jlg1000 Loc: Uruguay / South America

In my previous post over AI generated, many - correctly - pointed out that there were many defects, specially with the hands, plastiky skin, etc.

Being myself involved in AI research, I continued improving on the matter and wanted to share a sample of my latest results.

Many will ahhh... poit out, that it this is not the place for such a post and that it should be ostracized to some obscure sub-forum.

Still, I believe I belongs here - and of course NOT in the photo gallery - because my intentions are to inform this prestigious community on the state of the art on AI image creation and to stir discussion on how it might affect photography.

Full disclosure: ** No, they are not real and I did not use any photo of any kind ** They are just based on a new algorithm.

wolfMark Loc: Southern Oregon

As a photographer, this scares the bejeebers out of me.

terryMc Loc: Arizona's White Mountains

Why, is it someone you know?

terryMc Loc: Arizona's White Mountains

I think it will affect traditional stock photography, where all you need is a generic picture of something, but if you need an actual image of an actual person, place or thing, I don't know how it can affect that kind of photography.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Yes, no model release (nor payment) required.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

There has been a court decision re AI.
The judge ruled that you cannot copyright an AI image because it isn't created by a human.

jlg1000 Loc: Uruguay / South America

Yes, images cannot be copyrighted, but the procedure to create them, can.

My workflow creates 2 - 3 of those images *per second*

Unattended.

Why should I care to copyright them?

It's like saying that individual Coca Cola bottles cannot be copyrighted... No, they can't because they are made by a machine. Who cares... *The recipe is copyrighted*

Equus Loc: Puget Sound

It was the copyright appeals office that made that ruling. It was based on a very large image that was in no way a photograph. While the base image was created using AI it was strongly manipulated in LR and later gigapixel. I suspect that this case will eventually end up in court with the copyright office being the defendant and it will eventually go the the supreme court.

I have looked at the image and read what was involved in actually making the image. In addition to over 600 individual instruction sets being given to the AI there were hours of work on LR to achieve the final image. I believe that the copyright office was wrong.

These images are excellent and in the area of stock photos they are quite interesting.

revhen Loc: By the beautiful Hudson

Did AI create, for example, the face of the girl from several faces? If so, it can be considered a "Frankenstein photo," one composed of many "body parts." LOL BTW I was a college classmate of one of the main creators of AI, Ed Feigenbaum, called "the father of expert systems."

fantom Loc: Colorado

What court?

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

Really impressive images. You seem to have solved the hand problems. Any luck on improving lower legs and feet?

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Note, you are talking about three similar but different (legal) things: Copyright, Trade Mark, Patent. The "Coca-cola" written on the bottle is a Trade Mark. The drink formula inside has a Patent. "Coca-cola" may also be copyrighted as is the Nutritional Information Text. Images or photographs of a Coca-cola bottle is in a grey area. If the Coca-cola Bottling Company, Inc. distributes or licenses images of their bottles either alone or depicting people drinking the product as advertising it is OK. It is in a grey area if we as photographers photograph a Coke bottle. You probably know the rule. If you use it for educational or personal use it is not a violation of Coke's rights but if you use the image professionally, especially if you sell or make any money from your image you may be in violation of the Coca-cola Company's trademark/copyright. If you personally take a photo of a Coke bottle and use it as a art print in a gallery it would be best to get permission or license the image from Coke before sharing, showing or distributing your photo of a Coke Bottle. OBVIOUSLY I am talking about photos where the Coke Bottle is the or one of the major subjects of the image. If it is just incidental to the image, there is probably no foul. Otherwise many of the photos we all take would be at issue, say street photography with signage, automobile (names), packaging (trash or otherwise), and people. For people the law is settled (for now) and clear, if the person is rec cognizable you need a model release to use the image commercially. But the photographer owns the copyright not the model or human subject. And there is much more than this and it is all really complicated. The AI stuff is adding to an already messy business.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

I now have to wonder if someone wants to date "her". Can an AI "girl" give consent? Not interested personally but I do wonder.

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

It is understandable that anyone earning a living from photography is quite scared of losing their livelihood - because I have little doubt that this is exactly what will happen. As someone already pointed on in this thread, stock photography will no doubt be replaced altogether. And taking this technology to motion/video form, the SAG/AFTRA folks are essentially dead men walking (dead people walking?) because it will not be much longer before the same will be done in that realm - a character created out of whole cloth with no original human faces or bodies used as a kernel becoming the star of a TV show or whatever. I imagine in five or ten years entire movies will be created without one human setting foot on a soundstage (talent or crew).

My guess is when that happens in the world of movies and TV, actors will have two choices. Those who truly love the craft will find themselves trodding the boards in live theater, which may see a resurgence as audiences tire of "fake" movies etc. Meanwhile, celebrities who are in it for the fame (and perhaps because they slept with the right people on the way up) will find themselves having to find other work - maybe they can learn to code.

As for still imagery, what may happen is a resurrection of analog photography; who knows, we may find ourselves arguing which film produces the nicest tones again. And Fuji could offer an Instax type instant print film camera in an 8x10" format!

Lucian Loc: From Wales, living in Ohio

The girl's right hand, just above her wrist, in each photo, has not joined too well to her arm. Also, I am wondering whether her head is a tiny bit too big for her body in each photo. Other than that, it is amazing/scary!