I generally consider “OC” to mean specifically that it’s original - you didn’t get it from someplace else, so broadly yes if you’re the one who had it generated.
But if it’s a community for art or photography generally, I don’t think AI art belongs there - the skills and talent required are just too different. I love AI art communities, I just think it’s a separate thing.
But following that logic “OC” would mean you didn’t get it from “someplace else”, but since AI is trained by looking pieces made by other people to learn, it technically did get it from someplace else.
Humans also look at other peoples art to learn, they might also really like someone else’s style and want to produce works in that style themselves, does this make them AI? Humans have been copying and remixing off of each other since the beginning of time.
The fact that a lot of movie pitches are boiled down to “thing A, meets thing B” and the person listening is able to autocomplete that “prompt” well enough to decide to invest in the idea or not, is the clearest evidence of that, I personally don’t think that just because humans are slower and we aren’t able to reproduce things perfectly even though that’s what we are trying to do sometimes, means that we somehow have a monopoly on this thing called creativity or originality.
You could maybe argue that it comes down to intentionality, and that because the AI isn’t “conscious” yet, it isn’t making the decision to create the artwork on its own or making the decision to accept the art commission via the prompt on its own. Then it can’t have truely created the art the same way photoshop didn’t create the art.
But I’ve always found the argument of “it’s not actually making anything because it had to look at all these other works by these other people first” a little disingenuous because it ignores the way humans learn and experience things since the day we are born.
You could make that argument about humans who look at other stories of art before creating one of their own, influenced by the others then.
Let’s say I give an AI a prompt to create a picture of a cute puppy of about six weeks old, but as large as a building, and instead of paws, each leg ended in a living rubber ducky the size of a car, and the puppy is squatting to poop, but instead of poop coming out, it’s the great men and women of science like Mendel, Pasteur, Nobel, Currie, Einstein, and others, all landing in a pile. Oh, and if like the picture to be in the style of Renoir. I think we could agree that the resulting picture wouldn’t be a copy of any existing one. I think I’d feel justified in calling it original content. I’ve seen a lot of hand painted works that were more derivative of other work, but that people all agree is OC.
by looking pieces made by other people to learn
Humans do it it’s inspiration.
Computers do it it’s theft.deleted by creator
It depends on the context for me. As a meme base or to make a joke and you don’t have the skills? Sure. In an art community? No.
No
No.
AI art is not OC. It cannot be.
How so? What is it that makes art OC that cannot be applied to AI created art? I think it would take an extremely narrow definition which would also exclude a significant amount of human created art.
Steam bans games that contain such AI content because they are not near OC. Except you train the AI on only your own Copyrighted Images, which mid journey and various other AI aren’t. They are all trained on copyrighted images without asking.
The way you put original content in quotes is weird.
OC as an acronym typically just means something that someone made. In this sense, yeah, if you make something with AI then it’s "your OC’.
Original content used as the words generally means something slightly different and it’s more debatable.
Having used AI art tools there is more creativity involved than people think. When you’re just generating them, sure, there’s less creativity than traditional digital art, of course, but it is not a wholly uncreative process. Take in-painting, you can selectively generate in just some portions of the image. Or sketch and then generate based off of that.
All that said though I don’t think “creativity” is necessary for something to be considered OC. It just needs to have been made by them.
Would you call fan art of well known characters OC? I would.
Nice animated PFP, very fancy.
That’s an interesting question. I haven’t spent very much time thinking about how to define AI art. My immediate thought is that AI art can be OC, but it should also be labeled as such. It’s important to know if a person created the content vs prompting an AI to generate the content. The closest example I can think of is asking someone to paint something for you instead of painting it yourself.
It’s an interesting thing to ponder and my opinion is that like many other things in life something being ‘OC’ is a spectrum rather than a binary thing.
If I apply a B&W filter on an image is that OC? Obviously not
But what if I make an artwork that’s formed by hundreds of smaller artworks, like this example? This definitely deserves the OC tag
AI art is also somewhere in that spectrum and even then it changes depending on how AI was used to make the art. Each person has a different line on the spectrum where things transition from non OC to OC, so the answer to this would be different for everyone.
No, it is it’s own designation. It’s halfway between OC and a repost.
I could consider it OC if the training set is known, but not “art”.
Not when it copies the art style from real artists
What about humans who do original work in the style of someone else? Monet is usually credited with creating the first impressionist work, but does that mean we should discount the impressionist paintings of Renoir and Degaus?
I do, yes.
It’s new, but not original. With the recent influx of AI content that doesn’t seem to be slowing down, I’d say we should make a new designation of GC - generated content.
AI is trained by analyzing artists’ work and then instructed to replicate art in a particular style, therefore, from the beginning of the process it wouldn’t be original.
If an AI could create art without being fed galleries of images first and develop its own style that might be considered original.
So any artist that went to art school isn’t an original artist?
Yeah, but one went to school to learn how to hone their skills and learn from the masters, the other stole it off of artists who will never see a dime off of it.
Don’t get me wrong, I have fun with AI art, but the moral question that hasn’t been solved yet
Why is it actually different?
If I study a painting (train a model) and then replicate the style am I stealing the painting off of an artist?
If I illegally obtained a copy of the painting that i studied, would the piece that I generated belong to the artist of the painting i studied?
If I go to a wine and design thing and paint a picture after being instructed how and following specifically with a template, does that make my painting no longer mine?
Is a person sitting in a free museum sketching in their notebook, a version of the painting that they see on the wall stealing?
Ai is not copying, the work that it generates is novel. The training data may have been obtained illegally (debatable and not settled in law) but that doesn’t make the generated work any less new or novel.
In your own example, the people who 'went to school and learned from the masters" also don’t pay the original artists. Art students aren’t paying the Gogh estate for permission to study his paintings and they aren’t paying royalties for making something that looks and feels like his paintings either.
All of those the artist knew what they were doing and how their art could be used to inspire new people.
Artists has no way of consenting to thos before it was done. Their art wasn’t taken and used as inspiration for one person, it was taken and is now being mass produced for the masses in some cases.
You’re not sitting in a lecture absorbing what a professor is telling you and filling out an essay question. Your copying someone else’s homework and changing it a little to come off as okay. In private and for private use I’m okay with that, but these big studios and content creators have no right to do that to artists. There’s no way they could have consented to that.
