You clearly only get sloppy from the machine -> hence your entire understanding, you did some googling, found others with the same experience and you took up this position.

Meanwhile, random person, gets the exact same AI that you used to create literal DaVinci'esque, visibly masterpiece inspired - maybe not "masterpiece" but "masterpiece adjacent" - thats apparently, its not perfect art, but it could have been created in a workshop...

You can't do that. Rather, you cant nake the AI do that.

What is the difference between you and the random person with artworks in the style of the old masters? What do we call that gap?

Isn't that gap normally stuff like talent, ability, skill, knowledge?

All arguments made in this vein are just people whining about their personal lack of ability, as if its a machines fault.

Thanks for the ad hominem. Subjective artistic value aside, do you not dispute that prompting AI to create an artistic image is functionally the same as outsourcing to another human? You input instructions and a commission fee; you get back a piece of artistic expression. You did not create the art, someone else did. And for AI output, the machine cannot claim a copyright on that original image.

If you outsource the image creation, then throw it on a t-shirt design, or modify it, or do whatever, you can copyright the modified work that you Han a hand in creating, but you still are not the creator of the original.

> do you not dispute that prompting AI to create an artistic image is functionally the same as outsourcing to another human?

From who's perspective? Fundamentally, in one situation a human is creating something and in the other situation, no human creates anything.

You generally cannot copyright derivative works as if they are your own, fyi.

> spits out derivatives of the actual masters

A brief history of art in general.

Fuck this nonsense. Go study art instead of repeating shallow AI propaganda.

As someone who has actually studied art - right back at you.

All the most famous paintings are done like a hundred times - certain scenes were done by ALL Masters, as like a rite of passage or proof of arrival - pretty much the whole time between the OG Masters and modern art.

"Who is your favorite Sebastian?" Is a legit question, for example.

And? Have we all already lost any ability for actual consequential thinking? Each one of those Sebastian is the living proof of a human experience, each with its subtleties, each unique. That is why you ask that question. How on Earth can you compare that to a series of shitty pictures done in a few seconds by a stochastic machine?

Sure, but at at least it's created by humans.

I have an allegiance to humans. I have no allegiance to a computer program. That would be pathetic.

Wait till you learn about comparator mirrors. And renaissance artist studios.

Let's say the AI prompt is "Make it black and white". Why does taking a photo and making it gray scale in photoshop result in a copyrightable piece of art, but using an AI model makes the resulting output slop? They seem equivalent to me.

I'll distill it down into something you might understand a bit easier. On social media, such as Instagram, or Tiktok, you'll find a bit of a meme going around that shows the difference between an influencer video of a vacation destination and then a follow-up video from someone with their iPhone, often showing overcrowding of tourists, brown water where there was blue; with these videos often with a poor-sounding Recorder being played over them (I forget the song that it's attempting to play).

The difference between the "real" video and the "influencer" video is the artistry from the artist(s) involved. (And yes, top influencers often have a person or a team of people involved)

Is the Jurassic Park theme btw

Thanks! That's one of them :) I had to look it up as it was bothering me. The other is "September" by Earth, Wind & Fire.

It's not about image modifications, it's about creation. Furthermore, half a similarity on a small aspect doesn't undermine the argument.

Because you're unable to understand art, honestly. Photography isn't just "taking a photo and making a grayscale image in Photoshop"; but rather a combination of a couple of different artistic expression styles that involve understanding how to use the tools you have (a camera, the lens, film or a sensor, and lighting) to capture an expression of an event. Technically speaking, a photo of a mountain isn't just a "photo of a mountain" that you would maybe throw into AI slop--but an actual, legitimate photo of a mountain and how it's captured and presented (no matter the post processing done) is an actual artistic expression of the capture of that mountain. Because absolutely nothing, nothing at all will capture actually standing there looking at the mountain. A photo is the best approximation, and sometimes doesn't even have to be, depending on what the artist wants to express with the image.

In short, your inability to understand photography doesn't justify the use of AI slop to prompt "give me a grayscale image of a mountain" and assume that it's the same thing as a human being taking an actual photo. They're not even close to the same thing.

The original comment is asking from a legal perspective in a very specific example, not an emotional one.

They are describing the artistic qualities that something must posess to be actual artwork - which is relevant to copyrighting artworks, and is also that had been discussed, by Artists and Creators - the entire time

They did not write an emotional comment, they were trying to teach you, bc they ascertained that you don't understand art.

They were right.

>use of AI slop to prompt "give me a grayscale image of a mountain"

That is not the prompt I included in my post. The prompt I gave was for taking an the same photo you would be putting into photoshop and using AI to apply grayscale.