The link to the new statement of policy is in the description, worth a read it’s not too long. I’ll make sure to report back later this year as soon as they tell us more about how they’re gonna deal with AI training , will be interesting 💰 Also, you can use the coupon in the description to get a fat discount on my art program artschool.ai this month. We just passed 17000 students - pure madness 🤯
@@magia4510 Careful with what copyright hellscape that may unleash upon the world. "You can't train on copyrighted material" or "You can copyright a style" puts 99.9% of artists out of business. We'd also be stepping into thought-crime territory if you count the countless copyrighted references in your head that you pull from unconsciously/consciously.
you know what sir marc, i usually ignored paint the background cause its too scared to paint and its hard to matched the color with the character also the perspective kinda makes me to much overthinking about it, but after I watched your videos, now I paint a little bit background in my art and I'm so happy with the results its changed my art alot, thank you sir
It should be pointed out that this is not a policy change. This is a guidance which means that it is a clarification of already existing rules set forth by the copyright office. I think for many of us who looked closely at the rules set by the copyright office previously, these are in effect the same rules as we understood them to be before. The guidance is also in alignment with many precedent already set by courts that have looked at AI works. I'm pleased to see the guidance rationally in accord with the rules as they were already set before only now made more explicit.
This is exactly the kind of clarification that I as an AI art generator user wanted. It exactly aligned with my previous understanding of copyright and doesn't hinder the progress of AI art in any way
Its strictly incorrect though and not what the law or precedence other than one inane court said. Something with far less creative input than the prompt does get copy protection. For instance, the Floorplan of a home. 99% of which cannot be protected because it's function therefore not creative.
@@stephanreiken9912 Just because something serves a function does not mean its not creative. Designing products is a creative pursuit, and its explicitly to create a product that functions in some way to fulfill a need/desire. It still requires critical thinking, and human input in large amounts to successfully execute. AI prompting does not get protection as you are not putting forward any true human input into the final result, you are simply placing tags and keywords for a program to do all of the creating for you.
This should be recommended to every artist that wants to learn about the new laws. Easy to understand, informative, entertaining. It checks all the boxes! As always with your videos (: #1 art educator on youtube!
It’s a laughably absurd reading. If I take a picture of a soup can, I can copyright that picture. Correct? So what do you think happens when I take a picture of a piece of Ai generated art?
@@WhatDoesEvilMean Yes you can. Artists have been sued over copying someone's picture with drawings and making money off of them. Of course you cannot copyright a picture of a soup can, because you'll need to ask the brand's permission first.
AI doesn't even know what it is it's creating. It just takes bits and pieces of work by artists and turns them into a Frankenstein product. Not a shred of meaning of creativity.
@@lacountess it's tool. Does your hammer think about what it's doing, nope. It's what people do and use it that changes the outcome. People still cheating in all ways possible, AI can give just a possibiliy more to do this. AI isn't good or evil, it's the person behind. --- edit: tipos
@@vattende3420 A hammer is only like AI if you could put it on a workbench, tell it to build a chair, and watch it move by itself. If there was such a hammer then carpenters had every right to feel their livelihoods and value of their talent and skill were threatened.
Remember y'all, support human artists 💞🤠 edit: I am seeing lots of people say things like " I I'll save my money for something else", support artists doesn't mean give them money, it can mean just share their work, or engaging somehow.
wow, incredible, the last thing i was expecting was such a sane and lucid ruling from the copyright office. wonderful news. Feels great to be vindicated with lawmakers more or less restating the points we artists have been making about AI all this time.
People are really overreacting. No one cares about ai except for some art youtubers to make content. You're all gonna be fine until ai evolved even further but that's In a few more years ❤
@@sael5084 Sample bias. Go take a look a social media circles with industry professionals, most have something to say -and none of it is pro AI. Development incentive was just handily kneecapped now that selling licensed models to big media companies is off the table legally. Also: sneed.
Marc - firstly, happy birthday! A huge thank you for bringing this to our attention - this feels like a step in the right direction When demonstrating Midjourney with my son, he asked me to prompt “Garfield drinking a coffee in a ballet dress by the fireplace” After 3 or 4 attempts, it became very clear that Midjourney refused to recreate Garfield‘s likeness - rather, producing fat cats that looked nothing like Garfield I could see what a legal nightmare it would have been for Jim Davis if he had to chase after merch sales produced by random scammers trying to profit off his legacy Please keep us updated with your discoveries, this is a win for us for sure
If you use image prompting (uploading an image and pasting URL in the prompt) you can get much closer to the likeness of copyrighted material, it's kind of a super power overhaul of MJs algo. This power can be used for good though, I've been getting great results by uploading my own art and photographic references to have MUCH more control over the outcome of MJ prompts. Great for generating material for photobashing or just basic composition.
Edit: for the love of fucking god! Read the whole fucking thread before going in with pitchforks. I was wrong about this "selling AI art should be illegal". @@nft3 technically yes, but if the copyright law is in place, it wont since you can't even use it for the most part. And selling AI generated images should be illegal since it can't be copyrighted.
@@nft3 it cant create better art if it werent for all the art already made in fact if werent for all the database filled with awesome art taken without consent, the ai would never be this good simply put, there will always be an asian thats better at art than the ai
This is good to hear..as an artist of 30+ years, I recently stopped bothering to create, simply from the demoralising possibilities that AI generated art posed..so this is a step in the right direction.
For real. My business was hammered by the pandemic so I started grabbing art jobs again and when this AI came along I was like “what next?!” Glad you’re creating again, my friend
Don't stop your creativity and unique ideas for a probramm that as of now copies other artists and puts put bland faces that are easily noticeable to be ai. Don't let your dreams be dreams❤❤the
Don't stop no matter what man. Plenty of us non-artists who will avoid this slop. Hell, this stuff actually makes me WANT to pick up drawing and painting myself, like some sort of defying disgust.
@@ShadeAKAhayate We can't all be plumbers. Eventually oversaturation will drive down the salaries and it will be a crappy way to live. I would love to work a blue collar job though
@Based Post AI art shouldn't be viewed as "stealing from human artists" like many of you make it seem, but rather as an evolution of creativity. AI algorithms draw inspiration from existing artworks, much like how human artists are influenced by the art they consume. However, AI goes beyond "replication" and "stealing" and generates unique expressions that push the boundaries of creativity. It's a collaboration between the algorithm and the artist, with AI acting as a tool to enhance the creative process. Rather than being threatened, you should embrace the transformative power of AI in the art world, as it expands possibilities and creates a vibrant, diverse artistic landscape. If you don't adapt, someone who has adapted will take your spot.
@Based Post it seems you're missing the fundamental point about the progression of art and technology. Is your artistic vision so narrow that you can't appreciate the innovation that AI brings to the table? Your dismissal of those who aren't traditionally skilled in art is both elitist and shortsighted. Art isn't an exclusive club. It's a universal expression of human creativity, and everyone deserves a chance to contribute. AI tools just provide that opportunity. Your argument also neglects the fact that even seasoned artists can greatly benefit from AI. It's not about replacing human creativity; it's about augmenting it. Your assumption that the use of AI equates to a lack of skill is no different from scoffing at the use of a paintbrush because fingers existed first. Remember, photography was once looked down upon as a cheat's tool, but look where it stands now. AI art is an evolution, not a theft. If you're feeling threatened, maybe it's time to question your own adaptability. It's not the "artistically impeded" who are taking your spot-it's those who are forward-thinking enough to recognize the vast potential of AI in the art world.
@Based Post haha, your logic is as regressive as it gets. Based on your argument, we might as well scrap all assistive technologies and tools that have revolutionized creativity and expression. You're essentially saying, "Let's slam the brakes on progress and innovation because it threatens my outdated artistic comfort zone." 😂 😂. By your standards, anything that isn't a cave painting is not art. Do you realize where your logic is lacking here? Perhaps it's time you crawl out of your self-created bubble of artistic elitism and view the world from a broader perspective. The future of art isn't going to wait for those clinging to outdated notions of creativity and reality. Adapt or start getting comfortable in the shadows of those embracing change.
Same here. I spent years studying graphic design, computer art, and traditional art. So many hours perfecting my skill in Photoshop and Illustrator, and so many classes of life drawing and concept studying... only for a number-crunching bot to come along, scan my work along with the works of millions of other dedicated artists, and spit out a replica. I was imagining a grim future where employers, instead of hiring graphic designers and tasking them with creating art, would simply ask an assistant to give a list of details to a bot for what they need and get an image that's basically stolen from millions of humans.
yea but lots of people are lazy and don't want to spend the time needed to learn a new skill, people these days just want everything handed to them without effort thus when their 'life line' is at risk they'll put the only effort they've ever put into their lives to fight it but they could have used that effort and learn a skill..
@@f8keuser I've watched many videos of Marc, and he talked before about delayed gratification being far more rewarding. People want their instant gratification, even at the expense of others apparently. I knew many people were like this already, but I had no idea it's like 80% of humanity at least, and I'm being generous with this number. Absolutely disgusting, it might just turn me into a misanthrope.
@@twinguy9633 We are doing that more to protect our place, no one is going to stop you from using ai, also, notice the way you talk about art, "waste precious life time learning art", do you really think you should be able to create art pieces that are on the same level as someone who "wasted their life" on actually learning? (Not trying to attack or ofend you, you have your views on life and what works for you)
What a breath of FRESH AIR you've given us! It's surprisingly precious to have someone like you say that this is just like other lawsuits regarding other tools in the past. Actual passionate artists know what's up! This is an instant sub for me.
What do you mean? No law was passed, and literally nothing changed. We knew AI art wasn't copywritable but in fact, EU came out and said IT CAN BE given the artist actually applied traditional work on it. Though the wording of the law is literally leaving it up in the air as to 'how much work' one needs to put in it. Will just painting 5 lines count as effort? Will 10 lines? Will warping and editing the image or color correcting it count? This law literally didn't do shit neither to change nor clarrify anything, if anything it is giving more of a footing to AI artists to copywrite their art and even sell it as 'traditional' even if it was AI made because they applied their subjectively measured effort on it.
Bureaucrats just pretended nothing changed and that ai art doesn't exist. This is a STALE AIR from a 100 years old closet and you liked it. Says a lot more about you then about them.
What we really need is laws regarding training data and the unethical collection of laundered data through "non-profits" then turning to commercial ventures. We need laws to not only open these training sets to public scrutiny but also open them to litigation if they are caught using copyright data in their training models. The years of people allowing big tech to use their data without compensation needs to come to an end.
Bro, laws won't do sh*t against theft without feasible punishment. And how can you punish Bigd1ck69420 if you can't find them? Criminals are criminals because they break the law, so creating more laws is not the solution.
@@victorvaz3693 No one gives a crap if Bigd1ck69420 is churning out AI pictures of Tifa in his basement, this is about companies replacing artists with AI. If these big companies want to use AI, they should own the rights to the data they use. That way, either the artists have to be compensated for having their data used, or the companies have to hire artists to create their own data sets.
@@leetri Only after artists that have trained on the artworks of others start paying the copyright holders for the reference. And as for the 'public domain' pieces, the state can take the payment. Unless an artist doesn't own the full set of art pieces they were studying on, they have no rights to extract profit from the works based on those. Otherwise, an artist is given an unfair preference.
"Only the transformed parts of an AI generated art piece is protected by copyright" Artists that only fix the hands: *sweats profusely* (Laziness won't be tolerated)
@@AustinGDesigns what "newest version" of what exactly, there are tons of AI engines out there, and a lot of them don't do the same thing as each other, afaik, hands are still a problem with many generators, only ones that are basically glorified instagram filters or sth like that, don't have as much of an issue with hands. I still see tons of AI-generated images have issues with hands.
I was just seeing a video about a musician being sued cause one of his songs had the same "feeling" that another song written years before, and he lost! Yet in the art industry they can even stole your style, your unique artistic identity and no one lifts a finger, people even shamelessly trace and sell merch of your work. I think this all AI thing just helped to show how legally unprotected visual artists are, but hopefully this is going in the right way. I'm really excited about this, thanks for making this video, I would love to see more of this kind of content.
It was an Ed Sheeran were he was sued because his song sounded similar... and no Ed Sheeran won the case thank god. Do you even know how dystopian it would be if Artist's style could be copyrighted? How destructive would it be for the whole art community? Think about it like this big corporation could buy up a ton of "Styles" and sue every artist because there would be a significant similarity. It would destroy fan content for popular franchises because if you hold a copyright YOU have to responsibility to protect it, which means you have to sue people if you find violations.
You people are absolutely delusional, lmao "In the Office's view, it is well-established that copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity. Most fundamentally, the term “author,” which is used in both the Constitution and the Copyright Act, excludes non-humans." It simply clarifies that AI art is not copyright protected.
AI as a tool is really how it should be. I primarily use it to create references and designs I draw on my own. Once I am done, the prompted image never really sees the light of day anyway so no harm done. It is also an excellent learning tool for learning shadings, backgrounds and texture work as well. Like any tool, it's how you use it.
Img2img is awesome as a free instant "paint over" feedback to see what you can do better or differently. It's like a cheat code teacher/mentor on demand.
@@verendale1789 this is exactly what AI helped me with. I spent a lot of time and managed to train an AI model to my own style. Then I used that style with others to see how far and beyond I can still improve my works! It was like a preview of the future but specifically tailored to my own style, which is why those resulting images inspired me very deeply.
Artists also forgot that if AI works were entirely copyrighted, you could essentially churn out infinite images extremely quickly and copyright millions of characters and concepts in a week. So this is also a safeguard against that. Imagine one company owning and suing everyone who has similar artworks or characters to their AI-generated ones. It would be a disaster. And I do like generating AI images. Just for fun. I think it's more important to develop these systems in order to train more sophisticated AI's.
this isnt as big as a win as you think it is. These laws wont be the same for long, they will change them so you can copyright ai art at some point, but right now the fact that it is public domain does not mean people will stop using it to make money. A company can still generate the majority of their work with ai and only use the hand drawn art for original character copyright and main pieces. Its already taken effect in the game industry. This is still going to cut jobs about 80%, public domain doesn't mean much for a lot of artwork.
@@animeswitch hmm yes and no. The only thing we can do now is wait and see how people feel about AI stuff. For and example, do we want to buy a game/comic/digital paint when we somehow know it mostly made by AI ? if that when people will recognize the real value about product they want to buy when there is no labor behind it, then what is the real value ? If we can accept that (which is hardly occur), so we artist are f*cked. Imagine in the future, every piece of art look the same, always have "AI" feel to it if you know what I mean, then we're safe. I still believe AI will be a tool for artist in someday when it's regulated and ethical. Right now it's just like NFT cash grab for big corp, just wait and see when the hot air cool down, they'll try to find another new toy to play with.
@@monsterinsane2228 The issue is that its advancing at rapid speed. It will get to the point where you can just talk to it like a person and ask it to change every little detail perfectly to how you want it to look. You wont be able to tell if its ai or not. Hand drawn art will be a thing of the past in most fields. Its too fast to get the results you want.
@@monsterinsane2228 when was the last time you bought a game due to the labor that was put behind it and not because you liked its concept, gameplay, etc? I literally never once in my life looked at the effort, just the result, and I assure you 99% of consumers only care about that in the end. If a game, picture, comic, story, movie or anything is good as a product, people will buy it regardless of the effort that was put in making it. If AI can do a better job than you, why would I pick you? Because you are a piece of meat? Quite the value you have given yourself there.
In my lifetime I've seen artist freak out about layered digital art and digital art in general replacing the need for hand painted and hand generated artworks for marketing and advertising. This didn't lead to no artist work, it lead to a wider adoption of marketing with cheaply produced media. Art, as a collectable thing, has stayed relatively the same value throughout the upheaval.
I'm amazed that the US is actually responding to AI so quickly lol. These new laws help ease my anxiety about AI bros running around selling "their" art trying to compete with human artists. I suppose that's silly because something created by a human with hours of work and passion is significantly different than something a robot generates in a couple seconds. Also, happy birthday Marc! Thank you for all the work you've put into your videos and the art school. I'm an aspiring tattoo artist and your art school+channel along with a few of my favorite tattoo art channels have made a huge difference in my art gains.
@@ShadeAKAhayate Well, here's our significant difference. Copyright. Besides inefficiency isn't always a bad thing, especially if you want something done right.
Quickly? lol. The damage has already been done. The "art" output of the planet increased a few million fold in a few months, and the majority of new artists only make ai art. And these ai artists on average have 1000% more presence in social media that traditional/digital artists because most people don't even know ai art exists or don't care. All these old models trained on copyrighted images have already mutated into a whole ecosystem. I'm honestly surprised at how broad the impact of these laws are but it's going to be impossible to determine what is ai art pretty soon unless ALL software records your actions and has an ai assess whether it is ai or not BUT by then, it would be trivial for an ai to fake the process.
@@RAFMnBgaming Copyright denial, you mean. In consequence, meaning unfair competition being legitimized. In our world where big corporations write the laws, who will get the short end of the stick, I wonder?
@@ShadeAKAhayate Apparently the big corporations? I'm sure they'd be more than happy to cut people they have to pay now out of the picture and have everything be done automatically but that ain't happening.
I think they can't sell so image as they don't own it at all. Otherwise it would be illegal as they are a commissioner. It would be illegal in the USA. I hope Europe follows soon.
You people are absolutely delusional, lmao "In the Office's view, it is well-established that copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity. Most fundamentally, the term “author,” which is used in both the Constitution and the Copyright Act, excludes non-humans." It simply clarifies that AI art is not copyright protected.
Thank you Marc for bringing this news, the truth is that with the news from Taiwan I was very discouraged since I was planning to enter fine arts, I don't live in the United States but you are on this same side of the pond, the truth is that this gave me back the motivation to continue learning
this probably only happened because of the AI generating music artists voice to make songs and music companies trying to block it. it was all fun and games and crapping on artists not being happy about their work being prompted into the AI blender until music companies realized it wasn't a joke anymore. Artists deserve better and this is a step in the right direction.
That's kind of the good thing about the immense propagation of the AI stuff. The more people this affects the more likely it is to affect people like Nintendo, and they don't take this kind of stuff sitting down. Funny thing is that Getty images became a good guy for a little while. Worst thing is that getting images does the same thing as the AI.
@@FOF275 Some time ago, I had a guy demonstrating his prompt engineering skills to a sort of casual designer guild that I'm a part of. He wanted suggestions for a logo; we were based out of New Mexico, so I suggested the Zia symbol in a few contextually relevant placements. It had no idea what the Zia symbol was, in spite of it being on the state flag, and failed miserably. But let me tell you, from another prompt, it knew _exactly_ what Yoshi looked like. I noped the hell out of that immediately.
I suspect if a creator of an AI generated song took it to court, they would win because what was created is not a copy of an existing song, released or not, and not the actual artist rapping, AND the voice is not actually saying anything. It emulates the artist style, but any human rap artist could do the same thing and be fine as well. In fact, some rap artists have caught a bit of hell for emulating Eminem - but they didn't get shut down either.
The second you mentioned AI training in the video, you gave me a sudden shot of happiness instantly. (I'm still pissed at DeviantArt and others for the way they chose to train their AI)
really glad copyright law exists!! AI art is exsiting technlogy but we cant allow it to destroy the historical art and images it is using as reference to create! great vid!
I love you bro, you calmed my soul, in our discord they talk about Ai and most often they talk about the fact that it makes me give up and I gradually lose the sense of drawing. I have been boxing all my life and literally not so long ago I found what I really like and everything is so sad, as if artists are without help and not as vulnerable, but as I watched your video, I calmed down a little and the meaning came again, thank you so much, I didn’t know about this problem in USA
What a relief with this positive news. I'm immersed studying a few design software and very concerned at the same time with all IA stuff, thinking that all these hours would be wasted. Thank you Marc for making the panorama clearer.
I like their stance on it. I love AI art AS a reference. Basically, I used to search online for hours, have folders of inspirational art that I downloaded. Now I can type a few prompts, generate 20 images, pick my three favorite, then illustrate a separate image entirely based on what I liked about those images.
Yes. It was always meant to be a tool but people could abuse it to be a replacement overall. So I'm glad the law recognizes it as a tool and not something people can just replace human creativity with.
what's your best one to use? mine has an attitude problem f.r. it literally lies to me then if i say something it doesn't like, it shuts off; like when i requested my image it said it couldn't generate images, that it didn't have the capability. i explained how it's already done that for me, and asked why they wouldn't do it now, they ended the conversation. there have been many similar instances and the bing ai chat has just decided it will no longer do that for me
One of the few RUclipsrs to give me a positive outlook for an art career. Thanks for the video. Woke up on the wrong side of the bed and thoughts on ai were bothering me.
I am a lead concept artist in Korea working for one of the world's biggest game companies. My team members and I are being forced to use A.I image generator by the company for a couple of weeks now. We are asked to create one polished illustration every second or third day, which needed at least one or two weeks in the former days. We are very frustrated that we are not given a choice about using the tools to create. This brought some of us to tears. For me, I am considering changing my job. It pains me to dictate to my team artists tasks that don't make sense to me either. I laughed at A.I images a few months ago when I first saw it. There is one concept artist in another team in my company, he's world's famous unlike me. Surprisingly, he's been also suffering from the ai generator issues and thinking about switching jobs.. As a huge fan of his paintings, it would be very sad if his new genuine paintings were no longer created. I've always been open to using any kind of tool to create artwork. I use game engines and 3D tools and am aware those were also controversial methods in the past. However, A.I generator is absolutely different to it in a regard that it is not only stealing but also it will be used by companies for hiring smaller numbers of Artists, not for the artist's convenience. The controversy over this copyright issue has not yet started in Korea but my guess is, at least in here, they will use ai generator to save money even if they give up the copyright of some images. Or concept artists will have to spend most of their time to overpaint the A.I generated image not to to avoid violating copyright laws. I hope that clear and wise standards for copyright and artist rights will be established also here in Korea as soon as possible.
@@бабубээээээ The size of the company ranks among the top 15 in the world. I hear from my friends in the game industry that other companies bigger than mine are also researching ai image generators. I will tell here later if I left the job
@@group555_ Yea, their argument probably is a prompt means a human created it, but that is an obvious lie. They are trying to make creativity a crime. Typical really, it's something out of the scope of the usual stupidity.
This very nice for the US. Everyone watching keep in mind that Copy Right differs by country. When you get in trouble with copy right you are trialed where you live. So you are always under your own country's jurisdiction. I recommend looking up your own countrys law.
AI could really be used to benefit artists, like filling in frames in animations etc but unfortunately, most AI artists are just looking for a quick dopamine hit. AI art is literally just instant gratification. Instead of aiding creativity, AI art is actually killing it. I mean, we're gonna have less artists because most people will not spend years honing their art skills when they can just generate a good looking piece with a few google searches. So where are we actually headed? There are gonna be less actual artists and that means a smaller pool of data for AI art to be trained on so eventually AI art will pretty much look the same.
Few good artists are infinitely better than hordes of 'artists' drawing the same thing over and over. In that sense, AI can drive trash creators out and set a hard limit to how low an artist can fall.
These are actually great news, my mood has been affecting my studies this past month in regards to this topic, I'll have to take you at your word for this, sensei, and keep trying to learn art
If you think an ai would be able to distinguish a human artist and a machine, i would argue you are probably wrong about that. If anything, we artists must always document our creation proccess to keep the rights it seems..
speed paints would be popping out more often than before and I would recommend to artist adding a camera directly recording their hands while drawing so people can be sure no one is using ai during those speed paint also stuff like live traditional painting would become more popular than before I was actually interested on taking some traditional oil painting classes for myself
I typically draw on paper and edit on a computer, so I have physical evidence that my work is mine and mine alone. Plus, I tend to give WIPs during commissions, so I leave breadcrumbs leading to the final piece too. This doesn't affect me much, but I can see how it can be a bit of a pain for purely digital artists, especially those who may jealously protect their approach and techniques.
@@ForOne814 what are u basing this off? Everything can be art. AI art is instant art and there is no expression or feeling in it. Saying modern art shouldn't be called art is a very ignorant and small minded way of thinking.
@@Karan-zs7uf there can be expression and feeling in it. Depends entirely on what the AI generates. AI art is definitely better on average than taping banana to a wall or meaningless brushes of paint on a canvas.
@@ForOne814 yes but at least those people invested their time and we're trying to express something. A 5 years old drawing is better than AI art (not in quality of course, just because it's ART. Bad art is better than fake art.)
I think we should avoid the "art" branding by the AI companies and star calling the image generated by AI as AI graphics. So, like CGI in this case it would be AGI. I'm not pretending to start a discussion about art. Cuz even for me, a Mandelbrot series is art (even being a fractal CGI). That way, with the right terms we can say: Copyright protects art. Something created with creativity and intent. Thanks for the amazing video Marc!
Not an american (from the smol country of europe), openly disagree with one or two american laws, but this... this right here, I needed this, I have been frozen in trying to draw for many reasons for too long and the AI art was the final nail in the coffin. I don't even feel happy, this just feels like a relief... like doing the right thing and screw the consequences, it just feels *right.* PS: Happy Birfday!
@@thelying2594 Was a throwaway comment, we got worse stuff in europe. They people too, they mess-up. But hey, just like you said, these smol wins do feel kinda good!
@@Dank_Lulu it’s sad there’s people upset about them in the comments lol, lazy fuckers I’d assume, especially when they say we’re gatekeeping art as if they can’t go and learn the skill themselves or, y’know… pay an artist to commission a piece
4:17 - 4:33 I was doing this for years and reluctant to share, it felt fun and rewarding yet felt like cheating at the same time which made me reluctant to share. You do not know how much this means to me, but a huge thank you for lifting this weight off my shoulder. I tend to do the sane thing with screenshots I've taken from Video games. Happy Birthday by the way.
i do this as well and imo, its a good way to learn, specially since you are using things you like as reference. To me, practice feels way better when doing it that way, instead of taking some random picture on pinterest or google
Honestly I don't like the works done with A.I. They take away the fun of learning to draw by yourself. If the A.I. fails then we will have to draw using our own knowledge and ingenuity. The A.I. It's for people who don't want to learn on their own.
seriously, once you know how vile the training and data mining that go on behind every single AI art no matter how ''beautiful'' or rather ''how appealing to the eye'' it is it becomes ugly art in the end of the day is WAAAAAAAY more than what meets the eye and what's behind AI art is just plain immoral
You people are absolutely delusional, lmao "In the Office's view, it is well-established that copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity. Most fundamentally, the term “author,” which is used in both the Constitution and the Copyright Act, excludes non-humans." It simply clarifies that AI art is not copyright protected.
Surprisingly I've grown even more excited to pursue art commissions and design work even through all this stuff. I'm considering going for a law degree after my business one because copyright law seems pretty lucrative now coz of AI even as a consultant.
Wow thanks for the news its kinda take some burden in my back because this ai thing, since my favorite artist encourage his follower to start using ai,its hurt me actually and make me down to study art, but this news make some smile to my face, thank you
I have always said that AI art can't be copyrighted. There was already precedent for stuff like this, believe it or not in Naruto the monkey. Naruto (the monkey, not the anime character) took a selfie of himself with a photographer's camera. That selfie was unable to be copyrighted because it was not the result of human authorship. Monkeys aren't human and neither is AI. Case closed. But just because AI art can't be copyrighted, doesn't mean it doesn't have it's place, just so long as it's trained on non copyrighted works or works which the creator(s) of the AI hold the rights to or has permission to use. AI art is great for people with no time or desire to learn to draw or paint, who just want to bring an idea to visual life to show their friends. It's also great for slapping a bunch of concepts into existence to see what works and what doesn't, without having to first draw them. The non-artist can then give their ai concept art as reference to a real, human artist who can create, for them, a final product, inspired by (but not a copy of) the ai art, which can then, be copyrighted.
Thanks to this video, I feel like drawing again! With the news happening in the video game industry in china about artists being fired to be replaced by AI and the artists just fixing the mistakes made by the machine, it made me very sad. But knowing that on this side of the world things are being more coherent makes me happy again. Thanks a lot Marc
You people are absolutely delusional, lmao "In the Office's view, it is well-established that copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity. Most fundamentally, the term “author,” which is used in both the Constitution and the Copyright Act, excludes non-humans." It simply clarifies that AI art is not copyright protected.
Here's a hopeful thought for you as an artist - one of the things we're learning about AI is that art models tend to be most effective when trained towards a specific sort of end result. If someone wants to set up a really killer model for making pictures of cars, then they need to get lots of cool photographs of cars from different angles, and having other subjects interacting with the cars in the specific sorts of way that might be desirable to see in the output images. Now with cars, that's easy enough, take the photos from the right variety of angles and position the flags and the pit crews. But what if you want a model that makes kickass dragons? Can't photograph them, so you need artists willing to draw lots and lots of dragons doing suitably dragon-like things, from multiple angles and different poses. Likewise, if someone wants to generate pictures of themselves, they can make a Textual Inversion or Lora "mini pack" from a small number of images and train the AI locally, and it's not hard to get famous characters or movie stars in AI the same way, but what if you want to be able to generate images of an original character, or someone from history? The material to train on isn't available, so you'd have to commission an artist to draw like 5-12+ pictures of the character or person in question from different angles and in different contexts. So, as much as you might lose some business to AI, it's also possible that it'll develop whole new markets for artists. Being able to sell someone a picture of a character that they have in their mind doing whatever they wish is cool and saleable, but being able to sell someone twenty pictures of their character on the understanding that this will let them generate ten thousand more is even cooler and more saleable. If things like Stable Diffusion really take off. Since training is more resource-intensive than generating pictures, you could even sell Textual Inversions and Loras directly, trained on art that you custom-make for the purpose and purchasable by people who might want to introduce an art AI to a new concept, but don't have a machine that can handle it.
brother this wont affect companies cutting down 20%+ of their workload just AI generating icons, portraits and other random things an artist wouldve otherwise had to do. AI can still replace a ton of workload artists otherwise wouldve done while keeping the most skilled artists for the bigger projects. this will happen in every industry though so dont worry! we are all gonna get hit. artists are just the first wave.
To respond in general, as everyone has good points of view. I would like to express the fact that at least some progress could be made on this problem in some sense. I hope that in the future, more progress will be made on this issue 😊
EXCUUUUSE ME ???? Today's artwork is amazing !!!??!!!? sorry the video was interesting but I was literally hypnotized by your painting ! omg, gg, great work ! i'm in awe 😍
I’m so glad about this. RUclips won’t stop recommending videos of how to sell AI art that’s generated and sold as is, and it doesn’t sit well with me at all. It’s not their art. It’s the machine’s, and in a way, also all the artists online out there whose work have been taken and used by the AI for a prompt.
Perhaps it will be turned around. If it is hopeless to recognize AI art (all though much of it is quite recognizable) we will find a way mark real art as certified human.
@@REE-Animation no you won't be able to in the USA. As you can't sell commission work like prints. So, if they are seen as commissioner they wouldn't have the right to sell it and because it's a ai they can't give permission.
@@-Pridebycreatons- AI can't prosecute you for copyright violation either, so you truly can do it. And commision work is not the only way to sell art. In a commision work you sell the right to use your art not just the art itself. Nobody prevents you from selling the art that is in public domain (so you can sell AI art as well).
@@-Pridebycreatons- You, as in you specifically, could take a public domain image, print it on a mug and sell it for profit. Any public domain image/image without copyright can still be sold, the only difference is that I could sell the same public domain image you are selling. So an image that is completely AI generated, is in the public domain and anyone can use it/sell it for anything they want, but nobody can copyright it. This applies to America as well. If I modify an image in the public domain, I can now claim copyright on the elements of the image that I changed, which only protects my modified version, but not the original. So I could essentially create an AI image, print it on shirts and sell it, but on the flip side I can't sue anyone if they also start selling the same shirt with the same print. Disney does not own the stories of Snow White or Cinderella, for example. So anyone can use the story of Cinderella and Snow White. They hold copyright on the animation though, since they did it themselves and wanted to be the sole distributors of their animated films. If their animation was somehow public domain, then anyone could sell those movies for profit. Even you and me. What this law does is that it actually protects you from being sued by someone pumping out a million AI images per day and copyrighting all of the characters in them, preventing many artists from being able to even come up with something new or cool looking without an AI potentially having done it already and blocking you. So this is a good thing for everyone, but it doesn't actually work like that. Not to mention that NVIDIA, Adobe etc. are making image generators as well, with licensed images, so they could potentially make the law change when it comes to their own material being used to train their AI systems. Anyway, once AI does video or even games, most people will move on that only seek profit. An AI images can be generated for free, so why on earth would I pay someone who's telling the machine to draw, when I can just do it myself and continue to pay normal artists anyway. I honestly don't understand why anyone was panicking. This is the best time for art in human history. Most of the legends of old barely got by on their art, now millions of people can sell their art online and offline and earn money anyway, not to mention they can build a connection to the artist and their work, which is truly where the money ACTUALLY comes from. I know and knew plenty of people with extraordinary artistic abilities earning next to nothing, so it has become quite clear to me that the artist and their vision is the prime money maker, not the art in itself. The only people that will suffer are people accepting commissions for extremely personalized art for "private use", involving anthropomorphic animals and Tifa, which is a copyrighted character that is being sold by some artists. You can almost bypass all copyright laws by making the characters get involved in adult activities too and still earn money. This whole thing has a lot of nuance.
I understand and agree with all the logic. And yet I get viscerally upset when I see people posting AI generated content. I get upset when I see people advertising AI generated content on Fiverr or something. These people are bottom feeders. They didn't even write the code that is able to generate the images. They are twice removed from the skills it takes to do anything outside of advertise. Ultimately, conversely, I think it will only add value to people who have the actual skills. Dollars-to-donuts the AI people will over saturate the market, making artists more valuable.
Artists are really desperated AI art for free / cheap vs paying a God Tier artist for the same quality? Anyone will take the cheap way any day There's already so much free automated stuff that's done better by a computer and I don't see anyone complaining, only "artists"
@@DawoopFilms the problem is that A.i. art is NOT thier own art. It's stolen artwork from all the other artists, the A.I art is essentially a bomb infused with all artworks that fits the prompt, the artworks it took from are all unconsented by the artists. Artwork from an A.I. is not acknowledged as an actual artwork since it wasn't a.i. that makes the artwork anyway as it is plagerising actual works made by artists.
@@randomaccount3500 Almost everything automated by computers require an input, so of course it had to be trained on images in this case This case is no special, training requires an input, but you guys keep treating this AI as an special case when it isn't Also, if the guys were to train the AI all over again using non-copyright images, same story, we will get to this point when AI replaces human work
@@DawoopFilms if they used only non copyright images they won't end up with crap, I reckon they would really struggle to find enough artists who want to sign up to draw themselves out of existence. And the current trend of being able to ask an A.I to draw in someone's specific style by naming them will be pretty much entirely gone, as it should be.
@@ewancarey5847 Thing is it already exists and other people can train their own models, what are we gonna do? Place laws anti AI in the entire world and cut off the internet for everyone? Let's be real Ya'll should adapt quickly because these things can't be stopped, slow them is most you guys can do
The thought of computer generated art seems so gross to me for some reason. Like, there’s no passion, no love put in the art. It’s what lit the fire for me to start studying art to rebel against this. Even if there’s nothing really to rebel against, I’m still glad that I’m motivated to study art!
"Like, there’s no passion, no love put in the art." People said the same thing about Photoshop. Learn the new tools and see for yourself what they can add to your process. A pencil, a tablet, or an AI, there's exactly as much passion as you the human put into it.
@@damienk7311 but with photoshop you still need to know the basics of anatomy, light and shadows, colors etc. With AI you don't need that anymore, just type out a couple of words and tadaa. That's what is not cool. It's like saying I cooked my meal but in reality I ordered take out
@@starlighttigerx268 Exactly. People really go on saying Accept the Tool, embrace the change, use Ai as tool. But how do we even do that, they just put words get whatever illustration, that's absolute BS. Literally no work put into it. Digital Art just reduced the need of art supplies and some other complicated stuf but AI completely deleted the drawing process and it just comes of instant images.
@@Karan-zs7uf Yeah! That’s what I mean! I feel like drawing it yourself, no matter the format, is part of the fun, putting in your own individual touch!
Basically, significantly transform the machine's work before attempting to claim your own ownership of any part of the results, and also ensure you have this in place with comparisons to originals before attempting to file a claim with the copyright office. Most of my concept art panels are fair use-friendly, if not explicitly CC-BY-A or similar. Just don't sell it, or use it for slander, and I don't usually get fussy.
I do really like the copyright law for AI so far, the training is very much a heavy subject, particularly when you can literally train a subject of as little around 10 images to replicate a style or character. Personally though, i forsee bigger laws put into effect given just how much AI is able to replicate humans, down to copying vocal tones now to replicate people. It'd be very easy for criminals now to train an ai on someones voice for example, and it's only getting worse with the chat gpt too mimicing language and mannerisms. I know thats not specifically art, but it can be used in the creation of games, movies etc which is relevant
I've been saying for a bit that we're going to need stricter laws on using a person's likeness in media, ever since they brought back Tupac. I've got a feeling AI is going to force their hand on that now.
It should be completely outlawed. Arts aren't a necessity and flooding the world with it and devaluing it isn't something laws need to protect and permit to happen when it requires the very creators it displaces to fuel it. It is parasitic technology
@@Wynaro no WE shouldn't do that that's litteraly the most idiotic and retarded thing ive ever Heard i dont understand how artist Can genuenely be this ridiculously moronic
Still finding my way with art...I'll just be the best artist I can be in between my job and see where it takes me and where my place in the art world will be.
Short version : AI-generated art is not able to be copyrighted. But if you have copyrighted art that you feed to one to make Minor adjustment, it retains the copyright protection it already had. Or you can completely transform the generated art so that it no longer resembles the generated work at all (and they've been up front, they mean AT ALL) and copyright your new work. We all knew this was going to be the decision, because the alternative would be an endless back and forth between the AI providers and those providing the instructions to the AIs, each claiming Creative authorship.
You mentioned that the Short version : AI-generated art is not able to be copyrighted. So this means you can copy and claim someone else's AI-generated art as your own. Is that correct? As you mentioned the later the Non generated AI art can be copyrighted.
@@theodorevelentzas1065 Yes? As long as you clearly add in your own style to it. If it's a one to one, then you basically just copied a public domain character, and that's not protected.
This was insanely important for you to post this. You shed light on the process of artwork. Considering Legal team is being paid to audit and make sure the artwork does not step on toes makes the expense of creating simple skins in a live service game understandable how expensive it can get and long time it takes with all the people involved to create something original. Also this puts a point to where AI can be used as a tool more then how evil people make it out to be.
sorry but a "tool" that stole millions of artists properties, should not be allowed to be used.. until the creator of the programm deletes all the drawings they took without permission. such tool should be banned. the creator could feed it their own art, their own picture of nature, human anatony, animals, color theory, line work and sketch work. than it would be a legit tool that can be used. artists are not evil for wanting their property not used without their permission. its our right to not have our hard work stolen and used in a program without our knowledge or permission.... would u be happy if someone took your drawings, cut it to pieces, glued different pieced of each drawing together and than present it like a different piece?
As a digital Matte painter and concept artist myself I would love to see it make a difference but I just don't see how this copywrite law could be enforceable. Ai art is becoming so good at a huge variety of painting styles, I just don't see how you would be able to tell the difference between the human and AI stuff. True at the moment I find you need to heavily edit AI produced work to get it in good shape but this will rapidly change as the transformer models become more proficient and fine tuneable.
Of course, you are absolutely right, AI detectors, even if they are not as supported or evolve as AI, sooner or later may have a higher rate of success or even the laws that are being issued now could give a limit, such as the brands of water for example.
@@jordansaballos2149 An ai art detector is only going to claim a tiny percentage of what is produced and still doesn't prove it was a i. We are in the first stages of a art and you can't produce photorealistic pictures indistinguishable from actual pictures. There it's going to always be a need for artists. But art ai's are an incredible tool for artists. And what I think really upsets a lot of artists is it makes it much easier for many more people to create art and that is some scary competition
@@cdreid9999 I'll be honest, you're absolutely right, brother, it's obvious that the AI came to stay, at least the European Union will put the AI in a less threatening position and it will be perfectly a tool in the future, which is why your friend of mine is right. all your argument.
@@DMDvideo10 good news look what new he said copyright is better news for artists and those """"""artists"""""" of ai now they should be if they want to stand out now for sure ai is a tool
@@slimboarder.o7I love how instead of making an actual cohesive, well-constructed, and insightful counterpoint backed up with believable and reliable evidence you just go in and say "L take"
one thing is for sure, a.i image and video is going to force a change to copy right laws. the only question is do they get better for creators or corporations?
Seeing all the comments in here of Artists feeling like creating again after watching this video makes me feel so much better. I see I wasn't alone in this creative drought that the rise of AI art has caused me. AI art, and the anxiety it caused, put me in a depressive state and I haven't been able to create for months. This video has been a *massive* relief to see. I thought surely things would be going the other direction as money typically talks.. and it still may, but for now my mind can rest a little easier.
aahhh as of recently ive just been thinking about giving up and discontinuing everything that i do. i feel like having a career in art was unreliable enough at the start and with the introduction of ai i just thought about dropping everything, seeing that people were calling themselves "artists" because they put words into a generator and that made me sad. of course its nice to use as a reference for something more specific but i feel useless knowing that someone can just get an image like that in seconds ... im nervous about posting my art online anymore because i feel it will be put into a generator. its just scary...
As an artist, AI enthusiast, and avid user of the related technologies. This certainly caught my interest, and reading through I'm quite happy with the direction they went for, as it benefits all. Those who put genuine work in themselves should indeed retain a copyright of the work. Some things stand out however: If one codes and trains their own AI, does the products of it, the AI being the product of an individual person, retain their copyright still? Are unclaimed AI material considered copyrightless and thus public domain? How much modification is required to no longer be considered AI generation sections? There's still much to be covered, or at the very least clarified clearly. I look forward to when the works of artists is protected whilst also not ostracizing or disrupting AI use in the creative process or for just envisioning.
Well we have some answers about this already. The terms of service for all AI generators that I know states that the images are public domain. So everyone can sell them or use them. And about the amount of the work that is required for copyright that is a blurry line. There are many cases of artworks form the past that was denied copyright and had a lot of work in them and also many that did almost nothing to change source material and won the lawsuit. It is also matter of perspective. Someone would consider minor changes as enough and others not. Most laws regarding art are like his... opened for interpretation determined case by case.
I don't know what happened to the one who had put this (probably, it's censorship, and It'll happen to me, so screenshot this for Good Measure). Essentially, the commenter said that the perception of the Copyright Office regulating AI-generated illustrations as a positive thing stemmed from the idea of AI as the War Against the Artists, and that it would backfire monumentally, considering that Digital Art is aided by electronic devices, just like Artificial Intelligence. And my reply to that is that, even though pointing out the reactions as an "War Against the Artists" and it's obsolesence and consequences is a brilliant point, the person who just got the comment to get Stalin'd would have to face the replies of many people from the Anti-AI circle, that boils down to "It's not a Human, It's a Machine. It's nothing like we've ever done before."
I've read the document and all I see is bureaucrats contradicting themselves and "playing safe" (or so they think). I'm pretty disappointed by this. It's pretty ironic that Japan and New Zealand are looking into the future, while US tries to be as backwards as possible in terms of any actual progress.
Soon no one will be able to tell what is and isn’t A.I generated, even A.I itself won’t be able to tell. We are in the very early stages & already it’s becoming difficult
I always found it sad these prompters referred to themselves as "AI Artists", when at best they're commissioning a program to steal from actual artists. Glad this new law is reflecting the reality of that.
Average AI Prompter = inconsistent results and oversights on anatomy and proportion Skilled Artist + AI = Masterpiece With something like ControlNet + Scribble you can turn your sketches into full illustrations with AI and it works really well. If you aren't an artist at all, you're out of luck and you can't utilize this technology fully. Not trying to knock art as a career, but starving artist is not a new term. I love art and sell commissions but I'd be a fool to quit my day job
It feels a little insulting to call AI artists mere "prompters". Sure you _can_ type "waifu" to dreamshaper and get something out of it, but to get good, _controller_ results, the workflow can get very involved, and you can have a lot of agency over the end result if you so desire. That's what separates proficient AI artists from bad ones, or mere "prompters" as one would say. A extreme hostile kneejerk reaction to a novel technological approach to making art is nothing new, pen and paper purists were extremely against digital art, traditional musicians were against synths, samplers and sequencers etc. Makes sense AI art is no different, or even more extreme considering how _extremely_ powerful tool it is.
@@SaltyMaud You say this like I haven't been prompting four hours a day with an RTX 3090 for the past 8 months. I get it, but someone who does not have an artist's skill-set is not going to be able to get the best results. If I don't like a hand and in-painting isn't helping, I can just boot up Photoshop and paint it correctly
@@EhurtAfy Oh, my response was not aimed at you, just adding to the general conversation. And perhaps you should read my comment again, I meant to support the idea that there is (or at least _can_ be) definitely intent and skill involved in properly using AI image generating tools. Being proficient in photoshop is definitely helpful in the AI-image workflow too - just getting good masks alone already requires you to pull your work-in-progress out to a image editing software.
@@SaltyMaud Yeah, we're in agreeance, big difference in results between casual prompter, skilled prompter and, skilled prompter + artist. 3D artists are also familiar with things like depth maps already, so artists have a huge headstart and leg up on non-artists with prompting 👍
@@EhurtAfy I love that controlnet enables more advanced control over the whole process, it's what really sold stable diffusion to me as a viable tool to making art with intent. To me how well you can utilize controlnet seems more important than just typing good prompts. When _you_ take control, having at least basic sense of good composition is required too. Being good enough with photoshop to manually fix the problems - which there will always be, is almost second. If not by repainting the errors by hand, then at least by compositing the best takes on your work in progress and making them blend in... that's more my approach with graphic design background (not much of a painter, but I can definitely use the tools :D). Simply knowing the basics of the tool (what all the parameters do and how they behave, how and when to do inpainting, what kind of sampler is appropriate for what you're trying to achieve, what your models can and can't do etc.) are just basic requirements to even start using the tool properly. The whole "just type in words lool" idea a lot of people seem to have seems quite outdated.
The new act is an interesting stance with HUGE implications. Say, a newspaper has its articles written by ChatGPT: these articles will NOT be covered by copyright. Similarly, a computergame where the conversations were written by such software: the conversations will NOT be covered by copyright (people wanting to create a parody on a game will have soo much fun!) But I have to agree, AI training is the more important discussion. Copyright laws do need a massive overhaul though, they are greatly skewed to favour large companies instead of smaller creators, and they last too damn long. Forty years after copyright transfers legal ownership from the natural person who created the art to someone or something else is more than enough already. Meaning, copyright will expire at most forty years after the death of the natural person who created it, but if it was transfered to another person or some organisation, it might even expire before the creators' death. This would also mean that copyright to art will always expire at most 40 years after a company or other organisation aquires copyright over it, since they are not natural persons who created it, but either bought the copyright from the original creator, or had the original creator employed and had the copyright signed over to them automatically through their contract. Companies and organisations do not create art! They may employ people who create art, but they do not create art themselves.
@@corwin.macleod The news is not, the writing itself is. You may not just copy a news article word by word and put it in your own newspaper without permission from the writer of the original article. You can write your own article in your own words about the same news without permission. However, if an article is written by AI, then other newspapers (and other media outlets) WOULD be allowed to copy it word by word, instead of having to write their own article in their own words.
Fair warning to any artist who plans to use AI tools or integrate elements of copyrighted works into a piece of art without clearing each element with the original artist and / or copyright holders: if you try to use this art in a professional field, you will be fired and your professional career as an artist will be over. In addition, you will probably be sued by the copyright holders of the works you stole.
It would be better if it would be relevant how much work/skill/intention/planning did go in the total artwork, regardless if it was before or after the diffusion step. I always use every tec that comes up for my own art, since I got my first graphic tablet as a child... Everything from procedural, shaders, lots of algorithmic, in and out painting, Houdini, game engines, combinations of Stable Diffusion, disco diffusion and blender to create depth maps and use it with the control net capabilities... Professional and private. I trained my own models and embeddings on my own art and art I have commissioned over the years. I have a unique set of scripts for further processing stuff into what I want for my current project. Setting up such a workflow can be a lot of work, comparable to how a photographer set up a complex shot. This approach cuts off a complete new artistic field. It's like when, in the past, digital art was seen as cheating all over again... I agree that people that did put a prompt into Midjourney should not be considered artists.
YES FRIGGIN THANK YOU. EXACTLY WHAT IVE BEEN SAYING. People claiming learning those word prompts effectively makes them artists - NO. You learned how to funnel out some words in a few hours or days time to get something else to create art for you that an artist has taken years of their life to learn how to create something on the same level. AI Prompting =/= BECOMING AN ARTIST
@@j.2512 good, their process of slowly working away on art "because it takes time pls unerstan abloobloo" or when they're not crying about that theyre Price Fixing by telling budding artists that are undercutting their prices to "just totally value your work and know your worth XDDD" is and *should be* over, you adapt or sink when things change
This is kind of a good news, after spending my lifetime trying to be better at my own phase (I've been drawing since i was a kid) I've become decent enough to maybe even take commissions But i tried ai once and not even 30 secs, something soo much better than mine is produced I was disheartened
Totally agree. AI being around does not mean there's a great threat to copyright issues. Just define AI art as exactly what it is (art not created by human, espcially the Text2image) and apply traditional copyright laws. Right now, AIs can not generate perfect images and misinterpret human intentions so you need to do a lot of work to actually make good-looking images. I hope this part of the effort is recognized.
A.I. art is created by humans. A.I., and painting programs like the one in the video, both use algorithms to create the content. A.I. uses more algorithms.
@@andrewlinn7863 AI is created by humans. The picture that comes from the several words you typed in is not made by you. The AI made it for you. AI art is therefore not made by humans
@@loctite417 The human isn’t putting in much work by typing a word prompt into an A.I. image generator, but it is work nonetheless. A creator doesn’t have to do a certain percentage of the work for it to be created by them. The A.I. would do nothing unless a prompt was given. A blur filter in a paint program also does much of the work using algorithms, but we still consider that person the creator of the artwork. A person could type in an entire novel worth of descriptions to generate a picture with an image generator, but just because he/she isn’t using a mouse or electronic drawing pad, doesn’t mean he/she didn’t create it. If I build a house using only tools, does it not become my creation?
@@andrewlinn7863 if you build a house with tools, its made by you, if the tools somehow build the house by themselves, its made by the tools, same with ai art, you are essentially a customer who asks someone else to do that art, in this case a ai, and as copyright only protects humans, the copyright shouldnt apply, its really simple when you think about it
@James Williams excactly, the work is done by the ai and prompter does the excactly same work as if they hired an artist so as the end product is not made by human it is not able to be copyrighted
I've been having an incredible mental block (which has affected my daily life) for the past few months due to all this AI mess, this definitely makes me feel a little better.
No AI will take over everything. You will be out of art jobs and will be working for the lowest dollar possible. That's the fate. Tremble and be unable to work. The lesser the amount of junk artists are on the market, the better everything looks for those who knows better than to fear 'AI image generators'.
@@ShadeAKAhayate what you call "junk artists" are simply artists in their beginnings, the fact that there are people who commission works from these artists is not relevant since it is the client's decision (who in many cases needs a cheap service and does not care much the quality) not the seller, in any case the majority of "good artists" end up surpassing that stage of "Junk artists" as you like to call them, those who do not overcome that stage end up working on something else and do not affect consolidated artists at all so I don't understand your nasty attitude. My concerns are focused on the industry in general and not on individuals, even if you are an excellent artist, that becomes irrelevant if AIs manage to consolidate and companies start using them for their projects, since human labor will be incredibly reduced, that's why This news is so positive for people who are in the process of entering a company. If you intend to live from a job related to art, it is obvious that you have to be good enough, do not be an unpleasant person with unknown people, not everyone has the same concerns or the same situation.
@@JACKjcs Junk artists don't have the stimuli to get better. They once learnt how to draw a gurl, they know how to draw bewbz -- and they thought were all set for life. But now the scary reflex-level image generators have come along, so let's make a strike and copy-paste stricken 'AI' letters within a red circle to show we are important. These people deserve a ban, not some 'nasty attitude'. If a mundane job can be automated, it will be. Period. No point in concerning yourself with industry, it will adapt. Also, big companies have been using AI for their necessities for quite some time now, some even openly admit it. The world didn't end then.
You people are absolutely delusional, lmao "In the Office's view, it is well-established that copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity. Most fundamentally, the term “author,” which is used in both the Constitution and the Copyright Act, excludes non-humans." It simply clarifies that AI art is not copyright protected.
@@sourgreendolly7685 I don't get why this person spams this stuff. They put it in something slightly related and decided to put it everywhere. They're making themselves look like a fool.
Because the copyright is what drawslaves depend on, not the marketplace demand that existed since art wasnt accessible (its a good thing that it is now) due to the fact that artist would thinly veil Price Fixing with narcissistic phrases like "value your work bro!"
This is a great start to protecting artists’ creativity and work product. This copyright law update further proves that this isn’t “art.” That’s why I call it “A.I. renders” not “A.I. _art._ “
I'm in full support of this. If you make it with your own two hands , you own it. Artists draw their work: digitally, traditionally, sculpting, carving, etc. Generative ai doesn't make anything , and certainly those who claim to be ai artists are a misnomer in and of themselves. They don't make anything, they request the machine to generate something of other's works for them. I'm glad the copyright office pretty much cemented what we already knew. I find it funny how a lot of pro-ai folks claim artists and others who disagree don't know how copyright works , when the dataset is fed on predominantly copyrighted data. 🤣
@@CezarWasTaken Depends on logic in this random guy's writing. It really doesn't take a genius to understand that legislation isn't math or science and can't be used to prove anything.
@@ShadeAKAhayate whereas in this example you don't understand the legislation, this isn't any new law, it's just bringing up the fundamentals of how copyright works and if AI bros were too picky or ignorant to actually learn how the law works and has been working for the last few decades then they're at fault
This is great! It keeps the AI technology useful, while ensuring that people still have to a lot of the work. This means you can use AI to help you create a work that is partially copywritten, but only for the use case of composition, which is really what the AI should be for anyway. The fact that you can't copyright the AI part is fair, and it still allows for the help of AI. The clarification on what AI is, is also very well put. I think this clarification is good for everyone who uses AI ethically.
I think when it comes to...game/movie companies, or honestly big companies in general, I think the fact that AI-generated art cannot be "copyrighted" will be a big deal, since games, movies and products need concept arts and designs for them, they're still gonna need art-directors and artists for them bc who else are going to develop the art direction of a product. I dont think a lot of leaders in a project out there have the skills to direct that part of the project on their own, hell even if they do have the skills to, unless they're super human, doubt they can do it by themselves. And if they're just simply going to use AI-generated images for that and NOT tell the public about the fact that they're using them, it might cause big issues for the company cuz it'd be considered false-advertising/scam, might even lead to lawsuits and all that stuff. I doubt keeping the fact that a project is reliant on AI a secret is impossible. So it's either going to be: 1) Hire artists/art-directors for the art-direction of a product and take full rights to all the assets created 2) Do all the art-direction stuff alone without any involvement of artists/air directors...however that wiill result, be truthful about it to the public and well...accept the fact that you dont hold all the rights to all the assets. 3) Do all the art-direction stuff alone without any involvement of artists/air directors...NOT be truthful about it to the public and risk getting heat bc of "false-advertising" and scam If a project is fully commited in using AI and keep THAT a secret, they better not have ANY art-related employee or non-"fully-AI-supportors" with them, bc just like ANY self-respecting, disgruntled employee, they won't take it lightly. The biggest problem with AI right now are individuals that are using it to make quick bucks and gain clout, exploiting the fact that a lot of people who love art don't really know better. I
A question I’m wondering is how would it works for games like you mentioned; that have art in them but is not the sole product. Like in board games or trading card games, would the game creator be able to use AI art on the cards for that game and then the game is the part that is copyrighted but not the art? Since you aren’t selling the art directly, it is just part of the game. And the game creator could just make it public knowledge like you mentioned so that everyone knows the art is not copyrighted.
@@KingdomGaming2019 Well idk tbh, but I feel like if a big part of the charm of a game is from the ART, then it's still going to matter a fair bit to the buyers...I mean, the whole charm of Yugioh or Pokemon cards are the designs of the monsters, I think making them just some random shit you generated on some AI engine isn't going to sit well with people...at least I hope so. No one is going to buy a game that's just a straight copy of...chess, monopoly or any existing board game out there, and if they are, the art side of things better be unique and worth a damn, and I think the majority of people think that AI """art""" worth jack shit at the end of the day, sure they look neat here and there but...maybe it's just me, but no matter how neat-looking AI """art""" is, I'll always love the fact that real art had real effort put into them, even if they dont "look as good". But I feel like that might be a bit unrelated to your question...well, they MIGHT be able to get away LEGALLY with using AI images for the graphics of whatever "board-type" games, but depends on what they're willing to say....it's probably going to be accompanied with its own sets of issues for them, perhaps not legal issues (I think), but issues nonetheless.
I feel like gaming companies and the like would hire artists who have actually put in the years of work and possess the skill to reliably change AI generated art to be copyrightable. Also, if your argument was true, this would be bad news for companies like hello games and Bethesda studios because they use procedural generation. But it’s not because the copyright they own is on the sum of the parts (I.e. the game and it’s contents) and not the individual parts. So if they use an ai generated texture, scattered procedurally in the game, they will still hold the copyright I guess because ultimately it is a part of the full game and has a new meaning/purpose in that context. That’s why a lot of the same generic assets are often found across 3D media without copyright issues. Similar to how marc painted over that photo. The colors are still there from the original image are they not.
You people are absolutely delusional, lmao "In the Office's view, it is well-established that copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity. Most fundamentally, the term “author,” which is used in both the Constitution and the Copyright Act, excludes non-humans." It simply clarifies that AI art is not copyright protected. It's not "protecting" you form being replaced, lmao. It's simply keeping AI artists from being protected and keeping the AI art tools out of monopoly. None of the moralizing and high-horsing going on with you entitled artists has been validated in any way.
Thank you so much for summing this up 🙏🏻 it made my day to hear these great news and I am happy they are about to address the AI training method too! It feels like artists are being heard and recognized and I hope it will stay that way
It's mostly because it affects big corporations too but yeah I'm sure Disney isn't going to let people use their art for profit, not in this country lol
That's because it isn't a new rule. Copyright has *always* worked like that. So they didn't create a new rule, they just explained to everybody how copyright has always worked. But because artists are absurdly ignorant about copyright, they think that it's "new".
@@SchemingGoldberg The copyright system that exists still sucks. Evidence being the strike system on this platform being the way to leverage courts against everyday people. I don’t see yet another law which can be subject to change and input by corporate lobbyists changing any of that. If anything, the coding put into AI software will be copyrighted, and even if a large company say were to be sued for using another party’s IP claim on a digital item, any court cost along with prolonged court cases would make it meaningless. If AI software were to see something free and open source like blender is to 3d modeling, than it’s an even playing field for everyone who can find various or specialized uses for it.
It is more like a law that protects the big corporations from using AI as a "tool" to "assist" art creation. As AI tech improves it might be able to "assist" 90% of artists crafting time, and if artists are charging hourly rate.
The link to the new statement of policy is in the description, worth a read it’s not too long. I’ll make sure to report back later this year as soon as they tell us more about how they’re gonna deal with AI training , will be interesting 💰 Also, you can use the coupon in the description to get a fat discount on my art program artschool.ai this month. We just passed 17000 students - pure madness 🤯
Thank you, thank you, you put back some smile to my face
Thank you for the great videos
Thank you and happy birthday!
@@magia4510 Careful with what copyright hellscape that may unleash upon the world. "You can't train on copyrighted material" or "You can copyright a style" puts 99.9% of artists out of business. We'd also be stepping into thought-crime territory if you count the countless copyrighted references in your head that you pull from unconsciously/consciously.
you know what sir marc, i usually ignored paint the background cause its too scared to paint and its hard to matched the color with the character also the perspective kinda makes me to much overthinking about it, but after I watched your videos, now I paint a little bit background in my art and I'm so happy with the results its changed my art alot, thank you sir
It should be pointed out that this is not a policy change. This is a guidance which means that it is a clarification of already existing rules set forth by the copyright office. I think for many of us who looked closely at the rules set by the copyright office previously, these are in effect the same rules as we understood them to be before. The guidance is also in alignment with many precedent already set by courts that have looked at AI works. I'm pleased to see the guidance rationally in accord with the rules as they were already set before only now made more explicit.
I've pointed out the lack of copyright on all the AI Doom posts I've seen, hopefully this is enough to quell the doomers
This is exactly the kind of clarification that I as an AI art generator user wanted. It exactly aligned with my previous understanding of copyright and doesn't hinder the progress of AI art in any way
@@JohmBud
Read it again... Even the Policy states that it depends. There is nuance as to how/why.
Its strictly incorrect though and not what the law or precedence other than one inane court said.
Something with far less creative input than the prompt does get copy protection. For instance, the Floorplan of a home. 99% of which cannot be protected because it's function therefore not creative.
@@stephanreiken9912 Just because something serves a function does not mean its not creative. Designing products is a creative pursuit, and its explicitly to create a product that functions in some way to fulfill a need/desire. It still requires critical thinking, and human input in large amounts to successfully execute.
AI prompting does not get protection as you are not putting forward any true human input into the final result, you are simply placing tags and keywords for a program to do all of the creating for you.
This should be recommended to every artist that wants to learn about the new laws. Easy to understand, informative, entertaining. It checks all the boxes! As always with your videos (:
#1 art educator on youtube!
And also needs fans like you that are supportive and understanding of the content fully❤❤
It’s a laughably absurd reading.
If I take a picture of a soup can, I can copyright that picture. Correct?
So what do you think happens when I take a picture of a piece of Ai generated art?
@@WhatDoesEvilMean Yes you can. Artists have been sued over copying someone's picture with drawings and making money off of them. Of course you cannot copyright a picture of a soup can, because you'll need to ask the brand's permission first.
@@flower_chain7098 You can take a picture of the Mona Lisa and then copyright that photo.
@@flower_chain7098 Right. A picture of the Mona Lisa is your original work.
Artists are Artists. We will survive this AI Art Phase and continue to be Creative!
Where would AI be without artists? Nowhere, that's where.
AI doesn't even know what it is it's creating. It just takes bits and pieces of work by artists and turns them into a Frankenstein product. Not a shred of meaning of creativity.
@@lacountess it's tool. Does your hammer think about what it's doing, nope. It's what people do and use it that changes the outcome. People still cheating in all ways possible, AI can give just a possibiliy more to do this. AI isn't good or evil, it's the person behind. --- edit: tipos
@@vattende3420 A hammer is only like AI if you could put it on a workbench, tell it to build a chair, and watch it move by itself. If there was such a hammer then carpenters had every right to feel their livelihoods and value of their talent and skill were threatened.
art is art. the expression of a person is what makes them an artist. AI is just another tool just like when photoshop came out.
Remember y'all, support human artists 💞🤠
edit: I am seeing lots of people say things like " I I'll save my money for something else", support artists doesn't mean give them money, it can mean just share their work, or engaging somehow.
Always 💪
Yup
Yasssss
Never
@@esquizofreniasobrenatural L+ratio+no one gives a fucj
wow, incredible, the last thing i was expecting was such a sane and lucid ruling from the copyright office. wonderful news. Feels great to be vindicated with lawmakers more or less restating the points we artists have been making about AI all this time.
Definitely , I was ready to have to rally in front of the Lincoln Memorial while the T-1000 pelted me with rubber bullets😂
Lol who at the copyright office hurt you?
People are really overreacting. No one cares about ai except for some art youtubers to make content. You're all gonna be fine until ai evolved even further but that's In a few more years ❤
@@sael5084 Sample bias. Go take a look a social media circles with industry professionals, most have something to say -and none of it is pro AI. Development incentive was just handily kneecapped now that selling licensed models to big media companies is off the table legally. Also: sneed.
@@NickelCityPixels Bureaucrats and government officials are not known for acting against centralizing corporate interest.
Marc - firstly, happy birthday!
A huge thank you for bringing this to our attention - this feels like a step in the right direction
When demonstrating Midjourney with my son, he asked me to prompt “Garfield drinking a coffee in a ballet dress by the fireplace”
After 3 or 4 attempts, it became very clear that Midjourney refused to recreate Garfield‘s likeness - rather, producing fat cats that looked nothing like Garfield
I could see what a legal nightmare it would have been for Jim Davis if he had to chase after merch sales produced by random scammers trying to profit off his legacy
Please keep us updated with your discoveries, this is a win for us for sure
If you use image prompting (uploading an image and pasting URL in the prompt) you can get much closer to the likeness of copyrighted material, it's kind of a super power overhaul of MJs algo. This power can be used for good though, I've been getting great results by uploading my own art and photographic references to have MUCH more control over the outcome of MJ prompts. Great for generating material for photobashing or just basic composition.
@@j.2512 Oh cool, I'm evil for uploading my own paintings to midjourney, and you're good because you want people to euthanize themselves. Nice.
This is a HUGE W for artists, AI can exist but only as a tool, not a replacement for us!
Lazy people are going to be tempted to connect their brains to A. I.
If it creates better art it will replace you, plain and simple. So better be better.
Edit: for the love of fucking god! Read the whole fucking thread before going in with pitchforks. I was wrong about this "selling AI art should be illegal".
@@nft3 technically yes, but if the copyright law is in place, it wont since you can't even use it for the most part. And selling AI generated images should be illegal since it can't be copyrighted.
Well it sorta already does...
@@nft3 it cant create better art if it werent for all the art already made
in fact if werent for all the database filled with awesome art taken without consent, the ai would never be this good
simply put, there will always be an asian thats better at art than the ai
This is good to hear..as an artist of 30+ years, I recently stopped bothering to create, simply from the demoralising possibilities that AI generated art posed..so this is a step in the right direction.
For real. My business was hammered by the pandemic so I started grabbing art jobs again and when this AI came along I was like “what next?!” Glad you’re creating again, my friend
@@CousinPaddy What's next? Try learning plumbing. That's among the last jobs to be mechanized.
Don't stop your creativity and unique ideas for a probramm that as of now copies other artists and puts put bland faces that are easily noticeable to be ai. Don't let your dreams be dreams❤❤the
Don't stop no matter what man. Plenty of us non-artists who will avoid this slop. Hell, this stuff actually makes me WANT to pick up drawing and painting myself, like some sort of defying disgust.
@@ShadeAKAhayate We can't all be plumbers. Eventually oversaturation will drive down the salaries and it will be a crappy way to live. I would love to work a blue collar job though
I'm filled with such a huge amount of relief from hearing this. Thanks for the video that put it in such an easy to understand way.
@Based Post AI art shouldn't be viewed as "stealing from human artists" like many of you make it seem, but rather as an evolution of creativity. AI algorithms draw inspiration from existing artworks, much like how human artists are influenced by the art they consume. However, AI goes beyond "replication" and "stealing" and generates unique expressions that push the boundaries of creativity. It's a collaboration between the algorithm and the artist, with AI acting as a tool to enhance the creative process. Rather than being threatened, you should embrace the transformative power of AI in the art world, as it expands possibilities and creates a vibrant, diverse artistic landscape. If you don't adapt, someone who has adapted will take your spot.
@Based Post it seems you're missing the fundamental point about the progression of art and technology. Is your artistic vision so narrow that you can't appreciate the innovation that AI brings to the table? Your dismissal of those who aren't traditionally skilled in art is both elitist and shortsighted. Art isn't an exclusive club. It's a universal expression of human creativity, and everyone deserves a chance to contribute. AI tools just provide that opportunity.
Your argument also neglects the fact that even seasoned artists can greatly benefit from AI. It's not about replacing human creativity; it's about augmenting it. Your assumption that the use of AI equates to a lack of skill is no different from scoffing at the use of a paintbrush because fingers existed first.
Remember, photography was once looked down upon as a cheat's tool, but look where it stands now. AI art is an evolution, not a theft. If you're feeling threatened, maybe it's time to question your own adaptability. It's not the "artistically impeded" who are taking your spot-it's those who are forward-thinking enough to recognize the vast potential of AI in the art world.
@Based Post haha, your logic is as regressive as it gets. Based on your argument, we might as well scrap all assistive technologies and tools that have revolutionized creativity and expression. You're essentially saying, "Let's slam the brakes on progress and innovation because it threatens my outdated artistic comfort zone." 😂 😂. By your standards, anything that isn't a cave painting is not art. Do you realize where your logic is lacking here?
Perhaps it's time you crawl out of your self-created bubble of artistic elitism and view the world from a broader perspective. The future of art isn't going to wait for those clinging to outdated notions of creativity and reality. Adapt or start getting comfortable in the shadows of those embracing change.
Same here. I spent years studying graphic design, computer art, and traditional art. So many hours perfecting my skill in Photoshop and Illustrator, and so many classes of life drawing and concept studying... only for a number-crunching bot to come along, scan my work along with the works of millions of other dedicated artists, and spit out a replica. I was imagining a grim future where employers, instead of hiring graphic designers and tasking them with creating art, would simply ask an assistant to give a list of details to a bot for what they need and get an image that's basically stolen from millions of humans.
@Based Post Yeah, definitely agree with you on that
3:02 "if you wanna be an artist just learn how to do art" Marc keeping it real fr 💯 👊
literally!
yea but lots of people are lazy and don't want to spend the time needed to learn a new skill, people these days just want everything handed to them without effort thus when their 'life line' is at risk they'll put the only effort they've ever put into their lives to fight it but they could have used that effort and learn a skill..
@@f8keuser I've watched many videos of Marc, and he talked before about delayed gratification being far more rewarding. People want their instant gratification, even at the expense of others apparently. I knew many people were like this already, but I had no idea it's like 80% of humanity at least, and I'm being generous with this number. Absolutely disgusting, it might just turn me into a misanthrope.
@@twinguy9633 cool, then go do other things, no one is forcing you to learn art
@@twinguy9633 We are doing that more to protect our place, no one is going to stop you from using ai, also, notice the way you talk about art, "waste precious life time learning art", do you really think you should be able to create art pieces that are on the same level as someone who "wasted their life" on actually learning? (Not trying to attack or ofend you, you have your views on life and what works for you)
What a breath of FRESH AIR you've given us! It's surprisingly precious to have someone like you say that this is just like other lawsuits regarding other tools in the past. Actual passionate artists know what's up! This is an instant sub for me.
I concur.
What do you mean? No law was passed, and literally nothing changed. We knew AI art wasn't copywritable but in fact, EU came out and said IT CAN BE given the artist actually applied traditional work on it. Though the wording of the law is literally leaving it up in the air as to 'how much work' one needs to put in it. Will just painting 5 lines count as effort? Will 10 lines? Will warping and editing the image or color correcting it count? This law literally didn't do shit neither to change nor clarrify anything, if anything it is giving more of a footing to AI artists to copywrite their art and even sell it as 'traditional' even if it was AI made because they applied their subjectively measured effort on it.
Bureaucrats just pretended nothing changed and that ai art doesn't exist. This is a STALE AIR from a 100 years old closet and you liked it. Says a lot more about you then about them.
What we really need is laws regarding training data and the unethical collection of laundered data through "non-profits" then turning to commercial ventures. We need laws to not only open these training sets to public scrutiny but also open them to litigation if they are caught using copyright data in their training models. The years of people allowing big tech to use their data without compensation needs to come to an end.
Bro, laws won't do sh*t against theft without feasible punishment. And how can you punish Bigd1ck69420 if you can't find them?
Criminals are criminals because they break the law, so creating more laws is not the solution.
@@victorvaz3693 what's the solution?
@@victorvaz3693 No one gives a crap if Bigd1ck69420 is churning out AI pictures of Tifa in his basement, this is about companies replacing artists with AI. If these big companies want to use AI, they should own the rights to the data they use. That way, either the artists have to be compensated for having their data used, or the companies have to hire artists to create their own data sets.
Should we litigate against people using reference images without permission?
@@leetri Only after artists that have trained on the artworks of others start paying the copyright holders for the reference. And as for the 'public domain' pieces, the state can take the payment. Unless an artist doesn't own the full set of art pieces they were studying on, they have no rights to extract profit from the works based on those. Otherwise, an artist is given an unfair preference.
"Only the transformed parts of an AI generated art piece is protected by copyright"
Artists that only fix the hands: *sweats profusely*
(Laziness won't be tolerated)
Are you even an artist when all you did was use a brush stroke to create once less finger on an AI generated image lol
@@violetlollii I think the joke went over your head.
@@echoi7119 I'm sure that's not the case here ..
What if they used like a tone filter and apply it on the whole pic, is this considered "change everything" ?
Idk, seem unfair
@@AustinGDesigns what "newest version" of what exactly, there are tons of AI engines out there, and a lot of them don't do the same thing as each other, afaik, hands are still a problem with many generators, only ones that are basically glorified instagram filters or sth like that, don't have as much of an issue with hands. I still see tons of AI-generated images have issues with hands.
I was just seeing a video about a musician being sued cause one of his songs had the same "feeling" that another song written years before, and he lost! Yet in the art industry they can even stole your style, your unique artistic identity and no one lifts a finger, people even shamelessly trace and sell merch of your work. I think this all AI thing just helped to show how legally unprotected visual artists are, but hopefully this is going in the right way. I'm really excited about this, thanks for making this video, I would love to see more of this kind of content.
It was an Ed Sheeran were he was sued because his song sounded similar... and no Ed Sheeran won the case thank god.
Do you even know how dystopian it would be if Artist's style could be copyrighted? How destructive would it be for the whole art community? Think about it like this big corporation could buy up a ton of "Styles" and sue every artist because there would be a significant similarity. It would destroy fan content for popular franchises because if you hold a copyright YOU have to responsibility to protect it, which means you have to sue people if you find violations.
Happy birthday, Marc!! 💕 I think me and all the community can agree that we're glad that you were born and are here to help us on our art journey. 💕🥺
You're so sweet and kind ❤❤❤
You people are absolutely delusional, lmao
"In the Office's view, it is well-established that copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity. Most fundamentally, the term “author,” which is used in both the Constitution and the Copyright Act, excludes non-humans."
It simply clarifies that AI art is not copyright protected.
AI as a tool is really how it should be. I primarily use it to create references and designs I draw on my own. Once I am done, the prompted image never really sees the light of day anyway so no harm done. It is also an excellent learning tool for learning shadings, backgrounds and texture work as well. Like any tool, it's how you use it.
Incredibly true.
Img2img is awesome as a free instant "paint over" feedback to see what you can do better or differently. It's like a cheat code teacher/mentor on demand.
@@verendale1789 this is exactly what AI helped me with. I spent a lot of time and managed to train an AI model to my own style. Then I used that style with others to see how far and beyond I can still improve my works! It was like a preview of the future but specifically tailored to my own style, which is why those resulting images inspired me very deeply.
Artists also forgot that if AI works were entirely copyrighted, you could essentially churn out infinite images extremely quickly and copyright millions of characters and concepts in a week.
So this is also a safeguard against that. Imagine one company owning and suing everyone who has similar artworks or characters to their AI-generated ones. It would be a disaster.
And I do like generating AI images. Just for fun. I think it's more important to develop these systems in order to train more sophisticated AI's.
exactly
honestly, I wasn't depressed about it but those copyright laws just brightened my motivation going forward, thanks for the news!
this isnt as big as a win as you think it is. These laws wont be the same for long, they will change them so you can copyright ai art at some point, but right now the fact that it is public domain does not mean people will stop using it to make money. A company can still generate the majority of their work with ai and only use the hand drawn art for original character copyright and main pieces. Its already taken effect in the game industry. This is still going to cut jobs about 80%, public domain doesn't mean much for a lot of artwork.
@@animeswitch hmm yes and no. The only thing we can do now is wait and see how people feel about AI stuff. For and example, do we want to buy a game/comic/digital paint when we somehow know it mostly made by AI ? if that when people will recognize the real value about product they want to buy when there is no labor behind it, then what is the real value ? If we can accept that (which is hardly occur), so we artist are f*cked. Imagine in the future, every piece of art look the same, always have "AI" feel to it if you know what I mean, then we're safe. I still believe AI will be a tool for artist in someday when it's regulated and ethical. Right now it's just like NFT cash grab for big corp, just wait and see when the hot air cool down, they'll try to find another new toy to play with.
@@monsterinsane2228 The issue is that its advancing at rapid speed. It will get to the point where you can just talk to it like a person and ask it to change every little detail perfectly to how you want it to look. You wont be able to tell if its ai or not. Hand drawn art will be a thing of the past in most fields. Its too fast to get the results you want.
@@monsterinsane2228 when was the last time you bought a game due to the labor that was put behind it and not because you liked its concept, gameplay, etc? I literally never once in my life looked at the effort, just the result, and I assure you 99% of consumers only care about that in the end. If a game, picture, comic, story, movie or anything is good as a product, people will buy it regardless of the effort that was put in making it. If AI can do a better job than you, why would I pick you? Because you are a piece of meat? Quite the value you have given yourself there.
In my lifetime I've seen artist freak out about layered digital art and digital art in general replacing the need for hand painted and hand generated artworks for marketing and advertising. This didn't lead to no artist work, it lead to a wider adoption of marketing with cheaply produced media. Art, as a collectable thing, has stayed relatively the same value throughout the upheaval.
I'm amazed that the US is actually responding to AI so quickly lol. These new laws help ease my anxiety about AI bros running around selling "their" art trying to compete with human artists. I suppose that's silly because something created by a human with hours of work and passion is significantly different than something a robot generates in a couple seconds.
Also, happy birthday Marc! Thank you for all the work you've put into your videos and the art school. I'm an aspiring tattoo artist and your art school+channel along with a few of my favorite tattoo art channels have made a huge difference in my art gains.
If there's a significant difference, then the buyers will make their choice. If not, inefficient ones have to go. That's how free market works.
@@ShadeAKAhayate Well, here's our significant difference. Copyright.
Besides inefficiency isn't always a bad thing, especially if you want something done right.
Quickly? lol. The damage has already been done. The "art" output of the planet increased a few million fold in a few months, and the majority of new artists only make ai art. And these ai artists on average have 1000% more presence in social media that traditional/digital artists because most people don't even know ai art exists or don't care. All these old models trained on copyrighted images have already mutated into a whole ecosystem.
I'm honestly surprised at how broad the impact of these laws are but it's going to be impossible to determine what is ai art pretty soon unless ALL software records your actions and has an ai assess whether it is ai or not BUT by then, it would be trivial for an ai to fake the process.
@@RAFMnBgaming Copyright denial, you mean. In consequence, meaning unfair competition being legitimized. In our world where big corporations write the laws, who will get the short end of the stick, I wonder?
@@ShadeAKAhayate Apparently the big corporations? I'm sure they'd be more than happy to cut people they have to pay now out of the picture and have everything be done automatically but that ain't happening.
Every artist needs to see this video! Thank you for explaining everything so well, Marc!
I think they can't sell so image as they don't own it at all. Otherwise it would be illegal as they are a commissioner. It would be illegal in the USA. I hope Europe follows soon.
You people are absolutely delusional, lmao
"In the Office's view, it is well-established that copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity. Most fundamentally, the term “author,” which is used in both the Constitution and the Copyright Act, excludes non-humans."
It simply clarifies that AI art is not copyright protected.
Thank you Marc for bringing this news, the truth is that with the news from Taiwan I was very discouraged since I was planning to enter fine arts, I don't live in the United States but you are on this same side of the pond, the truth is that this gave me back the motivation to continue learning
this probably only happened because of the AI generating music artists voice to make songs and music companies trying to block it. it was all fun and games and crapping on artists not being happy about their work being prompted into the AI blender until music companies realized it wasn't a joke anymore.
Artists deserve better and this is a step in the right direction.
That's kind of the good thing about the immense propagation of the AI stuff. The more people this affects the more likely it is to affect people like Nintendo, and they don't take this kind of stuff sitting down.
Funny thing is that Getty images became a good guy for a little while. Worst thing is that getting images does the same thing as the AI.
@@dailyinsanity8188 I can't wait for them to step on Nintendo's toes, that'll really make things move fast
@@FOF275 in what way would that happen tho?
@@FOF275 Some time ago, I had a guy demonstrating his prompt engineering skills to a sort of casual designer guild that I'm a part of. He wanted suggestions for a logo; we were based out of New Mexico, so I suggested the Zia symbol in a few contextually relevant placements. It had no idea what the Zia symbol was, in spite of it being on the state flag, and failed miserably.
But let me tell you, from another prompt, it knew _exactly_ what Yoshi looked like.
I noped the hell out of that immediately.
I suspect if a creator of an AI generated song took it to court, they would win because what was created is not a copy of an existing song, released or not, and not the actual artist rapping, AND the voice is not actually saying anything. It emulates the artist style, but any human rap artist could do the same thing and be fine as well. In fact, some rap artists have caught a bit of hell for emulating Eminem - but they didn't get shut down either.
The second you mentioned AI training in the video, you gave me a sudden shot of happiness instantly. (I'm still pissed at DeviantArt and others for the way they chose to train their AI)
really glad copyright law exists!! AI art is exsiting technlogy but we cant allow it to destroy the historical art and images it is using as reference to create! great vid!
Happy Birthday, Marc! Stay awesome and have a great day! 🥳
This video is helping so much with a paper I’m writing currently.
Also the art in the background is amazing and I am jelly as hellll
I love you bro, you calmed my soul, in our discord they talk about Ai and most often they talk about the fact that it makes me give up and I gradually lose the sense of drawing. I have been boxing all my life and literally not so long ago I found what I really like and everything is so sad, as if artists are without help and not as vulnerable, but as I watched your video, I calmed down a little and the meaning came again, thank you so much, I didn’t know about this problem in USA
What a relief with this positive news. I'm immersed studying a few design software and very concerned at the same time with all IA stuff, thinking that all these hours would be wasted.
Thank you Marc for making the panorama clearer.
I like their stance on it. I love AI art AS a reference. Basically, I used to search online for hours, have folders of inspirational art that I downloaded. Now I can type a few prompts, generate 20 images, pick my three favorite, then illustrate a separate image entirely based on what I liked about those images.
I agree, it's a good inspiration for real work ,there's actually no control on how you really want it to look
Yes. It was always meant to be a tool but people could abuse it to be a replacement overall. So I'm glad the law recognizes it as a tool and not something people can just replace human creativity with.
what's your best one to use? mine has an attitude problem f.r. it literally lies to me then if i say something it doesn't like, it shuts off; like when i requested my image it said it couldn't generate images, that it didn't have the capability. i explained how it's already done that for me, and asked why they wouldn't do it now, they ended the conversation. there have been many similar instances and the bing ai chat has just decided it will no longer do that for me
Tell us which sites you use for that, plz?
That's actually a good idea. Never thought of that. What do you use?
One of the few RUclipsrs to give me a positive outlook for an art career. Thanks for the video. Woke up on the wrong side of the bed and thoughts on ai were bothering me.
I am a lead concept artist in Korea working for one of the world's biggest game companies. My team members and I are being forced to use A.I image generator by the company for a couple of weeks now. We are asked to create one polished illustration every second or third day, which needed at least one or two weeks in the former days. We are very frustrated that we are not given a choice about using the tools to create. This brought some of us to tears. For me, I am considering changing my job. It pains me to dictate to my team artists tasks that don't make sense to me either. I laughed at A.I images a few months ago when I first saw it.
There is one concept artist in another team in my company, he's world's famous unlike me. Surprisingly, he's been also suffering from the ai generator issues and thinking about switching jobs.. As a huge fan of his paintings, it would be very sad if his new genuine paintings were no longer created.
I've always been open to using any kind of tool to create artwork. I use game engines and 3D tools and am aware those were also controversial methods in the past. However, A.I generator is absolutely different to it in a regard that it is not only stealing but also it will be used by companies for hiring smaller numbers of Artists, not for the artist's convenience.
The controversy over this copyright issue has not yet started in Korea but my guess is, at least in here, they will use ai generator to save money even if they give up the copyright of some images. Or concept artists will have to spend most of their time to overpaint the A.I generated image not to to avoid violating copyright laws. I hope that clear and wise standards for copyright and artist rights will be established also here in Korea as soon as possible.
Can you tell here later if you still left this job and how big this company was?😢
@@бабубээээээ The size of the company ranks among the top 15 in the world. I hear from my friends in the game industry that other companies bigger than mine are also researching ai image generators. I will tell here later if I left the job
I really like that their definition is that ai art cannot be copyrighted, this is just this is right. Noone made it so noone can claim its theirs.
Of course it can't. A human has to create something for it to be copyright able. That's always been the case
@@group555_ Yea, their argument probably is a prompt means a human created it, but that is an obvious lie. They are trying to make creativity a crime. Typical really, it's something out of the scope of the usual stupidity.
This very nice for the US. Everyone watching keep in mind that Copy Right differs by country. When you get in trouble with copy right you are trialed where you live. So you are always under your own country's jurisdiction.
I recommend looking up your own countrys law.
AI could really be used to benefit artists, like filling in frames in animations etc but unfortunately, most AI artists are just looking for a quick dopamine hit. AI art is literally just instant gratification. Instead of aiding creativity, AI art is actually killing it. I mean, we're gonna have less artists because most people will not spend years honing their art skills when they can just generate a good looking piece with a few google searches. So where are we actually headed? There are gonna be less actual artists and that means a smaller pool of data for AI art to be trained on so eventually AI art will pretty much look the same.
Few good artists are infinitely better than hordes of 'artists' drawing the same thing over and over. In that sense, AI can drive trash creators out and set a hard limit to how low an artist can fall.
I’ve never thought about it from an instant gratification perspective before, good observation
These are actually great news, my mood has been affecting my studies this past month in regards to this topic, I'll have to take you at your word for this, sensei, and keep trying to learn art
L news
@@slimboarder.o7 L average unskilled individual.
@@star_is_g Say the one who was about to be replaced by free software
I love the video... But I was HYPNOTIZED by the background painting Papa Marc was doing.
If you think an ai would be able to distinguish a human artist and a machine, i would argue you are probably wrong about that.
If anything, we artists must always document our creation proccess to keep the rights it seems..
Process videos are an art in of itself.
It also helps to have a consistent body of work
@@jaegermonster9549 Not as much as you think. It's pretty easy to finetune on someone else's or even your own work,
speed paints would be popping out more often than before and I would recommend to artist adding a camera directly recording their hands while drawing so people can be sure no one is using ai during those speed paint also stuff like live traditional painting would become more popular than before I was actually interested on taking some traditional oil painting classes for myself
I typically draw on paper and edit on a computer, so I have physical evidence that my work is mine and mine alone. Plus, I tend to give WIPs during commissions, so I leave breadcrumbs leading to the final piece too. This doesn't affect me much, but I can see how it can be a bit of a pain for purely digital artists, especially those who may jealously protect their approach and techniques.
In my totally unimportant non-professional opinion, AI generated pictures shouldn't be called "art".
Most of the modern art shouldn't be called art either.
@@ForOne814 what are u basing this off? Everything can be art. AI art is instant art and there is no expression or feeling in it. Saying modern art shouldn't be called art is a very ignorant and small minded way of thinking.
@@Karan-zs7uf if modern "art" trash can be called art, so can AI generated ones.
@@Karan-zs7uf there can be expression and feeling in it. Depends entirely on what the AI generates. AI art is definitely better on average than taping banana to a wall or meaningless brushes of paint on a canvas.
@@ForOne814 yes but at least those people invested their time and we're trying to express something. A 5 years old drawing is better than AI art (not in quality of course, just because it's ART. Bad art is better than fake art.)
I think we should avoid the "art" branding by the AI companies and star calling the image generated by AI as AI graphics. So, like CGI in this case it would be AGI.
I'm not pretending to start a discussion about art. Cuz even for me, a Mandelbrot series is art (even being a fractal CGI).
That way, with the right terms we can say: Copyright protects art. Something created with creativity and intent.
Thanks for the amazing video Marc!
Thank you so much for going over this news for us!! I find this information just as important as a new full-dive art class!!! :P
As soon as I clicked I was like “Let’s goo” I hope this rule is for the better
Not an american (from the smol country of europe), openly disagree with one or two american laws, but this... this right here, I needed this, I have been frozen in trying to draw for many reasons for too long and the AI art was the final nail in the coffin. I don't even feel happy, this just feels like a relief... like doing the right thing and screw the consequences, it just feels *right.* PS: Happy Birfday!
As an American the government can be very stupid but sometimes we get little wins like this 🙂
@@thelying2594 Was a throwaway comment, we got worse stuff in europe. They people too, they mess-up. But hey, just like you said, these smol wins do feel kinda good!
@@Dank_Lulu it’s sad there’s people upset about them in the comments lol, lazy fuckers I’d assume, especially when they say we’re gatekeeping art as if they can’t go and learn the skill themselves or, y’know… pay an artist to commission a piece
Cheers mate 🎉
No it's a step in the wrong direction y'all idiot just want to be west china or east Us
4:17 - 4:33 I was doing this for years and reluctant to share, it felt fun and rewarding yet felt like cheating at the same time which made me reluctant to share.
You do not know how much this means to me, but a huge thank you for lifting this weight off my shoulder.
I tend to do the sane thing with screenshots I've taken from Video games.
Happy Birthday by the way.
i do this as well and imo, its a good way to learn, specially since you are using things you like as reference. To me, practice feels way better when doing it that way, instead of taking some random picture on pinterest or google
This is not cheating in any way, we have tools and we use them
@@j.2512 found the dude that doesn't know anything about the industry
@@j.2512 use a less ugly phrase, like "streamlining the process"
@@j.2512 Not even close to the same thing.
Honestly I don't like the works done with A.I. They take away the fun of learning to draw by yourself.
If the A.I. fails then we will have to draw using our own knowledge and ingenuity. The A.I. It's for people who don't want to learn on their own.
seriously, once you know how vile the training and data mining that go on behind every single AI art
no matter how ''beautiful'' or rather ''how appealing to the eye'' it is
it becomes ugly
art in the end of the day is WAAAAAAAY more than what meets the eye
and what's behind AI art is just plain immoral
@@matheussanthiago9685 You mean, it's even more vile than human artist training? I seriously doubt that.
@@matheussanthiago9685 Yes. I know that the A.I. Steals art and personal data for companies.
THIS IS FANTASTIC NEWS. Bookmarking! Thank you!
Thank you so much, Marc, for covering this vital subject, and in such a clean and informative manner.
This was so informative and definitely eased some of my anxieties about AI art 😪🤗
You people are absolutely delusional, lmao
"In the Office's view, it is well-established that copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity. Most fundamentally, the term “author,” which is used in both the Constitution and the Copyright Act, excludes non-humans."
It simply clarifies that AI art is not copyright protected.
It's not art. It can be anything, even an Astounding Piece of ____. But not Art.
As a politician in my country. I will make sure this copyright legislation is adopted here as well.
W
W
Surprisingly I've grown even more excited to pursue art commissions and design work even through all this stuff. I'm considering going for a law degree after my business one because copyright law seems pretty lucrative now coz of AI even as a consultant.
My money senses are tingling…
Wow thanks for the news its kinda take some burden in my back because this ai thing, since my favorite artist encourage his follower to start using ai,its hurt me actually and make me down to study art, but this news make some smile to my face, thank you
I feel like smiling again,
for the first time in 1 and half year
Nah with this New Law art will just go out of the us and go to china it just mean artist will be played even l'ESS i love the irony
I have always said that AI art can't be copyrighted. There was already precedent for stuff like this, believe it or not in Naruto the monkey. Naruto (the monkey, not the anime character) took a selfie of himself with a photographer's camera. That selfie was unable to be copyrighted because it was not the result of human authorship. Monkeys aren't human and neither is AI. Case closed.
But just because AI art can't be copyrighted, doesn't mean it doesn't have it's place, just so long as it's trained on non copyrighted works or works which the creator(s) of the AI hold the rights to or has permission to use. AI art is great for people with no time or desire to learn to draw or paint, who just want to bring an idea to visual life to show their friends. It's also great for slapping a bunch of concepts into existence to see what works and what doesn't, without having to first draw them. The non-artist can then give their ai concept art as reference to a real, human artist who can create, for them, a final product, inspired by (but not a copy of) the ai art, which can then, be copyrighted.
It is such a coincidence that somehow a primitive (?) primate, saved human rights from AI
@@TokinoSora10thApostle Huh, I never thought of it that way, but yeah. Kinda funny how these things work out.
@@TokinoSora10thApostle It is more like the opposite, no?
I’m supporting only human artists 🗿
Soon there wont be much with dogshit laws like this
Good luck i wish it was essy
Thanks to this video, I feel like drawing again!
With the news happening in the video game industry in china about artists being fired to be replaced by AI and the artists just fixing the mistakes made by the machine, it made me very sad.
But knowing that on this side of the world things are being more coherent makes me happy again. Thanks a lot Marc
You people are absolutely delusional, lmao
"In the Office's view, it is well-established that copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity. Most fundamentally, the term “author,” which is used in both the Constitution and the Copyright Act, excludes non-humans."
It simply clarifies that AI art is not copyright protected.
L you're not even gonna be able to get a job china will just replace all artist then and noboady will go to the US no more huge L
Here's a hopeful thought for you as an artist - one of the things we're learning about AI is that art models tend to be most effective when trained towards a specific sort of end result. If someone wants to set up a really killer model for making pictures of cars, then they need to get lots of cool photographs of cars from different angles, and having other subjects interacting with the cars in the specific sorts of way that might be desirable to see in the output images. Now with cars, that's easy enough, take the photos from the right variety of angles and position the flags and the pit crews. But what if you want a model that makes kickass dragons? Can't photograph them, so you need artists willing to draw lots and lots of dragons doing suitably dragon-like things, from multiple angles and different poses. Likewise, if someone wants to generate pictures of themselves, they can make a Textual Inversion or Lora "mini pack" from a small number of images and train the AI locally, and it's not hard to get famous characters or movie stars in AI the same way, but what if you want to be able to generate images of an original character, or someone from history? The material to train on isn't available, so you'd have to commission an artist to draw like 5-12+ pictures of the character or person in question from different angles and in different contexts. So, as much as you might lose some business to AI, it's also possible that it'll develop whole new markets for artists. Being able to sell someone a picture of a character that they have in their mind doing whatever they wish is cool and saleable, but being able to sell someone twenty pictures of their character on the understanding that this will let them generate ten thousand more is even cooler and more saleable. If things like Stable Diffusion really take off. Since training is more resource-intensive than generating pictures, you could even sell Textual Inversions and Loras directly, trained on art that you custom-make for the purpose and purchasable by people who might want to introduce an art AI to a new concept, but don't have a machine that can handle it.
brother this wont affect companies cutting down 20%+ of their workload just AI generating icons, portraits and other random things an artist wouldve otherwise had to do. AI can still replace a ton of workload artists otherwise wouldve done while keeping the most skilled artists for the bigger projects. this will happen in every industry though so dont worry! we are all gonna get hit. artists are just the first wave.
To respond in general, as everyone has good points of view. I would like to express the fact that at least some progress could be made on this problem in some sense.
I hope that in the future, more progress will be made on this issue 😊
this was an extremely helpful video thank you for taking the time to create it.
EXCUUUUSE ME ???? Today's artwork is amazing !!!??!!!? sorry the video was interesting but I was literally hypnotized by your painting ! omg, gg, great work ! i'm in awe 😍
Yeah, let's see an AI do that awesome stuff.
I’m so glad about this. RUclips won’t stop recommending videos of how to sell AI art that’s generated and sold as is, and it doesn’t sit well with me at all. It’s not their art. It’s the machine’s, and in a way, also all the artists online out there whose work have been taken and used by the AI for a prompt.
You can still sell ai art and all that, you just can't prevent other people from using your created ai art too.. This law doesn't really change a lot
Perhaps it will be turned around. If it is hopeless to recognize AI art (all though much of it is quite recognizable) we will find a way mark real art as certified human.
@@REE-Animation no you won't be able to in the USA. As you can't sell commission work like prints. So, if they are seen as commissioner they wouldn't have the right to sell it and because it's a ai they can't give permission.
@@-Pridebycreatons- AI can't prosecute you for copyright violation either, so you truly can do it. And commision work is not the only way to sell art. In a commision work you sell the right to use your art not just the art itself. Nobody prevents you from selling the art that is in public domain (so you can sell AI art as well).
@@-Pridebycreatons- You, as in you specifically, could take a public domain image, print it on a mug and sell it for profit. Any public domain image/image without copyright can still be sold, the only difference is that I could sell the same public domain image you are selling.
So an image that is completely AI generated, is in the public domain and anyone can use it/sell it for anything they want, but nobody can copyright it. This applies to America as well.
If I modify an image in the public domain, I can now claim copyright on the elements of the image that I changed, which only protects my modified version, but not the original.
So I could essentially create an AI image, print it on shirts and sell it, but on the flip side I can't sue anyone if they also start selling the same shirt with the same print.
Disney does not own the stories of Snow White or Cinderella, for example. So anyone can use the story of Cinderella and Snow White. They hold copyright on the animation though, since they did it themselves and wanted to be the sole distributors of their animated films. If their animation was somehow public domain, then anyone could sell those movies for profit. Even you and me.
What this law does is that it actually protects you from being sued by someone pumping out a million AI images per day and copyrighting all of the characters in them, preventing many artists from being able to even come up with something new or cool looking without an AI potentially having done it already and blocking you. So this is a good thing for everyone, but it doesn't actually work like that.
Not to mention that NVIDIA, Adobe etc. are making image generators as well, with licensed images, so they could potentially make the law change when it comes to their own material being used to train their AI systems.
Anyway, once AI does video or even games, most people will move on that only seek profit. An AI images can be generated for free, so why on earth would I pay someone who's telling the machine to draw, when I can just do it myself and continue to pay normal artists anyway.
I honestly don't understand why anyone was panicking. This is the best time for art in human history. Most of the legends of old barely got by on their art, now millions of people can sell their art online and offline and earn money anyway, not to mention they can build a connection to the artist and their work, which is truly where the money ACTUALLY comes from.
I know and knew plenty of people with extraordinary artistic abilities earning next to nothing, so it has become quite clear to me that the artist and their vision is the prime money maker, not the art in itself.
The only people that will suffer are people accepting commissions for extremely personalized art for "private use", involving anthropomorphic animals and Tifa, which is a copyrighted character that is being sold by some artists. You can almost bypass all copyright laws by making the characters get involved in adult activities too and still earn money.
This whole thing has a lot of nuance.
I understand and agree with all the logic.
And yet I get viscerally upset when I see people posting AI generated content. I get upset when I see people advertising AI generated content on Fiverr or something. These people are bottom feeders. They didn't even write the code that is able to generate the images. They are twice removed from the skills it takes to do anything outside of advertise.
Ultimately, conversely, I think it will only add value to people who have the actual skills. Dollars-to-donuts the AI people will over saturate the market, making artists more valuable.
"You wanna be an artist? Just learn how to do art."
Amazing quote. Based Marc.
Artists are really desperated
AI art for free / cheap vs paying a God Tier artist for the same quality? Anyone will take the cheap way any day
There's already so much free automated stuff that's done better by a computer and I don't see anyone complaining, only "artists"
@@DawoopFilms the problem is that A.i. art is NOT thier own art. It's stolen artwork from all the other artists, the A.I art is essentially a bomb infused with all artworks that fits the prompt, the artworks it took from are all unconsented by the artists.
Artwork from an A.I. is not acknowledged as an actual artwork since it wasn't a.i. that makes the artwork anyway as it is plagerising actual works made by artists.
@@randomaccount3500 Almost everything automated by computers require an input, so of course it had to be trained on images in this case
This case is no special, training requires an input, but you guys keep treating this AI as an special case when it isn't
Also, if the guys were to train the AI all over again using non-copyright images, same story, we will get to this point when AI replaces human work
@@DawoopFilms if they used only non copyright images they won't end up with crap, I reckon they would really struggle to find enough artists who want to sign up to draw themselves out of existence. And the current trend of being able to ask an A.I to draw in someone's specific style by naming them will be pretty much entirely gone, as it should be.
@@ewancarey5847 Thing is it already exists and other people can train their own models, what are we gonna do? Place laws anti AI in the entire world and cut off the internet for everyone? Let's be real
Ya'll should adapt quickly because these things can't be stopped, slow them is most you guys can do
The thought of computer generated art seems so gross to me for some reason. Like, there’s no passion, no love put in the art. It’s what lit the fire for me to start studying art to rebel against this. Even if there’s nothing really to rebel against, I’m still glad that I’m motivated to study art!
passion could be done with working with ai but doing it like the cheap way like the get money quick scams are whats gross.
"Like, there’s no passion, no love put in the art."
People said the same thing about Photoshop. Learn the new tools and see for yourself what they can add to your process. A pencil, a tablet, or an AI, there's exactly as much passion as you the human put into it.
@@damienk7311 but with photoshop you still need to know the basics of anatomy, light and shadows, colors etc. With AI you don't need that anymore, just type out a couple of words and tadaa. That's what is not cool. It's like saying I cooked my meal but in reality I ordered take out
@@starlighttigerx268 Exactly. People really go on saying Accept the Tool, embrace the change, use Ai as tool. But how do we even do that, they just put words get whatever illustration, that's absolute BS. Literally no work put into it. Digital Art just reduced the need of art supplies and some other complicated stuf but AI completely deleted the drawing process and it just comes of instant images.
@@Karan-zs7uf Yeah! That’s what I mean! I feel like drawing it yourself, no matter the format, is part of the fun, putting in your own individual touch!
Happy Birthday! Thanks
Basically, significantly transform the machine's work before attempting to claim your own ownership of any part of the results, and also ensure you have this in place with comparisons to originals before attempting to file a claim with the copyright office.
Most of my concept art panels are fair use-friendly, if not explicitly CC-BY-A or similar. Just don't sell it, or use it for slander, and I don't usually get fussy.
I do really like the copyright law for AI so far, the training is very much a heavy subject, particularly when you can literally train a subject of as little around 10 images to replicate a style or character. Personally though, i forsee bigger laws put into effect given just how much AI is able to replicate humans, down to copying vocal tones now to replicate people. It'd be very easy for criminals now to train an ai on someones voice for example, and it's only getting worse with the chat gpt too mimicing language and mannerisms. I know thats not specifically art, but it can be used in the creation of games, movies etc which is relevant
I've been saying for a bit that we're going to need stricter laws on using a person's likeness in media, ever since they brought back Tupac. I've got a feeling AI is going to force their hand on that now.
It should be completely outlawed. Arts aren't a necessity and flooding the world with it and devaluing it isn't something laws need to protect and permit to happen when it requires the very creators it displaces to fuel it. It is parasitic technology
@@Wynaro no WE shouldn't do that that's litteraly the most idiotic and retarded thing ive ever Heard i dont understand how artist Can genuenely be this ridiculously moronic
How many "original" old master art exist? Nothing new, only faster.
My man... watching you creating this scene has been a treat!
Still finding my way with art...I'll just be the best artist I can be in between my job and see where it takes me and where my place in the art world will be.
Short version : AI-generated art is not able to be copyrighted.
But if you have copyrighted art that you feed to one to make Minor adjustment, it retains the copyright protection it already had.
Or you can completely transform the generated art so that it no longer resembles the generated work at all (and they've been up front, they mean AT ALL) and copyright your new work.
We all knew this was going to be the decision, because the alternative would be an endless back and forth between the AI providers and those providing the instructions to the AIs, each claiming Creative authorship.
You mentioned that the Short version : AI-generated art is not able to be copyrighted. So this means you can copy and claim someone else's AI-generated art as your own. Is that correct? As you mentioned the later the Non generated AI art can be copyrighted.
@@theodorevelentzas1065 Yes? As long as you clearly add in your own style to it. If it's a one to one, then you basically just copied a public domain character, and that's not protected.
Fantastic of you to keep us updated on that
This was insanely important for you to post this.
You shed light on the process of artwork. Considering Legal team is being paid to audit and make sure the artwork does not step on toes makes the expense of creating simple skins in a live service game understandable how expensive it can get and long time it takes with all the people involved to create something original.
Also this puts a point to where AI can be used as a tool more then how evil people make it out to be.
sorry but a "tool" that stole millions of artists properties, should not be allowed to be used.. until the creator of the programm deletes all the drawings they took without permission. such tool should be banned. the creator could feed it their own art, their own picture of nature, human anatony, animals, color theory, line work and sketch work. than it would be a legit tool that can be used.
artists are not evil for wanting their property not used without their permission. its our right to not have our hard work stolen and used in a program without our knowledge or permission....
would u be happy if someone took your drawings, cut it to pieces, glued different pieced of each drawing together and than present it like a different piece?
The juxtaposition between the mechanized walker and the people nearby really adds a lot of story interest to the piece. I really like it!
As a digital Matte painter and concept artist myself I would love to see it make a difference but I just don't see how this copywrite law could be enforceable. Ai art is becoming so good at a huge variety of painting styles, I just don't see how you would be able to tell the difference between the human and AI stuff. True at the moment I find you need to heavily edit AI produced work to get it in good shape but this will rapidly change as the transformer models become more proficient and fine tuneable.
Of course, you are absolutely right, AI detectors, even if they are not as supported or evolve as AI, sooner or later may have a higher rate of success or even the laws that are being issued now could give a limit, such as the brands of water for example.
@@jordansaballos2149 An ai art detector is only going to claim a tiny percentage of what is produced and still doesn't prove it was a i. We are in the first stages of a art and you can't produce photorealistic pictures indistinguishable from actual pictures. There it's going to always be a need for artists. But art ai's are an incredible tool for artists. And what I think really upsets a lot of artists is it makes it much easier for many more people to create art and that is some scary competition
@@cdreid9999 I'll be honest, you're absolutely right, brother, it's obvious that the AI came to stay, at least the European Union will put the AI in a less threatening position and it will be perfectly a tool in the future, which is why your friend of mine is right. all your argument.
I like the idea of calling it AI Art but please let's not call the people who prompt it artists...
@@DMDvideo10 good news look what new he said copyright is better news for artists and those """"""artists"""""" of ai now they should be if they want to stand out now for sure ai is a tool
I agree, learn how to actually do art instead of using AI to steal art.
L take
@@slimboarder.o7I love how instead of making an actual cohesive, well-constructed, and insightful counterpoint backed up with believable and reliable evidence you just go in and say "L take"
one thing is for sure, a.i image and video is going to force a change to copy right laws. the only question is do they get better for creators or corporations?
Seeing all the comments in here of Artists feeling like creating again after watching this video makes me feel so much better. I see I wasn't alone in this creative drought that the rise of AI art has caused me. AI art, and the anxiety it caused, put me in a depressive state and I haven't been able to create for months. This video has been a *massive* relief to see. I thought surely things would be going the other direction as money typically talks.. and it still may, but for now my mind can rest a little easier.
Love the direct breakdown! Thanks marc!
aahhh as of recently ive just been thinking about giving up and discontinuing everything that i do. i feel like having a career in art was unreliable enough at the start and with the introduction of ai i just thought about dropping everything, seeing that people were calling themselves "artists" because they put words into a generator and that made me sad. of course its nice to use as a reference for something more specific but i feel useless knowing that someone can just get an image like that in seconds ... im nervous about posting my art online anymore because i feel it will be put into a generator. its just scary...
There’s no way I will allow my art, or anyone else’s, to be surrendered by an A.I.!
As an artist, AI enthusiast, and avid user of the related technologies. This certainly caught my interest, and reading through I'm quite happy with the direction they went for, as it benefits all. Those who put genuine work in themselves should indeed retain a copyright of the work.
Some things stand out however: If one codes and trains their own AI, does the products of it, the AI being the product of an individual person, retain their copyright still? Are unclaimed AI material considered copyrightless and thus public domain? How much modification is required to no longer be considered AI generation sections?
There's still much to be covered, or at the very least clarified clearly. I look forward to when the works of artists is protected whilst also not ostracizing or disrupting AI use in the creative process or for just envisioning.
Well we have some answers about this already. The terms of service for all AI generators that I know states that the images are public domain. So everyone can sell them or use them.
And about the amount of the work that is required for copyright that is a blurry line. There are many cases of artworks form the past that was denied copyright and had a lot of work in them and also many that did almost nothing to change source material and won the lawsuit.
It is also matter of perspective. Someone would consider minor changes as enough and others not. Most laws regarding art are like his... opened for interpretation determined case by case.
I don't know what happened to the one who had put this (probably, it's censorship, and It'll happen to me, so screenshot this for Good Measure). Essentially, the commenter said that the perception of the Copyright Office regulating AI-generated illustrations as a positive thing stemmed from the idea of AI as the War Against the Artists, and that it would backfire monumentally, considering that Digital Art is aided by electronic devices, just like Artificial Intelligence.
And my reply to that is that, even though pointing out the reactions as an "War Against the Artists" and it's obsolesence and consequences is a brilliant point, the person who just got the comment to get Stalin'd would have to face the replies of many people from the Anti-AI circle, that boils down to "It's not a Human, It's a Machine. It's nothing like we've ever done before."
I've read the document and all I see is bureaucrats contradicting themselves and "playing safe" (or so they think). I'm pretty disappointed by this. It's pretty ironic that Japan and New Zealand are looking into the future, while US tries to be as backwards as possible in terms of any actual progress.
Soon no one will be able to tell what is and isn’t A.I generated, even A.I itself won’t be able to tell. We are in the very early stages & already it’s becoming difficult
Thank you Marc for this news 🥺 Such a silver lining! Keep creating artists!! 💖
I always found it sad these prompters referred to themselves as "AI Artists", when at best they're commissioning a program to steal from actual artists. Glad this new law is reflecting the reality of that.
It dosen't steal Learn how the technology work before telling such bullshit
At last, my nightmare was nothing more but a dream. Thank you!
Average AI Prompter = inconsistent results and oversights on anatomy and proportion
Skilled Artist + AI = Masterpiece
With something like ControlNet + Scribble you can turn your sketches into full illustrations with AI and it works really well. If you aren't an artist at all, you're out of luck and you can't utilize this technology fully. Not trying to knock art as a career, but starving artist is not a new term. I love art and sell commissions but I'd be a fool to quit my day job
It feels a little insulting to call AI artists mere "prompters". Sure you _can_ type "waifu" to dreamshaper and get something out of it, but to get good, _controller_ results, the workflow can get very involved, and you can have a lot of agency over the end result if you so desire. That's what separates proficient AI artists from bad ones, or mere "prompters" as one would say.
A extreme hostile kneejerk reaction to a novel technological approach to making art is nothing new, pen and paper purists were extremely against digital art, traditional musicians were against synths, samplers and sequencers etc. Makes sense AI art is no different, or even more extreme considering how _extremely_ powerful tool it is.
@@SaltyMaud You say this like I haven't been prompting four hours a day with an RTX 3090 for the past 8 months. I get it, but someone who does not have an artist's skill-set is not going to be able to get the best results. If I don't like a hand and in-painting isn't helping, I can just boot up Photoshop and paint it correctly
@@EhurtAfy Oh, my response was not aimed at you, just adding to the general conversation.
And perhaps you should read my comment again, I meant to support the idea that there is (or at least _can_ be) definitely intent and skill involved in properly using AI image generating tools. Being proficient in photoshop is definitely helpful in the AI-image workflow too - just getting good masks alone already requires you to pull your work-in-progress out to a image editing software.
@@SaltyMaud Yeah, we're in agreeance, big difference in results between casual prompter, skilled prompter and, skilled prompter + artist. 3D artists are also familiar with things like depth maps already, so artists have a huge headstart and leg up on non-artists with prompting 👍
@@EhurtAfy I love that controlnet enables more advanced control over the whole process, it's what really sold stable diffusion to me as a viable tool to making art with intent. To me how well you can utilize controlnet seems more important than just typing good prompts. When _you_ take control, having at least basic sense of good composition is required too. Being good enough with photoshop to manually fix the problems - which there will always be, is almost second. If not by repainting the errors by hand, then at least by compositing the best takes on your work in progress and making them blend in... that's more my approach with graphic design background (not much of a painter, but I can definitely use the tools :D).
Simply knowing the basics of the tool (what all the parameters do and how they behave, how and when to do inpainting, what kind of sampler is appropriate for what you're trying to achieve, what your models can and can't do etc.) are just basic requirements to even start using the tool properly.
The whole "just type in words lool" idea a lot of people seem to have seems quite outdated.
The new act is an interesting stance with HUGE implications. Say, a newspaper has its articles written by ChatGPT: these articles will NOT be covered by copyright.
Similarly, a computergame where the conversations were written by such software: the conversations will NOT be covered by copyright (people wanting to create a parody on a game will have soo much fun!)
But I have to agree, AI training is the more important discussion.
Copyright laws do need a massive overhaul though, they are greatly skewed to favour large companies instead of smaller creators, and they last too damn long. Forty years after copyright transfers legal ownership from the natural person who created the art to someone or something else is more than enough already. Meaning, copyright will expire at most forty years after the death of the natural person who created it, but if it was transfered to another person or some organisation, it might even expire before the creators' death.
This would also mean that copyright to art will always expire at most 40 years after a company or other organisation aquires copyright over it, since they are not natural persons who created it, but either bought the copyright from the original creator, or had the original creator employed and had the copyright signed over to them automatically through their contract. Companies and organisations do not create art! They may employ people who create art, but they do not create art themselves.
News were never covered by copyrights. Just shows how much you understand the topic lol.
@@corwin.macleod The news is not, the writing itself is. You may not just copy a news article word by word and put it in your own newspaper without permission from the writer of the original article. You can write your own article in your own words about the same news without permission.
However, if an article is written by AI, then other newspapers (and other media outlets) WOULD be allowed to copy it word by word, instead of having to write their own article in their own words.
Fair warning to any artist who plans to use AI tools or integrate elements of copyrighted works into a piece of art without clearing each element with the original artist and / or copyright holders: if you try to use this art in a professional field, you will be fired and your professional career as an artist will be over. In addition, you will probably be sued by the copyright holders of the works you stole.
It would be better if it would be relevant how much work/skill/intention/planning did go in the total artwork, regardless if it was before or after the diffusion step.
I always use every tec that comes up for my own art, since I got my first graphic tablet as a child... Everything from procedural, shaders, lots of algorithmic, in and out painting, Houdini, game engines, combinations of Stable Diffusion, disco diffusion and blender to create depth maps and use it with the control net capabilities... Professional and private.
I trained my own models and embeddings on my own art and art I have commissioned over the years. I have a unique set of scripts for further processing stuff into what I want for my current project. Setting up such a workflow can be a lot of work, comparable to how a photographer set up a complex shot. This approach cuts off a complete new artistic field. It's like when, in the past, digital art was seen as cheating all over again...
I agree that people that did put a prompt into Midjourney should not be considered artists.
Agreed, very much agreed.
YES FRIGGIN THANK YOU. EXACTLY WHAT IVE BEEN SAYING.
People claiming learning those word prompts effectively makes them artists - NO. You learned how to funnel out some words in a few hours or days time to get something else to create art for you that an artist has taken years of their life to learn how to create something on the same level. AI Prompting =/= BECOMING AN ARTIST
Besides AI prompting isnt as interesting as saying youre a "prompt engineer" :^)
@@j.2512 good, their process of slowly working away on art "because it takes time pls unerstan abloobloo" or when they're not crying about that theyre Price Fixing by telling budding artists that are undercutting their prices to "just totally value your work and know your worth XDDD" is and *should be* over, you adapt or sink when things change
Thank you so much for sharing this crucial info
This is kind of a good news, after spending my lifetime trying to be better at my own phase (I've been drawing since i was a kid) I've become decent enough to maybe even take commissions
But i tried ai once and not even 30 secs, something soo much better than mine is produced
I was disheartened
Totally agree. AI being around does not mean there's a great threat to copyright issues. Just define AI art as exactly what it is (art not created by human, espcially the Text2image) and apply traditional copyright laws. Right now, AIs can not generate perfect images and misinterpret human intentions so you need to do a lot of work to actually make good-looking images. I hope this part of the effort is recognized.
A.I. art is created by humans.
A.I., and painting programs like the one in the video, both use algorithms to create the content. A.I. uses more algorithms.
@@andrewlinn7863 AI is created by humans. The picture that comes from the several words you typed in is not made by you. The AI made it for you. AI art is therefore not made by humans
@@loctite417
The human isn’t putting in much work by typing a word prompt into an A.I. image generator, but it is work nonetheless. A creator doesn’t have to do a certain percentage of the work for it to be created by them. The A.I. would do nothing unless a prompt was given.
A blur filter in a paint program also does much of the work using algorithms, but we still consider that person the creator of the artwork.
A person could type in an entire novel worth of descriptions to generate a picture with an image generator, but just because he/she isn’t using a mouse or electronic drawing pad, doesn’t mean he/she didn’t create it. If I build a house using only tools, does it not become my creation?
@@andrewlinn7863 if you build a house with tools, its made by you, if the tools somehow build the house by themselves, its made by the tools, same with ai art, you are essentially a customer who asks someone else to do that art, in this case a ai, and as copyright only protects humans, the copyright shouldnt apply, its really simple when you think about it
@James Williams excactly, the work is done by the ai and prompter does the excactly same work as if they hired an artist so as the end product is not made by human it is not able to be copyrighted
AI art should not be copyright able in any way. That is why the corrupt and dirty businessmen and politicians are going to find a way.
And this law is already part of a way, because they can still use AI tech as a "tool", they know this tool will become very powerful.
I've been having an incredible mental block (which has affected my daily life) for the past few months due to all this AI mess, this definitely makes me feel a little better.
No AI will take over everything. You will be out of art jobs and will be working for the lowest dollar possible. That's the fate. Tremble and be unable to work.
The lesser the amount of junk artists are on the market, the better everything looks for those who knows better than to fear 'AI image generators'.
@@ShadeAKAhayate what you call "junk artists" are simply artists in their beginnings, the fact that there are people who commission works from these artists is not relevant since it is the client's decision (who in many cases needs a cheap service and does not care much the quality) not the seller, in any case the majority of "good artists" end up surpassing that stage of "Junk artists" as you like to call them, those who do not overcome that stage end up working on something else and do not affect consolidated artists at all so I don't understand your nasty attitude.
My concerns are focused on the industry in general and not on individuals, even if you are an excellent artist, that becomes irrelevant if AIs manage to consolidate and companies start using them for their projects, since human labor will be incredibly reduced, that's why This news is so positive for people who are in the process of entering a company. If you intend to live from a job related to art, it is obvious that you have to be good enough, do not be an unpleasant person with unknown people, not everyone has the same concerns or the same situation.
@@JACKjcs Junk artists don't have the stimuli to get better. They once learnt how to draw a gurl, they know how to draw bewbz -- and they thought were all set for life. But now the scary reflex-level image generators have come along, so let's make a strike and copy-paste stricken 'AI' letters within a red circle to show we are important. These people deserve a ban, not some 'nasty attitude'.
If a mundane job can be automated, it will be. Period. No point in concerning yourself with industry, it will adapt. Also, big companies have been using AI for their necessities for quite some time now, some even openly admit it. The world didn't end then.
YOU shouldn't this only affect us ai china will Never stop soon you wont even get a chance at having any kind of art job in the us
@@slimboarder.o7 Yes! Quit the profession! Plumbing is much more lucrative since AI can't do it by itself!
As an artist who was worried about my passion and my future livelihood, this video made me incredibly happy
You people are absolutely delusional, lmao
"In the Office's view, it is well-established that copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity. Most fundamentally, the term “author,” which is used in both the Constitution and the Copyright Act, excludes non-humans."
It simply clarifies that AI art is not copyright protected.
^everyone report the copy paste spammer
Ltake and L day for the WEST hopefully Europe dosen't follo the US on this shit
@@sourgreendolly7685 I don't get why this person spams this stuff. They put it in something slightly related and decided to put it everywhere. They're making themselves look like a fool.
Because the copyright is what drawslaves depend on, not the marketplace demand that existed since art wasnt accessible (its a good thing that it is now) due to the fact that artist would thinly veil Price Fixing with narcissistic phrases like "value your work bro!"
I’m so fucking happy to be an artist! The AI apocalypse is starting to fade away! (Or at least I hope)
It won't if their right and if thief right all against or midst should be not hate
This is a great start to protecting artists’ creativity and work product. This copyright law update further proves that this isn’t “art.” That’s why I call it “A.I. renders” not “A.I. _art._ “
The law can't prove anything. This is a declaration of regulator's stance on the matter -- nothing more.
I'm in full support of this. If you make it with your own two hands , you own it. Artists draw their work: digitally, traditionally, sculpting, carving, etc.
Generative ai doesn't make anything , and certainly those who claim to be ai artists are a misnomer in and of themselves. They don't make anything, they request the machine to generate something of other's works for them.
I'm glad the copyright office pretty much cemented what we already knew. I find it funny how a lot of pro-ai folks claim artists and others who disagree don't know how copyright works , when the dataset is fed on predominantly copyrighted data. 🤣
@@ShadeAKAhayate and some random guy in youtube comments should be taken more seriously than the actual law? AI bros are becoming desperate lmao
@@CezarWasTaken Depends on logic in this random guy's writing. It really doesn't take a genius to understand that legislation isn't math or science and can't be used to prove anything.
@@ShadeAKAhayate whereas in this example you don't understand the legislation, this isn't any new law, it's just bringing up the fundamentals of how copyright works and if AI bros were too picky or ignorant to actually learn how the law works and has been working for the last few decades then they're at fault
now this does bring a smile to all of us artists faces
I cannot say how relieved I am hearing this. I sure thought we're screwed.
This is great! It keeps the AI technology useful, while ensuring that people still have to a lot of the work. This means you can use AI to help you create a work that is partially copywritten, but only for the use case of composition, which is really what the AI should be for anyway. The fact that you can't copyright the AI part is fair, and it still allows for the help of AI. The clarification on what AI is, is also very well put. I think this clarification is good for everyone who uses AI ethically.
"The clarification on what AI is"
And yet everyone still talks like these programs are AI...
I think when it comes to...game/movie companies, or honestly big companies in general, I think the fact that AI-generated art cannot be "copyrighted" will be a big deal, since games, movies and products need concept arts and designs for them, they're still gonna need art-directors and artists for them bc who else are going to develop the art direction of a product. I dont think a lot of leaders in a project out there have the skills to direct that part of the project on their own, hell even if they do have the skills to, unless they're super human, doubt they can do it by themselves.
And if they're just simply going to use AI-generated images for that and NOT tell the public about the fact that they're using them, it might cause big issues for the company cuz it'd be considered false-advertising/scam, might even lead to lawsuits and all that stuff.
I doubt keeping the fact that a project is reliant on AI a secret is impossible. So it's either going to be:
1) Hire artists/art-directors for the art-direction of a product and take full rights to all the assets created
2) Do all the art-direction stuff alone without any involvement of artists/air directors...however that wiill result, be truthful about it to the public and well...accept the fact that you dont hold all the rights to all the assets.
3) Do all the art-direction stuff alone without any involvement of artists/air directors...NOT be truthful about it to the public and risk getting heat bc of "false-advertising" and scam
If a project is fully commited in using AI and keep THAT a secret, they better not have ANY art-related employee or non-"fully-AI-supportors" with them, bc just like ANY self-respecting, disgruntled employee, they won't take it lightly.
The biggest problem with AI right now are individuals that are using it to make quick bucks and gain clout, exploiting the fact that a lot of people who love art don't really know better. I
A question I’m wondering is how would it works for games like you mentioned; that have art in them but is not the sole product. Like in board games or trading card games, would the game creator be able to use AI art on the cards for that game and then the game is the part that is copyrighted but not the art? Since you aren’t selling the art directly, it is just part of the game. And the game creator could just make it public knowledge like you mentioned so that everyone knows the art is not copyrighted.
@@KingdomGaming2019 Well idk tbh, but I feel like if a big part of the charm of a game is from the ART, then it's still going to matter a fair bit to the buyers...I mean, the whole charm of Yugioh or Pokemon cards are the designs of the monsters, I think making them just some random shit you generated on some AI engine isn't going to sit well with people...at least I hope so.
No one is going to buy a game that's just a straight copy of...chess, monopoly or any existing board game out there, and if they are, the art side of things better be unique and worth a damn, and I think the majority of people think that AI """art""" worth jack shit at the end of the day, sure they look neat here and there but...maybe it's just me, but no matter how neat-looking AI """art""" is, I'll always love the fact that real art had real effort put into them, even if they dont "look as good".
But I feel like that might be a bit unrelated to your question...well, they MIGHT be able to get away LEGALLY with using AI images for the graphics of whatever "board-type" games, but depends on what they're willing to say....it's probably going to be accompanied with its own sets of issues for them, perhaps not legal issues (I think), but issues nonetheless.
I feel like gaming companies and the like would hire artists who have actually put in the years of work and possess the skill to reliably change AI generated art to be copyrightable. Also, if your argument was true, this would be bad news for companies like hello games and Bethesda studios because they use procedural generation. But it’s not because the copyright they own is on the sum of the parts (I.e. the game and it’s contents) and not the individual parts. So if they use an ai generated texture, scattered procedurally in the game, they will still hold the copyright I guess because ultimately it is a part of the full game and has a new meaning/purpose in that context.
That’s why a lot of the same generic assets are often found across 3D media without copyright issues.
Similar to how marc painted over that photo. The colors are still there from the original image are they not.
Thank you so much for explaining all this, I guess the future will look brighter for the art community now. Thank you again Marc !
You people are absolutely delusional, lmao
"In the Office's view, it is well-established that copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity. Most fundamentally, the term “author,” which is used in both the Constitution and the Copyright Act, excludes non-humans."
It simply clarifies that AI art is not copyright protected. It's not "protecting" you form being replaced, lmao.
It's simply keeping AI artists from being protected and keeping the AI art tools out of monopoly. None of the moralizing and high-horsing going on with you entitled artists has been validated in any way.
Thanks for the update Marc! Glad to hear this starts to establish on US hopes it will spread to other countries as well!
Thank you so much for summing this up 🙏🏻 it made my day to hear these great news and I am happy they are about to address the AI training method too! It feels like artists are being heard and recognized and I hope it will stay that way
The law was fast with this one, incredible
It's mostly because it affects big corporations too but yeah I'm sure Disney isn't going to let people use their art for profit, not in this country lol
That's because it isn't a new rule. Copyright has *always* worked like that. So they didn't create a new rule, they just explained to everybody how copyright has always worked. But because artists are absurdly ignorant about copyright, they think that it's "new".
@@SchemingGoldberg The copyright system that exists still sucks. Evidence being the strike system on this platform being the way to leverage courts against everyday people. I don’t see yet another law which can be subject to change and input by corporate lobbyists changing any of that. If anything, the coding put into AI software will be copyrighted, and even if a large company say were to be sued for using another party’s IP claim on a digital item, any court cost along with prolonged court cases would make it meaningless.
If AI software were to see something free and open source like blender is to 3d modeling, than it’s an even playing field for everyone who can find various or specialized uses for it.
It is more like a law that protects the big corporations from using AI as a "tool" to "assist" art creation. As AI tech improves it might be able to "assist" 90% of artists crafting time, and if artists are charging hourly rate.