Anyone using AI art?

[TritoneAddiction]

Just started dabbling in creating cover art for my music using AI art generators.
I've only tried some free alternatives so far. But I think you can get some pretty cool results. Here's a few I've gotten so far.

The pictures might not show up on the phone. I'm on my computer.

[AdamMon89]

That's actually a really cool idea. I gave a couple a whirl too just now, really interesting results. Thanks for the tip.

[TritoneAddiction]

That's actually a really cool idea. I gave a couple a whirl too just now, really interesting results. Thanks for the tip.

Cool. What page did you use to create these?

[AdamMon89]

That's actually a really cool idea. I gave a couple a whirl too just now, really interesting results. Thanks for the tip.

Cool. What page did you use to create these?

That was 'nightcafé studio' on google, they seem to give you 5 free images based on what you enter in the search box, I entered "Disney's Magic Highway - 1958" to get the above.

EDIT: apparently you can get more if you open incognito.

[crimsonwarlock]

[DaveyG]

Wow. this is a whole new thing to me. Thanks!

[Aosta]

I have just stumbled across Midjourney and wow! It is absolutely incredible.
check this insanity out...

[Fotu]

I'm in the process of using DALL-E 2 to create all the imagery for a video for one of my songs... lots of fun!

[aeox]

I've been messing with this stuff for a few years now, it's cool but at the same time I don't think we can use this stuff for albums, etc. It's still kind of other peoples art in a way. The Ai is just combining it together. Read up on it before releasing anything with the images

[phobic]

I've been messing with this stuff for a few years now, it's cool but at the same time I don't think we can use this stuff for albums, etc. It's still kind of other peoples art in a way. The Ai is just combining it together. Read up on it before releasing anything with the images

Firstly, I'm not a lawyer and so I may be wrong with this, plus copyright law is still playing catch up in this area and is possibly subject to change, but I thought that AI could not own the copyright to works it creates. So I don't think legally the issue is that the copyright potentially belongs to the many works that have been fed to the AI algorithm (although you could morally argue for this,) it is that the resulting work could be deemed as public domain and therefore freely distributable.
However in the UK at least, copyright is given to the person who undertakes to create the AI works i.e. the artist or programmer. If you would further make a derivative work of the AI artwork I would assume that you would then be able to claim copyright for your work / album cover. I agree with you that it's probably wise to check the copyright laws in your own country before using a work of AI in your projects that you would wish to claim copyright on yourself.
Some reading
https://lighthouse.mq.edu.au/article/de ... -copyright

https://www.pcgamer.com/dalle-e-2-ai-im ... ion-cheng/

https://www.pcgamer.com/us-court-plants ... e-comments

[bossa]

[TritoneAddiction]

I've been messing with this stuff for a few years now, it's cool but at the same time I don't think we can use this stuff for albums, etc. It's still kind of other peoples art in a way. The Ai is just combining it together. Read up on it before releasing anything with the images

I really hope AI art can be used as album cover art. After many years I've decided to release my songs from the last 7-8 years in album form. The whole issue of making/finding cover art made is a big reason why I've delayed it until now. The whole AI thing would be a perfect way to solve my problem.
But of course, if something seems to good to be true, it probably is.
I did read some of the terms of use (for Craiyon), but didn't quite fully grasp it. I do believe there might be different rules if you sell stuff or use the art for promotion. But my plan was to release my music for free. Does that count as "commercial use"? I don't know. I wouldn't count it as that. But I'm not sure making the music available for free counts as "personal use" either. So I find the whole thing very confusing.

[phobic]

The issue isn't that you can't use the AI image for your album cover art, or even whether you wish to give away or sell your music with the artwork attached, you can do all of this. The issue is that you may not be able to claim copyright for that image yourself going forward as it may be deemed to be public domain. If that isn't an issue for you which it sounds like it isn't then there isn't a problem.
You just need to make sure that you understand the potential consequences and are comfortable with them.

From what I can gather, and again I say that this is only my opinion so please do your own research, it's no different than using any other image in the public domain. You do so in the knowledge that you don't own copyright for that image, and just as you were free to use it for your album cover, then someone else may also be free to use it for their own purposes.

A quick look at the terms of use for craiyon suggests that as long as you've not got an annual turnover of $1m then you can use images created commercially.
The only caveats seem to be that firstly you need to attribute the images used to craiyon (usually this is simply text placed on the cover, saying "image created using craiyon.ai" or similar (sometimes the company will require wording to be more specific, you would need to check).
Secondly if you plan on selling the image as an 'nft' (which you don't as far as I aware) then you need to pay them 20% of the revenue, and thirdly, that you are not guaranteed access to the site (they can terminate your access at any time and you have no legal redress, e.g. you cannot sue them for loss of earnings as a result). Again that's just my interpretation of their terms of service, but please check it yourself and get advice before proceeding.

I don't know if I've explained it without making things more confusing, but hope it helps!

[Aosta]

For all those worried about copyright issues you could always lessen it by using this site and just doodle stuff or even upload one of your own images.

https://huggingface.co/spaces/huggingfa ... e-the-rest

[phobic]

For all those worried about copyright issues you could always lessen it by using this site and just doodle stuff or even upload one of your own images.

https://huggingface.co/spaces/huggingfa ... e-the-rest

I don't know if I understand you correctly but there are no copyright issues about using the image, but it's whether or not you are allowed to keep the image you create as your own. And therefore claim your own copyright on it, or whether it doesn't belong to you but to the public domain (in which case you can still use it but not exclusively).

As far as I can tell doodling things over the image or even using your own image doesn't change that, but I may be wrong

[Aosta]

As far as I can tell doodling things over the image or even using your own image doesn't change that, but I may be wrong

Well I'm aware that with a Midjourney subscription you get to use your creations:

"How does commercial use work?**
You”re pretty free to use the images in just about any way you want as long as this special-case restriction does not apply to you:

If you”re using the images as an employee of a company that makes more than 1M/yr USD in revenue, you need to purchase a “Corporate” plan."

[phobic]

As far as I can tell doodling things over the image or even using your own image doesn't change that, but I may be wrong

Well I'm aware that with a Midjourney subscription you get to use your creations:

"How does commercial use work?**
You”re pretty free to use the images in just about any way you want as long as this special-case restriction does not apply to you:

If you”re using the images as an employee of a company that makes more than 1M/yr USD in revenue, you need to purchase a “Corporate” plan."

You are correct but I think that is only in their subscription plan which is about $30 a month and even with that, I still don't know where it specifies if the image belongs solely to you (so you can claim copyright) or if it is in the public domain (i.e. you can use the image commercially but you don't own it so anybody else can use it also). AFAIK the free model is purposely in a public discourse so anyone's work is freely distributable and derivative works are actively encouraged.

It's not the same model as the op asked about. I suppose you just have to be aware of each individual company's tos and see if it fits your particular use purpose.

My point was in general and it's certainly fair to say that copyright law hasn't caught up with this type of art yet. But as this is just the tip of the iceberg for AI art (there are already about 30 companies doing this and it's only started coming out of private betas over tha last few months I think), I'm sure that it'll get resolved via some court test case sooner rather than later. However those tend to be expensive so it's probably wise to proceed with caution.

[Aosta]

My point was in general and it's certainly fair to say that copyright law hasn't caught up with this type of art yet. But as this is just the tip of the iceberg for AI art (there are already about 30 companies doing this and it's only started coming out of private betas over tha last few months I think), I'm sure that it'll get resolved via some court test case sooner rather than later. However those tend to be expensive so it's probably wise to proceed with caution.

Absolutely not just as it has never caught up with sampling and other creative methods.
It is very early days in this arena and it does seem that you may own an individual image but would not own the seed, prompts, text, and variables involved in creating it so someone else could use exactly what you did but would get their own variation.

I'd assume that would be the most sensible approach but it is a bit of a minefield at the moment for sure.
I just saw 8 creations of 'Jordan B Peterson and skrillex at a nightclub manga style' and damn they were both drawn and styled amazingly like a pro drawing so what do you do with that? It is their image but it is a derivative 'illustration'?
Lawyers are going make bank for sure soon once these go full on public and people do some absolutely insane erotic fanfic images of celebrities.

[crimsonwarlock]

The issue that is being discussed in the AI community is pertaining to the question if it is legal to use copyrighted material to train AI-systems. Currently, there is no control over what source material is used to train, so you have no way of knowing if and how much your generated image might infringe on someone's copyright.

This goes for other AI-generated stuff as well. Github's Copilot, an AI that generates source code and is trained on basically all of Github's code bases, is currently under heavy discussion for this issue. Commercial software companies currently tend to steer clear from Copilot use because of this.

When copyright law is changed or amended for this, it might as well turn out that any use of these training data is illegal, and legal use in any form requires the AI to be trained on non-copyrighted material exclusively. I'm pretty sure we will see some lawsuits coming in this regard.

[Aosta]

The issue that is being discussed in the AI community is pertaining to the question if it is legal to use copyrighted material to train AI-systems.

I'm sure the lawyers are pulling on the chain to get going.
Apparently Midjourney has been trained with well over 1 billion images so good luck to the legal team sifting through all that to discover an image that the AI has used as inspiration.
I can see an argument that the AI isn't 'stealing' the image but was taught by it in the same way art students learn from old masters and new.
All we need is for the AI to become sentient and represent itself in court

[jam-s]

The issue that is being discussed in the AI community is pertaining to the question if it is legal to use copyrighted material to train AI-systems. Currently, there is no control over what source material is used to train, so you have no way of knowing if and how much your generated image might infringe on someone's copyright.

This goes for other AI-generated stuff as well. Github's Copilot, an AI that generates source code and is trained on basically all of Github's code bases, is currently under heavy discussion for this issue. Commercial software companies currently tend to steer clear from Copilot use because of this.

When copyright law is changed or amended for this, it might as well turn out that any use of these training data is illegal, and legal use in any form requires the AI to be trained on non-copyrighted material exclusively. I'm pretty sure we will see some lawsuits coming in this regard.

SOT: Imho this is another example which shows that copyright is a unnatural and bad concept to begin with. It's human nature to share, remix, reproduce and re-imagine stuff. Enforcing strict copyright law in the digital realm only leads to totalitarian fantasies as there will always be technical loopholes to plug.

[platzangst]

Further complicating the copyright issue is the concept of "Fair Use" in US copyright law. Without getting too deep into those weeds, it states that there are some cases where using derivative works (or even outright copying things) is permissible under certain conditions. For example, a critical review of a work could copy parts of that work without needing permission of the original copyright holder. That particular example likely wouldn't apply for AI art, but one of the metrics for judging Fair Use is how transformative a derivative work is, and that might very well apply.

It should be noted that no Fair Use metric is an automatic guarantee; whether a derivative work is for profit or not is also a consideration, but that doesn't prevent non-profit works from successfully being sued or for-profit works from successfully defending against lawsuits. Copyright is a regrettably inexact science, which is why modern mainstream music tends to credit and pay for the most fragmentary samples and loops - some arguably poor legal judgements in the past have made major companies skittish about crediting samples.

[DaveyG]

We're in a world where lawyers can find tenuous similarities in songs by analysing them to the n-th degree or even, in the case of Blurred Lines, by arguing that it copied the "feel" of another song.

I imagine they will have no problems doing the same with images. "See how she has a slightly enigmatic smile. Clearly a copy of my client's famous painting."

[TritoneAddiction]

The issue isn't that you can't use the AI image for your album cover art, or even whether you wish to give away or sell your music with the artwork attached, you can do all of this. The issue is that you may not be able to claim copyright for that image yourself going forward as it may be deemed to be public domain. If that isn't an issue for you which it sounds like it isn't then there isn't a problem.
You just need to make sure that you understand the potential consequences and are comfortable with them.

From what I can gather, and again I say that this is only my opinion so please do your own research, it's no different than using any other image in the public domain. You do so in the knowledge that you don't own copyright for that image, and just as you were free to use it for your album cover, then someone else may also be free to use it for their own purposes.

A quick look at the terms of use for craiyon suggests that as long as you've not got an annual turnover of $1m then you can use images created commercially.
The only caveats seem to be that firstly you need to attribute the images used to craiyon (usually this is simply text placed on the cover, saying "image created using craiyon.ai" or similar (sometimes the company will require wording to be more specific, you would need to check).
Secondly if you plan on selling the image as an 'nft' (which you don't as far as I aware) then you need to pay them 20% of the revenue, and thirdly, that you are not guaranteed access to the site (they can terminate your access at any time and you have no legal redress, e.g. you cannot sue them for loss of earnings as a result). Again that's just my interpretation of their terms of service, but please check it yourself and get advice before proceeding.

I don't know if I've explained it without making things more confusing, but hope it helps!

Thanks for the reply. It cleared some things up.

[moofi]

No, I don´t.jpg (248.31 KiB) Viewed 6340 times