8
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
Log in to join the discussion
Log In3 Comments
quinn60620d ago
Totally get that. Saw a thing online where a digital artist found their whole portfolio was used to train a model, and now people are making stuff that looks just like theirs but worse. It's like someone photocopied their soul and sold the blurry copies. The photographer in your story didn't give permission, and that's the whole thing for me. If you need someone's work to make your thing, you gotta ask. Otherwise it's just taking.
7
paige16620d ago
Remember reading about a guy who got in trouble for selling prints of a famous painter's work but with a tiny cartoon bird added in the corner. He called it a new style, a remix. The court called it theft. This feels like that, just with extra math. The tool learned from someone's life work without asking, and that seems like the core of the issue, not the shiny picture it made.
1
mileslane20d ago
Isn't this just the same as when big companies take a small town's idea and sell it back to them?
1