• I want to thank all the members that have upgraded your accounts. I truly appreciate your support of the site monetarily. Supporting the site keeps this site up and running as a lot of work daily goes on behind the scenes. Click to Support Signs101 ...

Not Really Surprise...

WildWestDesigns

WildWestDesigns

Active Member
...that Adobe would get in on the action. I'm mixed on this. I have seen where other types of automation/tooling has lead to sub par quality, knowledge base (and usage goes years down the line, people only know how to handle the abstraction without any knowledge of what is being abstracted.

But I also have no illusions that once this genie is out of the bottle, that's it.
 
James Burke

James Burke

Being a grandpa is more fun than working
WildWestDesigns said:
But I also have no illusions that once this genie is out of the bottle, that's it.
Click to expand...
By golly, it really works!

I simply typed in "2023 President of the USA".

I think I'm hooked on it.

JB

yogi_hind_1109-copy.jpg
 
Boudica

Boudica

Back to "educational purposes"
They are offering their own AI app, not to be confused with Adobe illustrator. It's called fire fly. I only glanced at it but it didn't strike me as new. They've been tinkering with it for years. They even had a not-as-sophisticated beta version within Photoshop. I stumbled across it a year ago or more, but I don't think it's still in there.
 
Notarealsignguy

Notarealsignguy

Arial - it's almost helvetica
What I don't get is why are these big companies able to get away with scouring the web stealing other people's work in the name of AI collaboration but these same big companies are the first to sue anyone that uses their work without permission.
 
WildWestDesigns

WildWestDesigns

Active Member
Notarealsignguy said:
What I don't get is why are these big companies able to get away with scouring the web stealing other people's work in the name of AI collaboration but these same big companies are the first to sue anyone that uses their work without permission.
Click to expand...
That's easy. Money. If it's a small creator that goes after a big company, typically all the big company has to do is wear them down by making them pay legal fees with frivolous filings/motions etc. Typically the only way that a company would back off with them suing someone else would be if the public has a lot of negative things to say about it.

Shoot, there are some lawsuits/outcry now with regard to AI tools. I think that there has been one art sharing site that has also implementing AI which has gotten backlash.
 
James Burke

James Burke

Being a grandpa is more fun than working
Notarealsignguy said:
So who said, hold his tail while I take a picture of his butthole? They must be from Texas.
Click to expand...
Ha....it was the best horse's bum I could find. It was on a vet web site, showing the finer points of how the said horse had recovered from an severe injury.


JB
 
WildWestDesigns

WildWestDesigns

Active Member
Boudica said:
They are offering their own AI app, not to be confused with Adobe illustrator. It's called fire fly. I only glanced at it but it didn't strike me as new. They've been tinkering with it for years. They even had a not-as-sophisticated beta version within Photoshop. I stumbled across it a year ago or more, but I don't think it's still in there.
Click to expand...
From what I'm reading, this is more "feature-rich". If I recall the Ps "version" was just for some editing tools. This is more jumping on to the chatgpt model and handling creation, not just editing.

I can't imagine this not having the same issues as the others of the same type as far as a legal standpoint, but time will tell. I have a feeling that we are going to enter into an age of creative drought though, especially as more and more people are just brought up on this (or really anything that well have people using this versus still doing what it abstracts away from user.
 
bob

bob

It's better to have two hands than one glove.
Notarealsignguy said:
What I don't get is why are these big companies able to get away with scouring the web stealing other people's work in the name of AI collaboration but these same big companies are the first to sue anyone that uses their work without permission.
Click to expand...
If you were to visit a gallery, scrutinize someone's work, remember it, and then use what you've seen incorporating the style into your own work, do you think that the creator of that piece you saw and remembered can come after you in some way or another? Have you violated someone's rights?

How is doing exactly the same thing using some software any different in either degree or kind? The pieces an AI is fed to 'train' it are not necessarily stored and later somehow used. Rather certain characteristics, such as style, characteristic brush work, color use, subject, etc. may be digitally 'abstracted' but no one's rights are being violated by doing so.

I should think that the hue and cry from those claiming recompense for useing their material in this process simply are seeking an unmerited payday. They should be proud that someone thought enough of their work to remember it for reference.
 
Notarealsignguy

Notarealsignguy

Arial - it's almost helvetica
bob said:
If you were to visit a gallery, scrutinize someone's work, remember it, and then use what you've seen incorporating the style into your own work, do you think that the creator of that piece you saw and remembered can come after you in some way or another? Have you violated someone's rights?

How is doing exactly the same thing using some software any different in either degree or kind? The pieces an AI is fed to 'train' it are not necessarily stored and later somehow used. Rather certain characteristics, such as style, characteristic brush work, color use, subject, etc. may be digitally 'abstracted' but no one's rights are being violated by doing so.

I should think that the hue and cry from those claiming recompense for useing their material in this process simply are seeking an unmerited payday. They should be proud that someone thought enough of their work to remember it for reference.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, just pointing out the hypocrisy. Jack Daniels feels differently and I also think this is nonsense. Maybe apples and oranges but it seems similar in my eyes.
www.bbc.com

Jack Daniel's and dog toy in Supreme Court showdown

The liquor company is arguing that a dog toy infringes on its iconic trademark.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
 
WildWestDesigns

WildWestDesigns

Active Member
bob said:
If you were to visit a gallery, scrutinize someone's work, remember it, and then use what you've seen incorporating the style into your own work, do you think that the creator of that piece you saw and remembered can come after you in some way or another? Have you violated someone's rights?
Click to expand...
Given how the legal system is here with regard to ownership rights, there is an incentive to go after just about anything to show to the courts that they are trying to protect their IP, if they don't, they run the risk of losing it, because they haven't shown the desire to go after the "violator".

It doesn't necessarily have to be correct or anything like that, to be honest, it becomes who has the deeper pockets.

bob said:
How is doing exactly the same thing using some software any different in either degree or kind? The pieces an AI is fed to 'train' it are not necessarily stored and later somehow used. Rather certain characteristics, such as style, characteristic brush work, color use, subject, etc. may be digitally 'abstracted' but no one's rights are being violated by doing so.
Click to expand...
It depends on the situation. There was an issue with AI using it for coding. It was sending out examples of code snippets (some of which I believe were in private repos, not just public ones) and people were using that feedback into their own code. That does call into licensing concerns. At least to where we are having lawsuits over such things.

The one thing that I may like about AI, is if it could use my own style etc (this would be a locally run AI, not using some 3rd party service, I'm sure in order to use that on a 3rd party service that they are going to ask for some permissions/caveats on what is fed to the AI) to start the design and I would go from there. I could see how that would help with workflow, but just pulling in everything willy nilly without really knowing it's source, that to me is no bueno.

And I also have an issue as I get older, I dislike more and more things abstracted away from me.

bob said:
They should be proud that someone thought enough of their work to remember it for reference.
Click to expand...
That would assume that the users of the AI know exactly where that piece that they thought so highly off that was worth a reference. If doing some type of photo bashing technique, I could see that situation, but using AI and it's generation, not so much, because as far as I know, it doesn't collate sources of where it's pulling from (and in terms of code repos, license of that particular code).
 
DL Signs

DL Signs

Never go against the family
There's still that pesky clause in copyrighting that says it has to be created by a human, so until it gets clarified legally everything created by AI is pretty much royalty free, zero copyright protection, you can steal it, take it, use it as you please, and no one can stop you... Unless it contains something pulled from copyrighted art.

There are currently several suits filed, and more coming. Getty is suing one after finding portions of their "real" copyrighted works, as well as portions of their watermark embedded in AI created images (nothing like waving a flag that says it was stolen). Another group of creators is filing a suit against Microsoft and their AI partners for infringement. A comic book creator had his copyright revoked after they learned it was AI generated. It's is going to be a legal nightmare, and it's only the beginning. Anyone caught using AI generated art with copyrighted components for profit could suffer the same legal repercussions as copying Disney characters, so even the crafters and weekend hobbyists need to tread lightly. I see in the Adobe Q&A they state all theirs comes from open source, but that'll only get them so far in trying to keep up with all the ones who already crossed that line by using massive amounts of copyrighted works. Of those who rely on AI to "say" they're an artist, how many will he happy with the limitations of that? It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Sure glad I can create my own art ;)
 
WildWestDesigns

WildWestDesigns

Active Member
DL Signs said:
I see in the Adobe Q&A they state all theirs comes from open source, but that'll only get them so far in trying to keep up with all the ones who already crossed that line by using massive amounts of copyrighted works.
Click to expand...

That can get you into trouble as well (look at MS' Co-Pilot). Open Source still has a license attached to it, depending on what license the code has( GPL (I only touch this in certain situations) versus MIT(preferred one, but there are others) etc), they all have caveats and some may be as simple attribution, but others may be putting your code/art as open source as well.
 
Notarealsignguy

Notarealsignguy

Arial - it's almost helvetica
DL Signs said:
There's still that pesky clause in copyrighting that says it has to be created by a human, so until it gets clarified legally everything created by AI is pretty much royalty free, zero copyright protection, you can steal it, take it, use it as you please, and no one can stop you... Unless it contains something pulled from copyrighted art.

There are currently several suits filed, and more coming. Getty is suing one after finding portions of their "real" copyrighted works, as well as portions of their watermark embedded in AI created images (nothing like waving a flag that says it was stolen). Another group of creators is filing a suit against Microsoft and their AI partners for infringement. A comic book creator had his copyright revoked after they learned it was AI generated. It's is going to be a legal nightmare, and it's only the beginning. Anyone caught using AI generated art with copyrighted components for profit could suffer the same legal repercussions as copying Disney characters, so even the crafters and weekend hobbyists need to tread lightly. I see in the Adobe Q&A they state all theirs comes from open source, but that'll only get them so far in trying to keep up with all the ones who already crossed that line by using massive amounts of copyrighted works. Of those who rely on AI to "say" they're an artist, how many will he happy with the limitations of that? It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Sure glad I can create my own art ;)
Click to expand...
Copyrights, trademarks and patents are nothing but a game of who has more money. I'd say this will become interesting but it won't. The big boys will battle about who owns what yet they never actually created anything themselves.
 
GAC05

GAC05

Quit buggin' me
Big tech will just blame the AI. With the AI not yet self-aware {insert current POTUS reference HERE}, they can't be accused of stealing. Hard to prove intent if the 'suspect' does not know right from wrong.
 
DL Signs

DL Signs

Never go against the family
Notarealsignguy said:
Copyrights, trademarks and patents are nothing but a game of who has more money. I'd say this will become interesting but it won't. The big boys will battle about who owns what yet they never actually created anything themselves.
Click to expand...
If the suits were just US based, you'd probably lose, because we always seem to lose to corporate interest. As hard as our courts try to protect US copyrights from being infringed upon by other countries, I'm curious to see what happens when it goes the other way like with UK based Getty. Even though they copyright contributed art and never created anything themselves, they're a major player with money. Even Disney has been sitting up and taking notice of how these AI works can (and do) include what makes them money, but they haven't officially thrown their hat in the ring yet. They do create their own art, so if/ when they enter the fight that's when it'll get interesting. It's not going to affect us much, signs are a different animal, we don't push the envelope hard, and create our own works rather than steal from others, so we just have a front row seat for the circus :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top