Posts

@Background Pony #5D08
What?

@Parallel Black
Thats awkward…

Thank you for doing the intelligent thing. If you banned it outright, it would still be here, there would just be no way to filter it. Programs like NovelAI’s art generator have reached the point where one very sometimes can’t tell the difference, so all banning it does is ensure there’s no way to filter it.

@The Smiling Pony
/)

@Background Pony #E316
I have no idea who you are (or particularly care), but even a blind child knows what you are.

And I guess it’s easy to not have “a problem” when +90% of people don’t know or care that you exist.

@The Smiling Pony
Aw, you remember me! I’m also quite happy to see you posting, at least I see my DNP was a very good decission and nothing changed regarding the atmosphere here. Don’t worry, my “bad smell” won’t outperform the musky aroma of derpi drama, even if I tried really hard - I won’t beat you in this discipline, senpai~

Since you mentioned “who you are and where you came from” - it’s quite interesting how altboorus don’t have such problems with aggressive artists and heated discussion about AI art. A different userbase, maybe?

@Background Pony #E316
Site isn’t in the US, but go on I guess.

Site already decided AI art isn’t getting banned, but thanks for spelling out “who” you are and where you came from.

It’s always fascinating seeing people that swore off the site years ago still linger around here like a bad smell.

@The Smiling Pony
If you think tbe US copyright law is irrelevant and adds nothing to this topic, then maybe it’s a good idea to check it out! After all, the law comes first, then some rules on a furry/pony booru. I also believe some advices how to cope with AI generated art also will help to keep your mental health in good condition - some people prefer to be angry and ban things because they simply reject the idea of accepting something and try to convince others to “cancel” it. That’s pretty unhealthy in my opinion, and ofter ends with silly drama and pointless polarization over a simple idea. But you know, it’s just my opinion.

Anyways, thanks for your ‘congrats’, I’m happy I made you reply to me ^:)

@Background Pony #E316
k, congrats on coming here 8 days after the topic ended to add nothing to it 👍

You cannot copyright an artstyle, period. If AI creates a picture of a pony and it looks similar to one of your pics - too bad, you shared your original pic in the first place on the internet, other people (and computers) can use it as a reference.
If it makes you angry because “computers stealing my job and money” - too bad, it’s like those chaps screaming “immigrants stealing my jobs and money, ban immigrants!”. Get yoursef together, innovate, add new stuff to your art. You can’t get money from that? Too bad, find another, real job - at some point in 20th century a lot of blacksmiths had change their profession, as cars became more popular than horses.
Or you can always, I don’t know, make art because you like it. If someone wants to pay, that’s vcool, but if someone doesn’t want - that’s ok too.

@CookieGalaxy
If the resulting work is derivative of an artist, the artist should be credited.

But this gets into ‘style emulation’ … if an AI is simply emulating the style of a specific artist, is that a derivative work? Generally, no. But depending on how tightly it ‘emulates’ then it might be. So I don’t believe there is an answer for that other than looking at it case-by-case.

Without having any clear answer whether the model itself is a copyrightable work of art, if the model is also copyrightable, then the person who owns that copyright should also be credited. But, right now I don’t think models in similar branches of art are copyrightable. Like, is a Blender model copyrightable? I honestly don’t know. Again, it’s case-by-case.

So, any information that helps us work each case is helpful.

If it’s not clear, but you know which artist’s works a piece was specifically tailored around or was ‘informed by’ then mentioning them in the description at a minimum seems polite. For example if you did a style emulation of artist:the weaver then even if the result is not itself derivative, at least saying that in the description at least is the polite thing to do.

2LDR: If the resulting work is emulating someone’s style, it’s not clear that could be a copyright infringement but it would be nice to at least credit the artists whose works ‘informed’ the emulation. Depending on how tightly it ‘emulates’, and whether it ‘emulates’ a specific image, it might be a copyright infringement - and some have been found to be very derivative - so if one of the inputs was a particular artist’s work, crediting that artist and even linking to the image that was used as the ‘make one of these’ inputs would be very helpful if a copyright claim is filed.

Maybe that could be a ‘best practice’. But it certainly doesn’t seem to be something we can actually enforce, since it’s not really possible to reverse engineer which artist or which specific image was used for much of the works that are being uploaded.

@Ciaran
It’s for me more than anyone. I’ve had multiple people ask how they should credit the models and tag the images. Since I’ll be telling them what is recommended, I’d like to be giving out accurate information.

@CookieGalaxy
I’m sorry, no. I don’t see how an app-by-app table like that would be useful here. We have enough trouble getting people to simply tag the artist whose work they just edited, much less having them work a process through a table to find out who or what goes where.

@Ciaran
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QC_oTSWgQJtKUPSyXwD-gNKNaQJePYOvy43Bzv3heY8/edit?usp=sharing

Would you be able to help fill in any of the blanks or provide corrections?

I want to build an easy to use tag guide for generated art images that I and the people in the purplesmart.ai discord server can use.

@PeppermintSwirl
If history is any guide, we ought to encourage the computer’s painting career to ensure the least-destructive survival for humanity.

@Exedrus
Signs point to no, except possibly for e6.

@Ciaran
May I second the idea for director: prefix? It would be a logical compliment to editor: for people involved in creating images who aren’t original artists. One for being the computer’s boss and the other for performing modifications to an existing artwork.

L.H.O.O.Q. artist:Leonardo da Vinci editor:Marcel Duchamp

please dont kill us AI we didnt mean any disrespect

@Cocaine
Although I can’t moderate this thread because I am participating in it, I think it’s ok for me to let you know that you appear to have started attacking others personally, instead of replying to their points.

It is understandable if you find this discussion very upsetting, but please keep your replies to others civil.

This is something that we have been discussing on this site since the first Pony Creator image showed up. Kisake and subsequent tools have only made more people involved, but the conversation has not changed much in the last half dozen years.

So, don’t be surprised if it takes some time for this to get worked out.

At which point, of course, it will just get turned on its head again because some new technology will become available.

@CookieGalaxy & @Background Pony #38F5 & @Hazy Skies

The artist: tag is how this site tracks (and, if verified, conveys) copyright, and artists always retain their rights to any derivative works created by an editor.

By default, anything machine learning generated is derivative. The person behind whatever tool creates the machine learning generated image is not, by definition, an artist. They’re more like someone ‘directing’ kisake.

So I personally would very much prefer that anyone creating machine learning generated works gets a different tag, and are not permitted to use the artist tag.

Simply put, the director of the AI is not the copyright holder of a unique work of art. They’re something else - we don’t know what they are, but for the purposes of the site where copyright is concerned the person directing the AI is handled the same as someone using a paper doll program like kisake, or something like PonyTown or PonyCreator.

At best, they are an editor:, because their work is, by definition, derivative. Although their process is not an ‘editing’ process, the level of copyright which they have is that of an editor:.

How this works today in practice is if there is a report for Rule #1 against an image tagged machine learning generated, and if there is a verified artist: tag on the image, then the verified artist would be contacted to see how they want the image handled. The assumption being that the image is derivative of one or more of their copyrighted works.

So, the original artist - the person with the verified artist: tag - would be able to request a takedown of the image. Regardless of who ‘directed’ the AI that created the derivative machine learning generated image, the original artist’s rights are reserved.

The uploader, or ‘director’, are either ignored, or are handled as if they were editor: of the image.

On this site, the artist always retains their rights. And the verified artist: tag is a part of that process.

And, under current policies, someone ‘directing’ an AI is not going to be made a verified artist. They do not have a unique body of copyrightable work.

People might give themselves an artist: tag, but without a body of unique copyrightable works, they can’t be verified.

Technically, right now the way I am handling any Rule #1 reports or takedown requests where the machine learning generated tag is concerned, the person who uploaded the image is just the uploader, and the person who ‘directed’ the AI is treated as an editor:. If there is an artist tag on the image, and that tag is verified, then I contact the artist to find out how they prefer the reported image be handled.

Aside from that, I’m following our existing policies, informed by the first post in this thread:

So, I really hope if a tag is used to identify the ‘director’ of the AI, it will not be artist:.

That tag already is in use, and has some pretty hefty precedence, rules, and processes attached to it.

@CookieGalaxy
U literally defending art theft. It can’t be original by definition. We all know how it works.

Also it’s interesting how u claim to have a perspective of the people you’re ‘fighting’ but also not personally bothered

@Exedrus
I’m referring to

“techbro”, “braindead” appear to be insults and the results of these networks are clearly more original than just tracing an image or copy-pasting cutouts. That much I think is undebatable.

I’m not personally bothered but I do think avoiding insults and being empathetic helps a great deal with discussions. I’ll just ignore Cocaine and follow this thread less closely. Nothing appears to be happening and it’s not like the result of these discussions would impact me anyway. I just thought maybe someone would appreciate seeing from the perspective of the people you’re ‘fighting’, so you could make more informed and accurate arguments.

@CookieGalaxy
The only extreme and wrong thing there is ai generated pics

@CookieGalaxy
I’m not a lawyer, but I am fairly certain that artists are allowed to basic stipulations to their art like “you can’t use it to train an AI”. It’s not really that far off from saying something like “you can’t reprint my art without my permission”, which is pretty much what people expect most of the time.

And there are some pretty obvious differences between an MLP fan seeing someone’s art and an AI training off of it. Minimally, an MLP fan has the capacity to consider buying commissions from that artist. AI’s don’t. If anything, AIs seem to be racing toward putting artists out of business by replacing them.

@PUBLIQclopAccountant
Do the art sites you’re thinking of have robust tagging/filtering systems? If AI spam happened on Derpi, I think most people would just add machine learning generated to their filters and forget about them.

@Cocaine
Are you okay dude? Your response is a little extreme and just… wrong.

@Parallel Black
Just because it is majority consensus does not make it factually correct.

If you really want an AI art ban, the best way forward would be to encourage others to upload every single low-quality image they generate. All those other sites that ban AI art? Their statements banning it all start with some platitudes on moral rights or whatever to please the artists before opening up with the real reason for the ban

@Parallel Black
this post might also be relevant to you actually