An artist drawing a particular train on the track has stolen from the vision of the engineers and designers that built the train, by interpreting what they see and showing it to the world.
An artist drawing fanart of a character has stolen from the moneymaking, copyrighted and trademarked ip of a company and their artists who designed the character, by showing their interpretation instead of letting the original artists display theirs.
A photographer taking a picture has stolen from the livelihood of the still portrait painter, who’s entire career revolves around quickly and accurately painting a scene that is in front of them, something a camera does “perfectly” and “without skill”.
In all these cases, the only ones that are shot down on the definition of “stealing” (copyright infrjngement, not the same) are those that replicate what they see to an exacting degree.
Only an AI image that replicates the art of an artist to a confusably exact degree, enough to be falsely and fraudulently passed as the work of said artist, then is used to defraud said artist by being labelled as the artist’s work, would be eligible to be considered “stolen”.
The point of this sub is merely a guessing game. It is not a moneymaker. If you feel so strongly about this, why are you here?
If you feel you must throw your money at an artist, then by all means, flex your disposable budget that I do not have in a commisssion and post it here when it is done. Have us guess what song this image was inspired by.
I’m here because I didn’t realize until you pointed it out it said anything about AI (even though I read the description and didn’t see it say AI until you pointed it out), also it’s been showing up on my timeline, so I thought I would take a shot about why AI art is bad.
Now for the counterarguments:
Technically, fanart boosts popularity of a show, if companies didn’t like it, they would’ve taken it down almost immediately.
Photography in itself is a form of genuine art. Also, that argument only “works” if an artist was at that location and drew it. Most artists take photos in order to draw what they see in nature. I put works in quotes because the argument really doesn’t work, and in fact, professional photography does take skill.
In this sub itself, there have been countless posts copying the Pixar art style, which in your definition is considered “falsely and fraudulently passed as the work of said artist”, so your point?
Hey, I don’t have money either, but at least I have moral respect for artists who do this for a living, and would support them in any way I could.
Edit: Regardless, after this note I am blocking this community. Hoorah for you I guess, I still don’t agree with your decisions.
The Dreamworks animation style is a blatant copy of the Pixar art style, which itself is a smooth textured, cartoony animation style but with 3D that has been done by countless kid’s animation series now, and yet, Disney has not slaughtered them all. One can not truly own a “style” in a generic sense like that. Now if one were to make a fake Pixar movie graphic using AI and deliberately mislead people with it by claiming it’s an actual Pixar render, that would be “stealing”. That’s not what is happening here.
An artist drawing a particular train on the track has stolen from the vision of the engineers and designers that built the train, by interpreting what they see and showing it to the world.
An artist drawing fanart of a character has stolen from the moneymaking, copyrighted and trademarked ip of a company and their artists who designed the character, by showing their interpretation instead of letting the original artists display theirs.
A photographer taking a picture has stolen from the livelihood of the still portrait painter, who’s entire career revolves around quickly and accurately painting a scene that is in front of them, something a camera does “perfectly” and “without skill”.
In all these cases, the only ones that are shot down on the definition of “stealing” (copyright infrjngement, not the same) are those that replicate what they see to an exacting degree.
Only an AI image that replicates the art of an artist to a confusably exact degree, enough to be falsely and fraudulently passed as the work of said artist, then is used to defraud said artist by being labelled as the artist’s work, would be eligible to be considered “stolen”.
The point of this sub is merely a guessing game. It is not a moneymaker. If you feel so strongly about this, why are you here?
If you feel you must throw your money at an artist, then by all means, flex your disposable budget that I do not have in a commisssion and post it here when it is done. Have us guess what song this image was inspired by.
I’m here because I didn’t realize until you pointed it out it said anything about AI (even though I read the description and didn’t see it say AI until you pointed it out), also it’s been showing up on my timeline, so I thought I would take a shot about why AI art is bad.
Now for the counterarguments:
Technically, fanart boosts popularity of a show, if companies didn’t like it, they would’ve taken it down almost immediately.
Photography in itself is a form of genuine art. Also, that argument only “works” if an artist was at that location and drew it. Most artists take photos in order to draw what they see in nature. I put works in quotes because the argument really doesn’t work, and in fact, professional photography does take skill.
In this sub itself, there have been countless posts copying the Pixar art style, which in your definition is considered “falsely and fraudulently passed as the work of said artist”, so your point?
Hey, I don’t have money either, but at least I have moral respect for artists who do this for a living, and would support them in any way I could.
Edit: Regardless, after this note I am blocking this community. Hoorah for you I guess, I still don’t agree with your decisions.
The Dreamworks animation style is a blatant copy of the Pixar art style, which itself is a smooth textured, cartoony animation style but with 3D that has been done by countless kid’s animation series now, and yet, Disney has not slaughtered them all. One can not truly own a “style” in a generic sense like that. Now if one were to make a fake Pixar movie graphic using AI and deliberately mislead people with it by claiming it’s an actual Pixar render, that would be “stealing”. That’s not what is happening here.