Shimmy Morris
Using AI has always been risky as we don’t fully understand what’s allowed. This lawsuit might clear it all up.
——————–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The CHEAPEST Print on Demand Step by Step Course On the Internet!: https://theprintondemandclass.com/p/printondemand
⚙️⚙️Resources I Find Helpful⚙️⚙️
Easiest & Cheapest Website Builder: https://zyro.deals/shimmy
My Recommended POD Product Partner: http://bit.ly/shimmyprintful
Creative Fabrica for Fonts and Graphics: https://www.creativefabrica.com/ref/1019819/
📱📱My Socials📱📱
Website: shimmymorris.com
Instagram: https://bit.ly/instagramshimmy
Blog: https://medium.com/@shimmymorris
Print on Demand Facebook Group: https://bit.ly/ThePODgroup
Ok, so as a digital arts who has sold my artwork online for years and as someone who now used AI to help make my newest work, I'm sort of torn between being pro-artist and pro-AI. But looking at this objectively, I fall on the pro-AI side. For one, throughout history new technology and innovations have always come at the cost of old careers that then become somewhat obsolete. Unfortunately that's just the way it goes. So this sort of trend is nothing new. You need to adapt to the new tech and the opportunities it offers or get left behind. Second, as a digital artist I see my old artwork constantly shared and copied throughout the internet. That's now the internet works. If you put your work online, it will likely be spread around to countless people who could then take it and mimic it. So what's the different if another artist copies my work or an AI program? And it's not like the AI is creating an exact copies of your original work. It's using it as inspiration to create something new. There is nothing wring with that from a legal/ethical standpoint.
Honestly I get the fear of artists trying to protect their livelihoods. But at the same time it feels like gatekeeping. AI has made it possible for more people to make amazing art without any training or artistic talent. So of course, the old-time artist are gonna push back against that. Personally I'm not afraid of the competition. Just makes me hustle harder.
the world should be concerned about growing healthy food, not art wars
I have faith in the ability of corporations to enact the solution that screws over everyone equally.
What that HOLZ said is an ABSOLUTE LIE, AI is great, but through this blatant theft, the responsible people should be given heavy sentences and compensate EVERYONE whose work was stolen. And NO ONE CARES HOW THEY HAVE TO DO IT, did they know how to steal? Then let them now figure out a way to pay.
There’s what you want to see and what’s going to happen. Unfortunately the cats out of the bag. Evolve or drown kind of thing.
It’s like Kodak or blockbuster. Kodak brought out the forts digital camera eventually leading to its own demise.
I mean as long as we don’t ask AI to produce a design in the style of a well-known artist then we should be good right?
Fuck all the artists, This is evolution in this world, and they should adapt, not complain
If the artists win the cause, the art world will not develop and we will return to our previous position, but if the artists lose the cause, they will suffer in the near future, but they will adapt to and find a way to distinguish themselves in the art world with the presence of AI.
genie is out of bottle i am not seeing it going back in anytime soon
@shimmymorris1 I have about a month left on my Shopify shop, and made no sales on it yet. Pretty sure it going to fail. Since I already have the printify set up. Could I just link all those uploads to Etsy? Or do one start from scratch again? Is Etsy free or do they charge a fee like Shopify?
You can't close Pandora's Box but remember one thing was left in the box – Hope. A Picaso will always be a Picaso no matter how many digital copies might be made. Original art work in traditional formats will always have value based on being unique. The fashion world has dealt with knock offs for years but it hasn't stopped Prada, Coach, Gucci, Versache etc from making billions and the poorer populous get to wear there cheaper knockoffs. AI Art will be the same, Art will be Art and AI will be a common past time enjoyed by the lowly ungifted populous that couldn't draw a map to their house. Ride out the storm and stay calm, the world is going through another change similar to the 90's when the internet came alive. I remember and see now the change it created, another Pandora's Box had been opened. You can't fight this AI revolution no more than the internet revolution or the industrial revolution could be fought but you can refocus and reinvent yourselves. Workers thought automation would be the end of the blue collar mans jobs but someone had to maintain those machines!
Many artists don’t want commercialization of their images or offer them as vectors or graphics and that is fine but it’s something to be said about trying to monopolize a whole separate character/design/composition because it’s influenced by other arts. Because honestly other art art inspired by other artists as well so even if someone did take themselves out of learning data. It might still composite a similar vibe of a image because they had to learn from somewhere as well. And then let’s not even get into it with some of the people that are using it as graphics to composer a whole separate image, that art is that is mad because it has a similar vibe does not have rights to monopolize the art style it can only be stolen if it’s owned and you can’t own art styles
Do you wear a pink lipstick?
Everything D Holz says is gaslighting double speak.. from a self described sereal entrepreneur
This issue goes deep. and there is a ton of backstory here that sheds quite a bit of light onto the mindset and ethos of the companies now profiting from the aggregation and scraping of essentially the contents of the entire internet….
But for anyone else who wants to use MJ, or ASD, or whatever.. .you wont receive copyright. Meaning Anyone can repurpose your outputs in any way they want..for profit… So have at it!!!
But ill spare you that. Just know. Without the materials scraped and trained into these models. they can do nothing. And 99.9 percent of that material was not given consent to be used in a for profit model… Unethical? of course. illegal? hopefully very soon.
Only used the publicly domained artist style like Van Gogh, etc….
And that would be boring…
I dunno how to satisfy both world, to me as creative challenged person, I need ai? But at the same time I don't want ai to ruin people income/sustenance.
Did the artists who got their artwork scraped off of the web put up a robots.txt file instructing all web crawlers and bots to disregard their artwork? No? Well, then, they implicitly consented to have all contents they posted visited by, examined by, and analyzed by web crawlers. 100%. It's the Legally Blonde argument about 'why so concerned suddenly about THIS sperm emission?' It's very hard to establish legal standing when server records and Terms of Service agreements unread before clicking 'agree' actually had you consenting to expose your artwork to computer programs and bots and uses that you had no clue about, likely never investigated, and only now, NOW that something is happening with that technology you already consented to which you had never imagined, NOW you're suddenly concerned over. Doesn't work like that. Never has, never will.
And before the hate begins, I'm an artist myself. Went to art school before digital art was a thing. Continued in digital art afterwards. Worked in advertising as a graphic designer for years. And that's part of the perspective problem. In order to learn how to draw and paint myself, I copied. I copied the masters, I copied contemporary artists, I copied my teachers, I copied pop art all over the place. And I compared artists of all stripes, I learned how to produce their styles, and then all that mixed together in my own noggin and when I draw or paint now, every single artist I ever looked at, every reference photo, art piece, gallery, illustration, comic book, movie flats, etc. ALL of that combines in me to produce the needed outcome for each individual project.
Same as Midjourney does/did. Now, if there are specific complaints about actual copyright issues, they will have tort and can bring up their own lawsuits. /
But it's a complete load of rubbish to say that the images were scraped without consent. You consented the moment you posted them without the protection of a Robots.txt file that told bots to skip your content. You wanted publicity, though, so you opened your door for Google crawlers, likely, because it directly benefitted you. But that permission was given to ALL crawlers and spiders and bots. And so yes, you most certainly did consent. You just didn't stop to think what publishing to the Web actually might mean in terms of other people using your art for inspiration or learning. Even to the point of being able to copy your style and apply it to new subjects and compositions.
No one owns their style. They own their works. Their style emerges as commonalities between them, but is not the subject of the work itself. And cannot be copyrighted. Because it is not a direct expression.
And besides all of this, we also have over a century of Art Academies, books, tutorials, instructors, degree and certificate programs literally telling us "There is nothing original under the sun, the most you can do is be authentic with your art, because everything has already been done before and will be done again."
It's a sensational Fear Fad, the same way that famous artists like Beaudelaire called the invention of Photography as the literal Death of Art. I bet y'all carry some sort of a camera around with you. At least one.
In the end it is all about money, per usual
Sorry but there's nothing much that is original anymore, they'll lose this fight. It's petty and unrealistic. Fight all you may but this ai art wave is upon us
As a professional graphic designer, my approach to utilizing AI, specifically MJ, is rooted in ethical considerations. I refrain from directly referencing artists' names, opting instead to employ descriptive prompts when interacting with the tool. In cases where I incorporate reference images, I diligently ascertain the presence of copyright restrictions and ensure compliance.
It is incumbent upon all individuals within our field to uphold ethical standards and exercise due diligence. Prioritizing conscientiousness in the use of AI and reference materials is paramount. It is essential to deliberate thoughtfully before employing such tools and to do so in a manner that respects intellectual property rights, recognizing that prompt generation may not always be straightforward, but unethical appropriation is never an acceptable recourse.
this proves that your research is super basic and doesn't delve deep enough into the subject. artists won't lose their careers at all, they'll just change the way they go about doing it. currently making my seminar work for my graphic design degree by using this subject, and boy you have a lot to learn before making such claims such as "losing their careers".