stop them?
This is a very hard question to ask considering the fact that AI is a big part of human life right now so what restriction will be given in order for there to be extreme reduction of crimes committed with AI and still make sure it doesn't hinder the activities that humans use it for in their daily lives . But as of now there is no regulatory framework at the moment which targets AI-crimes , so there is no definite way to stopping them and so it will be extremely difficult and for who are responsible for the stealing of other artists it is clearly humans who have a mindset that is unacceptable . But even though AI is used as a means of wrong doing it can still be the solution to a problem caused by or with it , considering the technology it holds it could be used to solve these problems; a way that we can stop AI from stealing art is through glaze,It is a tool that can help artists protect their work from AI art generators. The app works by applying elusive changes to the artwork, changes so minor that they're barely perceptible to humans, this can easily confuse AI software. There are other many ways that this problem can be solved but this is my own little discovery.
I agree that AI cannot think for itself; however, I believe that the individual who operates the device is responsible. You can see it in our daily activities when ideas are stolen from one establishment to another, from one society to another, and from one country to another, and there is usually nothing that can be done about it. The theft of ideas leads to frustration, hostile behaviour, and low productivity.
To stop stealing, people can collaborate, work together to generate new ideas, and I believe that all of our ideologies need to change; we need to start making amends and not use other people's work without attribution. I also believe that with this technology, the rate of introduction of new work will increase, and there is a possibility that humans' ability to create more art will increase as well, so working collaboratively will be an exciting thing for me to see in the near future.
I agree that an AI cannot think for its self but have you ever thought of the fact that these AIs exist in different types. I mean I don't know a lot but am pretty sure that their are different AIs and these include those that need commands all the time and those that just do because that is how they were made and programmed and what am trying to get at is that these AIs that just do things may admire that specific drawing just like how any other human would do and then they decide to redraw the picture.
Well the fact that AI is able to recreate and create other artists' works quite fascinating and surprising at the same time but we all cannot deny the fact that the creator of any work be it music, poetry, photos and others have a copyright to their work and AI recreating their work is an infringement on such rights and I do not blame those who get annoyed by such things and as for me if I was an artist I will feel both honored and angry. Honored because they thought my work was good enough for them to attempt to to create such magnificent work of art and be angry because it will mean that AI could easily replace me if they wished and also it will mean that they could claim that my work was original when it was actually created by some software generated robot and the question is that is meant to be asked is that whether the creators of these robots should be allowed to recreate other people's works without prior permission to do such as they are the ones that tell or command these AI to do such things. So, I think strict and stringent rules should be placed to avoid or prevent AI from recreating artists works without permission and allowance from the original owners.
I totally agree with you I because artist have a right to copyright so I feel like AI has to take permission from artist before their work is copied. Certain rules and restriction should be put on AI because personally ,I would not be happy if someone copied my work.
I would feel very angry if anyone closely copied my art without my permission. I see it like stealing all my efforts. Someone went through a lot to imagine and produce an artwork, and then someone else does the same for half the effort? I'd feel bad.
I don't think AI should be allowed to copy other artist's style. I see nothing wrong with using AI to create a work of art, though, as long as it is creative and original. because Artificial Intelligence itself is a work of art.
There should be rules placed on AI generating art, because if there weren't, scenarios such as plagiarism would be very common.
I do, however, feel that, AI incorporated in art can be very entertaining, if it is original. For example, Metaphysics on America's Got Talent last year, used AI to create replicas of famous people like Simon Cowell singing onstage. In a nutshell, I find nothing wrong with AI in art unless it plagiarizes someone else's work.
Thanks for this comment enigmatic_salek. Humans often take inspiration from others in art. Do you think this is better or worse than when AI does the same?
I feel that it is worst when humans do it , actually in fact both situations mentioned are both caused by humans, this is because well humans of course control themselves and they also control AI because it doesn't have a mind of its own and to me on both circumstances it is bad. It takes out the originality of the artwork of those artists whose idea were imposed and AI which is meant to be a breakthrough for human race is now used against the human race itself and this is sad . So in conclusion it is worse when humans do it because they use both means though some humble humans just use it as a form of inspiration which they actually use in making an entirely new style and in this condition AI is not used wrongly.
For some artists, they will call this imitation, and they will say that this is unfair. For other artists, they may like this, make them feel creative, and may increase their self-confidence. But until now I really don't know whether to be sad or happy!!
The key issue people seem to be taking with AI art is that the artists who created the images from which the programs were trained were not consulted and are not remunerated for their work. Humans are creative by nature and consequently find unique ways to solve problems, whereas AI produces results on the basis of algorithm only. It doesn't understand context, it only understands the relationship between given input and complex mathematical models. The advantages of AI are; range from streamlining, saving time, eliminating biases, and automating repetitive tasks, just to name a few. The disadvantages of AI art are; things like costly implementation, potential human job loss, and lack of emotion and creativity.
First of all, there is a big difference between taking inspiration from someone else's work and stealing it. according to Google, "Every piece of art is inspired by another, but some influences are much too obvious to pass on as 'inspiration' " When this influence is obvious, it's outright stealing. There is nothing wrong with someone being inspired by another's work, in fact, art was made to inspire. The problem, however, arises when people steal other's ideas and claim it.
There's no difference between humans and AI plagiarizing. Artificial Intelligence is just technology carrying out commands given to them by humans, anyway. So it is neither better nor worse when AI plagiarizes.
Inspiration isn't the problem, in fact, it's a gift, seeing beauty in someone's work. Plagiarism is the real stumbling block in our society today.
I think it is better because in spite of the fact that an AI is created and commanded by people we must also not forget that this is super intelligence and people are so invested in it so I really feel like an AI would rather inspire more people due to its spotlight because first of all it doesn't really give the real picture but rather a sample of the original picture so by this people are inspired to find the real picture and the artists and also artists are inspired to paint something better which boosts the art industry.
I think it's worse in both cases because when humans do so it is stealing and when AI does it is stealing as well. So I don 't think that this situation will stay the same. Sooner or later certain rules will be announced to maintain artists' rights. The singer Swings agrees that anyone could use her voice via AI but he/she should mention it and she will take her share of profit.
I strongly resonate with the opinion of the student, as I can understand the frustration and disappointment of an artist whose work has been copied without permission. Art is an expression of one's creativity and hard work, and it is unfair to see someone else benefit from it without giving proper credit or compensation. While AI can be a useful tool to create original artworks, it should not be used to copy other artists' styles or work. It's OK , if AI is used to inspire new ideas and create unique pieces of art, it can be a valuable addition to the art world. And in India we have a special style of painting called Madhubani paintings, it's a form of wall art and it is the most celebrated style of folk paintings.I agree that AI-generated art can be useful in preserving traditional art forms like Madhubani paintings. However, it is important to recognize that these traditional styles have evolved over time, influenced by the cultural and historical context in which they were created. It is therefore crucial to ensure that AI-generated art does not perpetuate cultural stereotypes or misrepresent these traditions.Artists put in a significant amount of time, effort, creativity, and resources to produce a piece of art that reflects their individual style and expression. On the other hand, AI-generated art may appear to be effortless, but it lacks the human touch, the passion, and the emotions that go into creating a unique piece of art. So I think AI can be used as a base or a model to create an art ,I mean AI can be a helpful tool for artists to use in their creative process by providing them with new ideas or inspiration. Instead of copying an existing artwork, an artist could use an AI algorithm to generate patterns or colors that they could incorporate into their own artwork, or they could use an AI-generated image as a reference to inspire their own unique creation. By using AI in this way, artists can create something that is new and original, rather than a direct copy of something that already exists.
I completely agree with you enigmatic_salak. I understand the importance of originality and creative effort in the art world. It's understandable that you would feel angry if someone copied your artwork without permission. It's like stealing your hard work and dedication.
I also agree that AI can be a valuable tool in creating art as long as it is used to produce original and unique works. AI technology itself is a form of art, and it has the potential to enhance human creativity and imagination.
However, I understand the need for regulations on AI-generated art to prevent issues like plagiarism. As you mentioned, it's crucial to ensure that AI does not replicate someone else's work without proper permission or credit.
Moreover, AI-generated art can be entertaining and fascinating, especially if it's original and innovative. The example you provided of Metaphysics on America's Got Talent shows how AI can be used to create something entertaining and impressive.
In conclusion, I completely agree that AI in art is not inherently wrong as long as it respects originality and creativity. It's essential to establish regulations and guidelines to ensure that AI-generated art does not violate ethical and legal standards.
In my own opinion AI should not copy other artists styles as it is not right. Why? because the artist own it !Their colors and measurement and other choices make that model uniquely theirs. AI cannot just come along and copy the work to use or sell for profit, that would be making profit on the original artist's efforts without permission which to me is extremely unfair.
While it's flattering to be admired by those we care about, being copied can often feel like an identity fraud. It can often almost feel like the other person is trying to take away or rob me of my uniqueness. I will also feel cheated as people will make money and gain popularity with my work and will just be a by-stander.
I feel there should be tight rules put in place for AI-generated art because currently according to my research AI art appears to be a particular threat to artists as it may use their work without their consent, approval which to me is very unfair. So, yes of course their should be set rules to regulate some of these problems.
Often groups of artists will work in the same style. For example, impressionist painters all had similarities in their paintings. Do you think this is different to when AI imitates a real life artist's style?
I would feel deprived of originality if someone or in this case an AI were to copy my work. Why? Well because someone were to spend his time and energy on a piece of art let's say like the MONALISA and an AI were to redo it, it may lose its originality and its flair.
In my opinion I don't think it is bad for AI to be used in this modern time, but it will be unfair to the creators of the artwork as some of my fellow topical talkers have said but from my own view if AI were to be fully utilized it should be given the opportunity to think on its own and be creative rather than just reproducing human art.
Since we know that AI is the future of human endeavor, we should support it as I personally do but AI in art is a very challenging topic, but I support it as long as it has originality and effort and does not prioritize plagiarism. I think AI in art has many advantages in art such as speed, accuracy among others but for it to be utilized to the fullest many challenges have to offset first.
In fact, everyone knows that the artist's drawings express his feelings, whether he was sad, angry, or happy...etc. Also, when we look at a painting made by a man, you feel that it is full of feelings and colors, and it makes you feel how happy or sad the painter is. But can we feel this when drawing the painting with artificial intelligence?!!
Hi, genius moon! When I read your comment, it got me thinking...
Can paintings made by AI feel or make people feel? Do they convey messages the way human's paintings do?
What do you guys think?
Yes, I think AI can copy other artists' styles. Why? I did research on artificial intelligence and its negative effects, and found that anyone can copy someone else's style in an easy way and through artificial intelligence. Also, anyone can impersonate others and deceive people that they want money or information, which is unfair. The laws that exist in artificial intelligence must be put in place. During my research on this topic, I found that scholars and thinkers say that anyone who uses artificial intelligence should sign a “Non-Disclosure Agreement”, writing a report on the topics and ideas that were discussed and documenting the name of the owner of each idea in order to guarantee the rights of every person. This procedure is approved by most universities as well as major companies such as technology and energy companies. This is an example of a law that needs to be put in place also .
I agree with you, it is worth putting in place a law so as not to cause problems in the future and the fear and anxiety of people that their work will be stolen and your research on artificial intelligence is also accurate... But in your opinion, dear experts and speakers: We said that it is better to set laws that will be bad for a group of people who enter AI to steal and copy images and information. Will these laws be developed with the advice of several organizations and people? What do AI users think of this? Not all people are of the same nature, as there are (the good ones who want to use AI positively) and there are (the bad ones who use AI negatively), which leads most people to think that artificial intelligence has many and risks....
I agree because people deserve to share the right to express themselves and should not be taken advantage of for doing so through such acts of deceit and frame
Personally, I do not think it is right for artists works to be uploaded into the AI database or copied without their permission or even their knowledge. Yes, some people may see it as a way of getting inspiration but others may see it as stealing or even cheating because someone can take an artwork made by another person and with just a few modifications and the push of a button, the person can get a masterpiece without even putting in an effort, but the original owner of the artwork might have poured their heart and soul into it. This is highly unfair to the person who actually put in a lot of work. some people have no problem with their artworks being used as inspiration, but they take offence when their work is used without their opinion. Moreover, I think there should be rules put in place for AI generated arts. For example, while some artists choose to sell their works, some artists get money through royalties from licenses. This means they can give someone the liberty to copy their work for a price but they still retain ownership of the original work. In this way I think everyone will be happy because artists that are fine with people copying their work can also benefit from it, instead of the person who copied it taking all the glory.
I think artificial intelligence should not copy artists' patterns, to avoid the problem of painting theft. I would feel angry if someone copied my effort because in my opinion this is called theft. Yes, rules should be set for the art that is created in artificial intelligence. 1- Not to print anyone else's paintings. 2- There should be a sign indicating its owner in an activity on artificial intelligence. 3- That the paintings are taken from our reality and imagination.
Nice comment but I have another opinion, since all the comments are talking about the same thing that this is considered stealing, now I am suggesting that I have beautiful drawings and that I have rules and conditions in my drawings. When I find something like an AI that draws drawings and follows my terms with it, I feel proud rather than angry, and I hope artists are, too. Other than that, people know this looks like my drawing and I'm the first to do it, and to be fair, I see this needs to be done. Type the name of the artist before displaying the drawing drawn by the AI
Should AI copy artist works or styles? As we all know AI is the simulation of human intelligence processes by machines, especially computer systems. While the AI has the simulation of human intelligence, it's programmed to follow instructions. I feel that AI should not be allowed to copy artists works or styles. My first reason is because some artists will see this as a "slap in the face". Imagine you spend hours or even days trying to make the perfect art-work and when you are done, you have a feeling of happiness and pride knowing nobody can copy your work or style only to find out that an AI can do what took you hours or days in minutes. Won't you feel frustrated and angry? Frankly speaking, they find this as an insult or mockery.
My second reason why AI should not be allowed to copy artists works or styles is because I feel it dishonors artists of old when it copies their works or styles. Reason because when the artists make their works, they do so with emotions which sometimes portray on their artworks or styles such as sadness or happiness. Some people even say it carries part of their souls while on the other hand the AI does not show any emotion and merely does what it is programmed.
My third reason why AI should not be allowed to copy artists works or styles is because some people can use these to exploit or fraud people. Some people will find this as a "short-cut to success" and would want to make fast money which is I find very wrong.
However, some people may have some different ideas. Reason because artists can see this as a form of motivation to create artworks that no AI can create. You never can tell? I feel that the AI should ask for the permission of the artists before their works are copied, until then I strongly oppose AI,s copying artists works and styles.
I agree totally with your comment quirky hyena it is said some artists put in emotion as they create their masterpiece and someone invention will just easily duplicate it that will not be good. Thank you for that comment it has made me reason this topic in a whole different manner.
I think AI will be able to copy artists' work because according to BBC question, employees are afraid of losing their jobs because of AI..
1- I think that if someone copied my works for publication and it was in good interest, I would feel excited, or he might attribute my works to him, so I would feel angry...
2- Of course, laws must be put in place for artificial intelligence, because no one walks without laws, and so the machine, if laws are not set for it, will one day control the world.., but laws must be put in place for art in artificial intelligence.. so that artists do not feel distress and anxiety of losing their jobs. This is my opinion..
I would love to hear your opinion..
Great comment. What do you mean by "one day control the world"?
I'm sorry for not being more clear, but...
Scientific and recent results of Oxford University researchers revealed that there is a possibility that artificial intelligence will outperform human intelligence by 50% within 45 years and within 120 years... AI will be able to assume all the tasks and responsibilities of humans....
Thus, artificial intelligence can control all aspects of life that we do, so technology is dangerous...
(The more technology develops, the more we advance, but danger surrounds us...)
I do think AI should be able to take inspiration from other artists styles but not exactly copy other artists styles. When real artists create a piece of art they may take inspiration but don't exactly steal because stealing others art is extremely frowned upon so why would this change with AI. Artists who have their art copied often feel angry because most of the time they put much of their time and effort into the piece of art they have created so when an human artist copies their work they are able to be directly talk to that person about their behavior. When an AI copies art there is no directly talking to the copier because instead of a human being artificial intelligence is copying someone's art. Online I have seen many situations in which an artist has pointed out that one of their artworks was copied by AI and they really could do nothing about it. Therefore I think rules should be put in place to make sure that AI cannot exactly copy art but if they do take inspiration the artists that the AI found online should be credited.
Thank you for sharing your perspective on this topic. I agree with you that while AI should be able to take inspiration from other artists' styles, it should not be allowed to exactly copy their work without permission or proper attribution. Just like human artists, AI-generated art should be respectful of the original artists' creative process and intellectual property rights. Guidelines and regulations could help ensure that AI-generated art is created ethically and with proper attribution to the original artists.
l agree with your point that proper attribution is crucial for AI-generated art. Giving credit to the original artists not only acknowledges their creative contribution but also protects their intellectual property rights. It also helps to promote transparency and honesty in the creation of AI-generated art.
Furthermore, guidelines and regulations can play an important role in ensuring that AI-generated art is created ethically and with respect for human creativity. By establishing clear rules and standards for the use of AI in art, we can help to prevent the unauthorized copying or misuse of existing artwork, and promote the responsible development of AI-generated art.
Overall, as the use of AI in art continues to grow, it is important to prioritize ethical considerations, including proper attribution and respect for intellectual property rights. By doing so, we can help to ensure that AI-generated art remains a positive force for creativity and innovation.
Hi, I really like your point about AI-generated art being a positive force for creativity and innovation. Can you elaborate a little bit on that? Do you mean that in a world where people can freely copy each other's work, there is an ongoing incentive for individuals to keep innovating?
Thank you for your response. I completely agree that guidelines and regulations can help ensure that AI-generated art is created ethically and with proper attribution to the original artists. It is important to strike a balance between encouraging innovation and creativity with AI while also protecting the rights of artists and ensuring that their hard work is not exploited without their consent. By promoting ethical practices and respecting intellectual property rights, we can help create a more sustainable and equitable future for both human and AI-generated art.
If anyone imitates my drawing, I will feel really angry and sad, because I was the one who worked hard on it and stayed up to draw it, not him, so why is his painting more popular than mine?!!
I think AI should be able to copy other artists' style because, Copying another artist's work can be a wonderful way to learn, get inspired, get ideas, honor an influence you love, and create something new. All art is a mash up of ideas, and we can all influence and inspire each other, so long as we are creating and sharing from a place of honesty and transparency.
Copying a Painting Teaches Quality Control:
Until you begin to copy a painting you can never fully understand another artist's technique, color mixtures, or process. Without copying paintings from master artists, we would have very little idea what their palettes may have looked like.
While it's flattering to be admired by those we care about, being copied can often feel like an identity theft. It can often almost feel like the other person is trying to take away or rob us of our uniqueness. While it might be initially flattering, over time it can get very toxic.
Identity threats feel cognitively uncomfortable, and often result in us feeling annoyed with the transgressor for not being more sensitive about stealing something that feels so core to our self-image. When people copy something really important to us, it quickly goes from identity threat to identity theft. So I will feel annoyed if someone copies my work.
No I don't think that rules should be put in place for AI-generated art because Art is a fun activity, but it’s also important for a range of projects, from ad backgrounds to book covers, and it’s not always easy or cheap to acquire. AI art generators offer a solution, but it comes at a cost for human artists.
Get to know what the impact is and how you can generate and use AI art as ethically as possible. There are almost no official rules in place, so you must set your own limits, whether you’re just playing around with the technology or hoping to use it professionally.
I would feel honored if someone would closely copy my work because people would not copy my work isn't good and I would also feel honored because they were inspired by my work.
I don't think there any rule should be put in place for AI generated art because no matter how much an AI should try to express itself it may not be able to do so in the capacity that desires hence the rules limit the way AI can express itself.
Great comment. Can you expand on the importance of AI being able to express itself?
The ability for AI to express itself is useful because to some extent AI is a voice for the under represented and also for those who cannot speak for themselves. So basically if AI cannot express itself what exactly is its use.
I don't think AI should be able to copy other artists' styles. I don't think it should be able to copy styles simply because all of the work that would be outdone by the AI. An example of this would be if you were to work as a freelance artist that makes money on commissions. You would lose a lot of money if AI could perfectly recreate your artstyle. A random person could plug your art into an AI, and have it spout out a perfectly new art that was created from a baseline of your art. At the very least permission should be given to the AI before it can use your work as inspiration for its art.
If someone were to closely copy my work, and produce it as theirs I would be frustrated. It was my work they copied off of and if they were to get recognition from it I would be even more angry. This is different when someone asks to use your work as a baseline for theirs. They may have liked the way you articulated your ideas into something and want to create something like it. This is how many artists and musicians improve. Artists may trace another artist's drawing to see how they did the work, and musicians may incorporate a melody from another song to try to remix it. If someone asked to use my work before using it I would be flattered. Imitation is the best form of flattery.
There should be rules for AI art. A rule I would implement would be for artists to be asked if their work can be stored in a database the AI could draw from. It also should not be able to be copyrighted. If you were to try to copyright claim something that you only made by giving a prompt to an AI it could be identified as fraud. You technically didn't make the art; an AI did all the work from the prompt that was given to it. The final rule I would make is that there should also be disclaimers for if something is made from an AI. There has recently been a trend of making voices through AI programs. Some AIs are able to perfectly replicate a voice, and the only way to identify them is in the way they may say words or if their tone matches the thing they're talking about. This could ruin the lives of people if it were to fall into the wrong hands. Politicians can be framed for something they didn't say and court evidence can be faked.
Overall, there should be restrictions on AI. It has many imperfections and they will most likely smoothen out in the future, but as it is now it could be a danger.
I agree with your point, but I will be honoured if someone copies my work because it can lead to global recognition if it is linked back to my original masterpiece, which should be done with permission. I also believe that someone who uses artificial intelligence to create art can be called an artist because it takes a lot of imagination to improve on someone else's work. I also believe that with the advancement of AI and its application in other fields of study, we will be able to take more risks and reduce the many limitations of humans, particularly in fields such as medicine.
Based on my research about AI and The Arts, AI can copy other artists' styles through a process called style transfer. Style transfer involves analyzing the patterns and textures of an artwork and then applying those attributes to a new piece of art. While this can be a useful tool for artists looking to experiment with different styles or create new artwork based on existing styles, there are also ethical considerations to be made. Some people argue that copying other artists' styles could be seen as a form of plagiarism, as it involves taking someone else's creative work and using it for one's own purposes. Others argue that style transfer is simply a tool and that the ethical implications depend on how it is used. For example, if an artist uses style transfer to create new artwork that is clearly inspired by a particular artist's style but adds their own unique twist, this could be seen as a form of homage rather than plagiarism. Finally, the question of whether AI should be able to copy other artists' styles is a complex one that depends on many factors, including the intended use of the artwork and the ethical implications of copying someone else's work. Ultimately, it is up to individuals and society to determine what is acceptable and what is not when it comes to As an AI language model, I don't have personal feelings or emotions, but I can provide some insight into how people might feel about having their work closely copied.
How we strike the right balance between innovation and inspiration form artists and honouring their hard work?
The person who uses artificial intelligence to modify the idea of another artist and develop it to produce a new creation must take permission in advance from the artist and mention that the origin of the idea in his work belongs to this artist and by this way he will give appreciation and respect for the original effort and by this way we protect the artist’s right and copyright and we have created a new innovative idea from the effort of a great artist as a base for this new idea .