c/ai-art-ethics

Just realized the AI art tool I bought actually ripped off a friend's style

I paid $60 for a 'unique' style pack, then saw it spit out images that looked exactly like my buddy's work from his Philly gallery show. Anyone else get tricked by a 'new' AI style that was just stolen?

3 comments

morganmartinez•5d ago

My coworker called AI art 'just a tool' and it made me think about my friend who's a painter

He said it's like a new kind of paintbrush over coffee yesterday, but my friend in Austin who sells her watercolors online told me her sales have dropped by almost half since last year because clients just ask for 'something like this' from an AI generator instead.

3 comments

anthonynelson•5d ago

Pro tip: I used to think scraping art for AI training was just smart data use until I saw my own work in a model.

I was testing a new image generator last week and typed in a very specific prompt about a red fox in a raincoat, which was the exact subject of a digital painting I posted online two years ago. The output was a clear, mangled copy of my composition and style, and it hit me that my unpaid work was now a direct competitor to my own commissions. How do you even begin to argue for fair use when the system is built on taking from everyone?

4 comments

amy_coleman•6d ago

Serious question, a local artist told me my AI stuff was 'just a collage of her work'

She pointed to a piece I made and named three specific painters it clearly pulled from, which made me feel gross. Now I run every prompt through a reverse image search first, anyone else do that?

3 comments

troyknight•6d ago

My kid asked me why her drawing wasn't in the 'art show' on the tablet

My eight year old spent last Saturday afternoon making a crayon drawing of our dog. She was really proud of it. Later, she was playing on a family tablet with one of those AI art apps that makes pictures from words. She typed 'cute brown dog' and it made a shiny, perfect image. She looked at her own drawing on the table, then at the screen, and asked me, 'Why is this one in the art show and mine isn't?' That simple question hit me hard. The app called its creation 'art' in a gallery feature, but her real effort, with smudged lines and her own style, was just paper on the table. It made me realize these tools aren't just making pictures, they're shaping what we, and our kids, think art even is. It's not about the quality of the output, but the value we place on human intention and the messy process of making something yourself. Has anyone else had a moment where AI art changed how someone close to you felt about their own creative work?

3 comments

derek_lee•7d ago

Tried to make a quick logo for my shop with an AI tool last Tuesday...

I typed in 'simple wrench with clean lines' and it gave me something that looked exactly like the logo from a garage two towns over. It felt wrong, like I was taking something that wasn't mine, even if the AI just mixed things up. How do you draw a line between getting an idea and copying someone's work without meaning to?

4 comments

alice_allen5•7d ago

Saw a local artist at a market last week who said AI art is just 'fancy clip art'

I was at the arts market in Portland and got talking to a painter at her booth. She told me, 'All that AI stuff is just fancy clip art, it doesn't count as real art.' That really stuck with me because it feels like a huge misunderstanding. The AI isn't just copying and pasting clip art, it's making new images from patterns it learned from millions of pictures, many of which were made by artists without their permission. That's the part people keep getting wrong. It's not about the output looking like clip art, it's about where the data came from. Has anyone else had a conversation like this that changed how you see the ethics?

3 comments

pat_murray53•11d ago

Saw a number from Getty Images that made me stop and think

I was reading an article about their lawsuit against Stability AI and it said Getty's legal claim is for around 1.8 billion dollars. That's a huge amount, and it's based on them saying the AI used millions of their photos without permission to train. It really hit me how much real, human-made work might be in these systems without the makers getting a thing. Has anyone else seen a stat or a case that made the scale of this click for them?

3 comments

averymartin•14d ago

Update: My gallery show in Portland got canceled because the venue switched to AI-generated posters.

The owner told me 'the AI stuff is just cheaper and faster' after I spent 6 months painting the series they originally commissioned, so has anyone else had a client pull the rug out like this?

3 comments

samrodriguez•15d ago

My friend's kid won a school art contest with an AI image

It was last Tuesday when I saw the post on social media. My friend was so proud, showing off his son's 'art' that won first place at the middle school fair. I clicked the photo and it was clearly made by an AI, the kind with those weird, smooth textures and slightly off hands. The kid is 12. He typed a sentence into a free website and got a ribbon for it. The real kicker was seeing the other entries in the background of the picture, actual drawings and paintings by other kids who spent time on them. It just feels wrong to reward that. It's teaching the next generation that typing is the same skill as drawing. Has anyone else seen this kind of thing happen at local events?

3 comments

henryt18•16d ago

Lost $200 on a 'custom' AI art commission that was just a stock image

I paid a guy on Fiverr to make a unique character portrait for a project, and he delivered something that felt off. I did a reverse image search and found it was a slightly tweaked version of a free AI-generated image from a public dataset (specifically from the LAION-5B set). The whole thing made me realize how easy it is for 'artists' to just run a prompt and sell the output without any real skill or original work. Has anyone else gotten burned by paying for AI art that wasn't actually original?

3 comments

grantpatel•19d ago

A friend in Portland said my AI art was just 'fancy theft'

We were at a gallery opening last month and I showed him a piece I generated with Midjourney. He looked at it, then at me, and said 'You didn't make that, the artists it stole from did.' That hit hard. Where do you draw the line between a new tool and taking someone's work?

3 comments

hannahcraig•20d ago

A comment on my art page made me think about my training data

I posted a digital piece I made with some AI help last week, just a simple landscape. Someone left a comment saying, 'Looks nice, but did you check if the style is too close to a specific living artist's work? I think I recognize the brushwork.' That hit me hard... I hadn't even considered that. I was just typing in 'misty forest painting' and picking outputs I liked. I went back and looked at the artist they mentioned, and yeah, the AI had clearly pulled from her signature technique. I felt pretty bad about it. So I changed my whole process. Now, before I even start a prompt, I spend an hour on art sites looking at styles that are explicitly listed as open for inspiration or are in the public domain. It takes longer, but it feels cleaner. How do you all make sure you're not accidentally copying someone's lifelong style?

4 comments

wendy32•20d ago

My friend's AI portrait vs my real painting for a local cafe

The cafe owner in my town wanted art for the walls. My friend made a portrait with a free AI tool in 10 minutes. I spent 3 weeks on a real oil painting. The AI one looked weird. The hands had 6 fingers. The colors were all wrong. The owner picked my painting. He said it had feeling. The AI thing was just a picture. It felt cheap. He paid me $200. My friend got nothing. It showed me the difference. The machine can make stuff fast. But it can't make it right. Has anyone else had a client choose real art over the AI version?

3 comments

henryt18•21d ago

PSA: I paid $60 for a custom logo from a 'designer' who just used an AI

I needed a logo for my small pottery business and found someone on a freelance site. They charged me sixty bucks and sent a file three days later. I liked it at first, but then I saw the exact same symbol (just different colors) on another local bakery's sticker. I asked them about it and they admitted they 'used a tool' to make it. Feels like I paid for a copy of something, not real art. Has anyone else been tricked like this by an 'artist' who's just running prompts?

3 comments

logan_gonzalez•21d ago

Hot take: I used to spend 3 hours on a single digital painting, now I can make a concept in 15 minutes with an AI tool.

I was working on a client's fantasy book cover last month and hit a creative wall, so I fed my old sketches into an image generator to get some quick ideas. It felt like cheating, but it got the job done way faster, and now I'm not sure how I feel about using it for paid work. Does using AI for the initial concept sketch cross an ethical line if I still do the final painting myself?

3 comments

sean_barnes24•22d ago

My friend's AI art piece sold for $400 at a local market, and now our artist group is split.

Half of us think it's a cool new tool that makes art more accessible, but the other half feel it's stealing from real artists who trained for years, so where do you stand on AI art being sold like that?

3 comments

seanmason•24d ago

I had to pick between a cheap AI logo or paying a friend for my food truck

This was about a year ago when I was starting my truck. I could get a logo made by an AI tool for basically nothing, or pay my friend Chloe, who's a real graphic designer, her full rate of $400. I went with Chloe. The logo she made is perfect for my brand, and it felt right to support someone I know. But now I see other trucks with slick AI art all over their menus and social media, and it makes me wonder. Did I make the right call for my business, or just the right one for my heart? Has anyone else faced a choice like that where the money part and the people part pull you different ways?

3 comments

harperr82•25d ago

I thought AI art was just a gimmick until a local gallery in Tulsa showed a piece that won a prize.

The artist openly used a model trained on a specific photographer's work, which the photographer said they never agreed to. It made me wonder if the line is about the final image or how you get there. Where do you all stand on using a living artist's style as training data without permission?

3 comments

harris.andrew•25d ago

Hot take: People keep saying AI art is 'just math' and it's missing the point.

I keep seeing this argument that because AI models use math, the art they make is somehow neutral and not really copying. I saw a video last week where a guy said, 'It's just numbers, man, it can't steal a style.' But that's wrong. I watched a friend, a digital painter in Austin, spend three months developing a specific way to do lighting. An AI can be trained on her public portfolio and spit out images with that same lighting in seconds. The math is the tool, but the input is real work from real people. It matters because calling it 'just math' makes it sound fair when it isn't. It ignores where the data comes from. How do we even start talking about paying artists if we don't admit the style had to come from somewhere first?

3 comments

skyler_robinson2•25d ago

I was sure that AI art tool was just stealing from artists, but after using it for a client's mood board last month, I saw it actually credited the style influences in its own weird way.

Honestly, it still feels a bit wrong, but seeing it list artists like Beeple and Zdzisław Beksiński in the output notes made me realize the tech is trying, at least a little, so has anyone else had an experience that made them less angry about one specific part of this mess?

3 comments

jenny_lane12•26d ago

TIL a local gallery quietly pulled an AI piece after a complaint

I was at a small gallery opening in Austin last week, and they had this digital piece that looked like a watercolor. The artist bio just said 'exploring new mediums'. A friend who knows the scene whispered that it was made with a popular AI image tool, and the gallery owner hadn't told anyone. Sure enough, by this weekend, the piece was gone. I asked a worker, and they said an actual watercolor artist who shows there saw it, recognized the style quirks, and made a big deal about it not being disclosed. It makes me wonder how many places are doing this now, just hoping no one notices. It feels like a trust thing more than anything. Has anyone else seen a gallery or shop try to pass off AI work without saying so?

3 comments

lucast81•27d ago

My friend who paints said my AI art was just 'fancy theft'

She told me my cityscape image looked exactly like a piece from a local gallery show, which made me check the training data. I stopped using that model and now only use ones with clear artist permission. Do you think using any trained model is wrong, or is it okay if the source is open?

3 comments

stella22•29d ago

A local art show in Austin had an AI piece win a prize and the room went quiet

I was at the East Austin Studio Tour last month, and a digital piece made with Midjourney won the 'emerging tech' category. The artist who got second place, a painter named Maria, had spent over 80 hours on her work. You could feel the tension shift in the gallery. Some people argued it was progress, others said it was unfair to artists who put in the physical labor. Has anyone else seen an AI win a prize meant for human artists, and how did people react?

3 comments

jason_davis•29d ago

Back in 2019, I'd spend a whole afternoon sketching thumbnails for a client's book cover, but now I just feed the brief into a generator and have 50 options in 30 seconds... does that make me part of the problem?

The first time I used Midjourney for a quick mockup instead of starting with my own pencil, I felt a weird mix of relief and guilt, like I was cheating on a part of myself that took years to build.

3 comments