AI Art At DSA

When this issue began emerging, I let it go because I truly don't see an issue with it as an art form. In fact, we were told that AI was learning and training itself. But then it was brought to my attention that the AI systems were leaving artists' signatures in the art. I looked into it and sure enough, there were the signatures and some images included multiple signatures. What that means is that the AI did not create the art, it stole the art and basically blended and then painted over the art with effects.

You can blend an image from many different images and then use a paint program like Filter Forge to paint over it. If you do a well enough job, none of the original art survives and we can conclude that it's an original image. I am not as much concerned about using blended art and copying because tracing and other forms of art generally can still be considered your own based on how much alteration you do to it. But, AI programs, regardless of the intent, reveal that these views are being exploited to promote what some see as a new art form.

But I ask you, can you not blend several bits and pieces together from other people's art and then paint over them with a filter and create something new? These AI programs not only use signatures from the original artists but watermarks are left as well... the efforts used by artists to mark their work so that if anyone tries to steal it and call it their own, you have proof that it's not. So why is this different from AI? Answer... it's not.

The only real difference with AI is that a human is not creating the art so things like copyright law no longer apply as you have to be human for copyrights to be enforced. Thus, they're literally saying that because AI isn't human, it has the right to take your art and do anything it wants with it.

Worse, how are we to know unless it's brought to our attention, and being you were led to believe it was legal, and it may well be, then you've broken no laws correct?

This means the individual sites have to state in their own rules what's allowed and not allowed and when it comes to AI, beginning in 2023, we will not allow it. You can create it to share in the forums and say look what I created using so and so AI program, we're not going to stop that as it is a creative process. But we don't want it posted in the galleries or the competitions.

This means a bit more difficult as we're still going to allow Filter Forge and other programs to be used but for the online AI sites, it's the AI creating the art and not the artist. It provides variables and basically, other than you choosing which you want, you're only involvement is telling the AI what you want. It's kinda like going to Mcdonald's vs cooking food yourself at home... it's the fast food of art.

If you've already submitted AI images, don't worry as anything before Jan 1rst is still legal. But, many of the larger sites like Artstation that should be taking a stand against this aren't and I just want to prove that it takes no effort to address this.

From my perspective, AI has a "non-commercial" place and if you want to make images for your grandchildren and just say isn't this cute, go for it. Anything can be viewed as art including things in nature such as a potato that looks like Abe Lincoln or a happy accident where a bucket of paint splashes on your car leaving what looks like an image of a flock of seagulls.

But we're not involved in "accidental" forms of art. We are involved in you sharing your talents and abilities. Even CG art requires effort on your part and if you post a drawing you made yourself, we allow it even though we are primarily a CG site. If you have an art gallery and want to buy an image created by monkeys with their own shit, go for it... who am I to say this isn't art? It's just that we want you to share what you create and not what some program creates for you.

In the forums, feel free to share but add in that it was this AI or that which made it. We won't discriminate and or say it's not art nor will we allow you to be trolled. But, on most sites, we often share things we find on the internet just to say look at this. You don't have to own it, you're just sharing it. Facebook and numerous other websites are pretty much nothing else but that sort of sharing experience. Just remember, sharing is different than claiming ownership and if you use anyone else's art in your own image, you really can't claim it entirely as your own unless you have permission.

The issue of background images comes to mind as we all pretty much let it go when someone uses a background they find on the internet and then add art over it to claim as our own. That's not exactly true unless the background image is public domain or the copyright protections have been abandoned for whatever reasons. If you do this, you need to buy the backgrounds or include a link to the original image and that you have permission or the copyright protections are no longer there. And never forget trademarks as many characters like Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse are also trademarked.

If you use a 3d Star Wars figure to make fanart, we will consider this between you and the original copyright/trademark holder. They say remove it after showing they own it, we remove it... just that simple. But we cannot be expected to know everything and AI is being so indiscriminate, it's literally taking everything it finds... we simply cannot accept this even in the same context as fanart because fanart can still be your own work, AI is not.

Not meaning to ruffle feathers but remember, we stipulate it has to be your art and nothing about AI is yours unless you're feeding your own work into it to see what AI might create. If you do this, we can still call it yours because the original art is yours.

Please discuss further if you wish.

Thank You