This post is already past its 'Best Before Date' : NEW DATA POISONING TOOL LETS ARTISTS FIGHT BACK AGAINST AI - IS THIS A GOOD IDEA?.
But here is a interesting addendum to this:
“When I sued Richard Prince more than seven years ago, it was hard to imagine I’d be, along with Donald Graham, part of these history-making judgments finally holding Prince accountable for his conduct,” McNatt said in an email to Hyperallergic. “It’s a victory not just for me, but for all working artists like me. We might not have the same profile of a celebrity artist, but we deserve credit and compensation for our work.” Source
On Facebook there are so many 'Experts' that rant about AI, in posts and with comments on posts, so I posted this item, with this text added:
While so many artists get their panties in a knot over AI, here is a high level case of clear copyright infringement that took almost 8 years to come to a judgement. Involved are some of the top galleries in New York, such as Gagosian.
Please read the entire article on Hyperallergic - it is incredible! Then think about what I wrote above and compare with my previous post on the subject of AI.
Just so you know how Richard Prince does his Portrait Art, here is a quote by him:
In 1984 I took some portraits.
The way I did it was different. The way had nothing to do with the tradition of portraiture.
If you wanted me to do your portrait, you would give me at least five photographs that had already been taken of yourself, that were in your possession (you owned them, they were yours), and more importantly . . . that you were already happy with.
You would give me the five you liked and I would pick the one I liked. I would rephotograph the one I liked and that would be your portrait. Simple. Direct. To the point . . .
Foolproof. Quote
I guess the judge didn't think so. That this took almost 8 years is incredible, considering that even the most rank fool would know how Copyright works. The saying ...you owned them, they were yours.... is of course patently false: the original photographer (or artist) always retains copyright on his/her work. In some rare cases it could be possible that you as the artist could sell your copyright to someone else, but this does not happen often, and it has to be recorded.
I had written in the past about Copyright, unfortunately the definitive article on the Visionary Art Gallery site is not available anymore, since the site is currently unpublished, but the gist of it I had posted on my Wordpress blog ALL ABOUT COPYRIGHT - and just so you have something else to look at other than the image on top of this post, here is the illustration from my Wordpress blog:
A good video (also on my Wordpress blog) that explains in plain language all about Copyright from the Stanford University:
Visit my website
▼
PRINTS OF MY ARTWORK AVAILABLE HERE:
Bonus Special: JOURNEY THROUGH THE WORMHOLE
should you not be on the blockchain, or have no upvote power, or this post is already older than 7 days, you can always just buy me a coffee.
I think copyright is overrated in times of AI ;)
When you use (prompt) an artists style with AI, it is never a exact copy of a specific artwork, not even if you go as far as using a specific work as a seed image. So what you would get, at best, is a image that clearly falls under "fair use", at worse something entirely different that nobody in its right mind would consider a copyright violation. Most users, myself included, use a combination of several artists in their prompts. I find it fun to mix styles of artists such as Mucha and Giger, coupled with some insane wording and phrases in my prompts that give me results completely unique of any artists used. Those who rant about Copyright in connection with AI are clueless.
related to this, there are some good articles about AI on this Austrian Government website:
https://www.bmbwf.gv.at/Themen/schule/fpp/infomail/2023_11/ki.html
Sharing something like this on Facebook is hopeless: most have a short attention span and only read the headline, but shoot their mouths off nevertheless.
I shared this specific article as well - I found it a good source:
https://www.luzernerzeitung.ch/kultur/zentralschweiz/schafft-kunstliche-intelligenz-echte-kunst-ld.2417719