Comment on Not everything needs to be Art
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 week agoThe equivalence is that nothing human artists make is “original” either. Everyone is influenced by what they have seen.
You are arguing that if you created a completely original comic book character in the art style of Jack Kirby, you committed a copyright violation.
turtletracks@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
Computers do not get “inspiration” or “influence”, and that’s quite literally not what I’m arguing. Maybe I’m just talking to an AI lol
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Your argument is that you can get a request for a commission perhaps for a mascot ( create a new comic hero in the style of Jack Kirby) and it’s perfectly fine for you Google examples of Kirby’s style to create the picture.
But if a computer does the same it’s a copyright violation.
turtletracks@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
Because an AI does not create unique art/concepts/ideas, what’s hard to understand about that? You are putting the human mind on the same level as AI and that’s wild
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 week ago
The fact that you can’t pin down most AI photos to a combination of existing art is proof that’s untrue. A random number generator can create unique numbers just like a human asked to write a list of random numbers.
A random AI photo generator will create a unique work of art. Your claim was that it is a copyright violation to copy an art style.
That a human can add meaning, and emotion to art is a question of quality. I never questioned that human art is higher quality.