Close Menu
    [OC] Barplot of artist survey responses to "A person has the right to claim AI generated art as their own work"
    Data

    [OC] Barplot of artist survey responses to “A person has the right to claim AI generated art as their own work”

    Share.
    View 25 Comments

    25 Comments

    6. avsbes on

      I’d argue that it depends. If for example the AI is literally only trained on one single Artists’ work, it’s reasonable to argue that anything created by that AI could be considered that Artists’ work.

      If not it’d be significantly harder to justify.

    7. Dagua99 on

      Well it makes sense. I’m not an artist because I’ve never drawn, and I certainly don’t say I am if AI creates it for me. In fact, you’re the opposite: you’re against art, which is technique, commitment and creativity.

    8. TraditionalBackspace on

      This will be an interesting battle over rights. The AI developers themselves are claiming all of this scraped data is theirs. Gemini has information from books that are only available for huge amounts of money or from torrent sites.

    9. veryblanduser on

      I’m sure there were plenty of sketch artist who also said photography wasn’t art.

    10. trejj on

      Would love for the same survey to also have had a statement *”Re-drawing an existing image on top of an overlaid layer, a see-through paper sheet or side-by-side reference is not plagiarism.”*

    11. Atzkicica on

      Wonder if they defined AI “artists” as Artists in the Number of Artists.

    12. Cless_Aurion on

      As a profesional artist, I think its not their work, its more like a collaboration.

      Like when a game studio, a junior 3D Artist will receive a character already almost done and they have to fix stuff up and touch it up to get it ready for production.

      Is the whole piece “Their own work”? Well, not really, but it also isn’t the opposite, “not their work”. Its a collaboration.

      I think this applies to AI the same. The properly resourced and trained AI’s are a “collection of artists styles and characters” that create the base where an artist can work from in order to save time, creating a collaborative artwork.

    13. Misunderstood_Wolf on

      Before AI image generators existed, if someone wanted to have an image created they would commission an artist to create it, they did not claim to be “commission artists” because they had the idea and commissioned it to be made, and they didn’t say it was their own work.

      The fact that they are not artists, that they did not create it and it is not their own work doesn’t change just because they had a machine make it instead of a person.

    14. Accomplished-Video71 on

      I once printed a picture of the Mona Lisa and I still claim it as my own work. I told the printer to print it, after all.

    15. Bulletti on

      I’d say they can claim it’s their own work if they specify it was madde by AI and are claiming the work they put in as prompting, systems, editing, however little or much it took, but… claiming the art is theirs is a step too far.

      Some workflows take a lot of effort to get a finished piece, so dismissing all work/effort as minimal prompting is also disingenuous.

    16. Independent_Page_220 on

      This debate has already been settled.
      Art is what the artist says is art: a sculpture, an oil painting, a photograph, a wall urinal, a tin can with faeces, a banana taped to the wall, a flower generated by AI. All this can be art.

    17. APigInANixonMask on

      There are a lot of really pathetic people in the comments who apparently aren’t good at anything themselves and feel a desperate need to pass off pictures made entirely by a computer as their own art so they can call themselves artists and feel validated. Make all the AI pictures you want, I don’t care, but you‘re delusional if you think that makes you an artist.

    18. Corren_64 on

      Nah. But then again I think copyright should be abolished in it’s entirety.

    19. notatrashperson on

      Of course you can claim it as your own work, as long as you say the medium is AI. This doesn’t feel wildly dissimilar to how we would have talked about photography 150 years ago. Yes, you can snap a photo and it will look more lifelike than anything you could have painted but that doesn’t mean it’s not “your work” it’s just a question of “is it good” and in both cases the vast majority of the time the answer is no. But I’m certain there will be art (and I don’t mean ChatGPT make a painting of a big titty anime girl in the style Caravaggio) where the artists is bringing something evocative to the table and where the medium was AI.

    20. arrius01 on

      Now track this poll result over the years and watch the red columns shift to the blue columns.

    21. vacri on

      ChatGPT’s terms say that images created with their tool is owned by the user.

      So as far as that AI is concerned, users to have the right to call it their own work. Call themselves an artist, maybe not, but they do own the rights to the work.

    22. Zephyr93 on

      Yeah, but what about the opinion of the average person?

      Of course an artist is going to denounce AI, their career is being rendered obsolete.

    23. CoralCobra777 on

      I’m much more interested in how the general public views it.

      It was pretty obvious that artists would respond this way. However, since AI art is being generated in massive amounts regardless, this suggests that the general public doesn’t agree with the artists. It would be interesting to see to what degree they disagree.

    25. GuybrushBeeblebrox on

      Wtf is this poll achieving? Of course the people who have no creativity are gojng to say yes.

      It’s not even an “official” poll.