Matthew Allen’s AI art won first prize at the Colorado State Fair. But the US government has ruled it can’t be copyrighted because it’s too much “machine” and not enough “human.”

Why This Award-Winning Piece of AI Art Can’t Be Copyrighted::Matthew Allen’s AI art won first prize at the Colorado State Fair. But the US government has ruled it can’t be copyrighted because it’s too much “machine” and not enough “human.”

  • raoulraoul@lemmy.worldEnglish
    12·
    10 months ago

    Our thinking is not that different. There is a world of difference of describing an image and creating it.

    But I have to strongly disagree with the rest of your assessment. Beyond the flood of six-fingered waifu, I’ve seen some beautiful, legitimate works created by this new tool. If you have to use an “ai algo” you’ve already defeated the purpose. It’s illustrations we’re discussing here, not banknotes.

    BTW, do you consider Photoshop/Krita/GIMP artists “scammers”? Blender/Maya/Cinema4D artists? Who are these “actual artists” of which you speak?

    In any case, we’re still in uncharted territory. And personally I’m not crazy about the work in question. It LOOKS (by my “actual artist trained eyes”) AI generated, regardless of the human Photoshop retouching involved.

    • HaggierRapscallier@feddit.nlEnglish
      3·
      10 months ago

      BTW, do you consider Photoshop/Krita/GIMP artists “scammers”? Blender/Maya/Cinema4D artists? Who are these “actual artists” of which you speak?

      This comparison automatically invalidates any point you may have made.

      You say our thinking is not so different, and then defend machine-generated art as legitimate creation?

      To be clear, when I say AI tools, I mean for collecting references, making poses and future enhanced basic transform/select/etc tools. I don’t mean generating entire complete peices of art.

      Selling AI art on platforms that actual artists sell their work on, is a scam. Since illegitimate work is flooding human creations. NFTs are often scams too.