How to create original art if it's already AI art?

[BigDocMojo]

I wrote a story based around some AI generated images that I prompted. I feel this story would work best on Literotica as an illustrated story but of course I cannot and do not want to submit AI generated art.

I'm not much of an artist. Are there any suggestions about how I could use the AI generated art as a starting point to create original illustrations that would be acceptable for Literotica publishing?

Thanks.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I wrote a story based around some AI generated images that I prompted. I feel this story would work best on Literotica as an illustrated story but of course I cannot and do not want to submit AI generated art.

I'm not much of an artist. Are there any suggestions about how I could use the AI generated art as a starting point to create original illustrations that would be acceptable for Literotica publishing?

Thanks.

Draw it yourself, from the images you've created. Trace and copy closely if you have to, but providing it's your pencil or brush or pen putting graphite or paint or ink on the paper, then it's drawn art, even if it's been copied from something artificially generated. This response sets aside the ethics of the AI image in the first place, but if you draw the final image, then you've gone some way to get past that.

 

[LiverpoolMaster]

Draw it yourself ........ Trace and copy closely

I wonder what the courts would say about the conflation you seem happy to see in these two ideas...

 

[VerbalAbuse]

I wrote a story based around some AI generated images that I prompted. I feel this story would work best on Literotica as an illustrated story but of course I cannot and do not want to submit AI generated art.

I'm not much of an artist. Are there any suggestions about how I could use the AI generated art as a starting point to create original illustrations that would be acceptable for Literotica publishing?

Thanks.

Interesting. I was thinking of something similar. I have some AI generated images and was thinking of adding a story to them -- not a story proper, not a real text, more like captions that very succinctly tell a story. I would post such visual story on other sites.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I wonder what the courts would say about the conflation you seem happy to see in these two ideas...

You might want to brush up on your history of art. It's been a common teaching technique over centuries for a trainee artist to copy from the work of a master, either by tracing over an original painting then pricking holes through the thin paper into their own canvas, and drawing or painting their own version, to gain a better understanding of the original technique. That approach begins the transformative process of human art (which AI misses completely, because there's no creative process at all, merely copying tens of thousands of times). If the OP draws their own version, they do get a step closer to legitimately being able to say, I drew this or painted this, because they did.

That's the principle behind the atelier schools: learning to draw by very close observation, ideally from a live model, but also from plaster casts and inanimate objects. Sure, the poses are very often the same (how many ways can you arrange a human body?), but the art on the page eventually reveals an artist, because they might have spent hours on their piece, not five minutes on a computer.

In the OP's case, their image is likely as not to have six clawed fingers and absurdly large breasts, because AI doesn't observe at all, just makes a best guess, and that's when the OP might say, "Should have tried this myself."

 

[Melody_Lightdraft2]

I wrote a story based around some AI generated images that I prompted. I feel this story would work best on Literotica as an illustrated story but of course I cannot and do not want to submit AI generated art.

I'm not much of an artist. Are there any suggestions about how I could use the AI generated art as a starting point to create original illustrations that would be acceptable for Literotica publishing?

Thanks.

I cannot draw a horse let alone a centauride, so I use Daz3d software. Having purchased the the 3D model, I can then create whatever graphic I like, safe in the knowledge that the artist has been paid for their labor.

 

[LiverpoolMaster]

You might want to brush up on your history of art. It's been a common teaching technique over centuries for a trainee artist to copy from the work of a master, either by tracing over an original painting then pricking holes through the thin paper into their own canvas, and drawing or painting their own version, to gain a better understanding of the original technique. That approach begins the transformative process of human art (which AI misses completely, because there's no creative process at all, merely copying tens of thousands of times). If the OP draws their own version, they do get a step closer to legitimately being able to say, I drew this or painted this, because they did.

That's the principle behind the atelier schools: learning to draw by very close observation, ideally from a live model, but also from plaster casts and inanimate objects. Sure, the poses are very often the same (how many ways can you arrange a human body?), but the art on the page eventually reveals an artist, because they might have spent hours on their piece, not five minutes on a computer.

In the OP's case, their image is likely as not to have six clawed fingers and absurdly large breasts, because AI doesn't observe at all, just makes a best guess, and that's when the OP might say, "Should have tried this myself."

Very erudite... but when did erudition ever convince a court?

My guess would be that the law is ever so slightly more interested in ownership (£/$) than artistic method. Several songwriters, for example, have discovered this to their cost over the years. The argument 'well, it's surely only a bit like that' often seems to carry little weight in the minds of those considering whether plagiarism and infringement of copyright has occurred...

 

[LiverpoolMaster]

I cannot draw a horse let alone a centauride, so I use Daz3d software. Having purchased the the 3D model, I can then create whatever graphic I like, safe in the knowledge that the artist has been paid for their labor

Safe in that knowledge, perhaps, but definitely not in the knowledge that you have 'created' anything. You have merely prompted it.

 

[MacSlither]

I created a cheeseburger, because i told the waitress i wanted extra onions but no pickles on it. Lol.

 

[Melody_Lightdraft2]

Safe in that knowledge, perhaps, but definitely not in the knowledge that you have 'created' anything. You have merely prompted it.

Interesting, so if you buy a box of Lego and construct something is it not a creation you have made? The 3D artifacts are equivalent to the Lego bricks, how I arrange the composition, change the overall scene is creative.

 

[LiverpoolMaster]

Nope, the 3d artefacts would be equivalent to a person, whom you prompt to do so, making the Lego construction for you. That is precisely what is happening in post #6, where the talent of others has been parasitised and then ownership of the 'creation' is claimed, when all that has happened is 'prompting'.

This concept is so simple to take in... but certain people 'don't understand it' because, actually, they don't want to understand it. In these circumstances it is pointless to argue because you're dealing with those who have a vested personal interest in not listening.

 

[Melody_Lightdraft2]

Nope, the 3d artefacts would be equivalent to a person, whom you prompt to do so, making the Lego construction for you. That is precisely what is happening in post #6, where the talent of others has been parasitised and then ownership of the 'creation' is claimed, when all that has happened is 'prompting'.

This concept is so simple to take in... but certain people 'don't understand it' because, actually, they don't want to understand it. In these circumstances it is pointless to argue because you're dealing with those who have a vested personal interest in not listening.

Yet strangely I pay for every artifact I download from Daz3d, so the the creator of that item is paid, just as if I purchased a box of Lego from a retailer? Do I prompt the artist? No they design a item then place it for sale.

 

[SkylorB]

Hire and pay an artist?
Or perhaps, collaborate with an artist and share ownership of your comic--the same way graphic comic art has been made for decades.

 

[LiverpoolMaster]

Yet strangely I pay for every artifact I download from Daz3d, so the the creator of that item is paid, just as if I purchased a box of Lego from a retailer? Do I prompt the artist? No they design a item then place it for sale.

I repeat: your claim of ownership is sound. Your claim of any creativity is emphatically not. Because I prompt Leonardo to produce a Mona Lisa for me via payment is great... I own the thing as a possession... but I cannot claim to have created it. The talent was not mine. If I did not even prompt it but he simply put it up for sale, the situation is even more stark.

I tire of this. Stating the obvious loses its appeal through repetition.

 

[Melody_Lightdraft2]

I repeat: your claim of ownership is sound. Your claim of any creativity is emphatically not. Because I prompt Leonardo to produce a Mona Lisa for me via payment is great... I own the thing as a possession... but I cannot claim to have created it. The talent was not mine. If I did not even prompt it but he simply put it up for sale, the situation is even more stark.

I tire of this. Stating the obvious loses its appeal through repetition.

Fair enough, I don't want to flog a dead horse. Take care.

 

[SixtyBlue]

If you use AI as a tool, but you steer and guide the AI tool to create the art from your imagination then its original. Most AI programs require you in input the details of the image you have in your mind. That's being an artist. If the artist doesn't provide the input, nothing is created by the AI tool. Ive seen AI tools used by artists who are physcially unable to pick up a brush, pencil or any other media and create some beautiful origianal art with AI.

Oh wow, what a groundbreaking revelation!
So if I tell a machine what to do, that means I’m the real artist? Fantastic! I guess typing “paint me a masterpiece” into a program is the same as years of mastering a craft.
And hey, let’s not forget—if AI needs input, then clearly, the person clicking the buttons is on the same level as Da Vinci.
Absolute genius insight! I’m sure traditional artists everywhere are kicking themselves for not thinking of this sooner.

 

[blurhead]

If you use AI as a tool, but you steer and guide the AI tool to create the art from your imagination then its original. Most AI programs require you in input the details of the image you have in your mind. That's being an artist. If the artist doesn't provide the input, nothing is created by the AI tool. Ive seen AI tools used by artists who are physcially unable to pick up a brush, pencil or any other media and create some beautiful origianal art with AI.

Are you a pro-AI bot ?

 

[VerbalAbuse]

Oh wow, what a groundbreaking revelation!
So if I tell a machine what to do, that means I’m the real artist? Fantastic! I guess typing “paint me a masterpiece” into a program is the same as years of mastering a craft.
And hey, let’s not forget—if AI needs input, then clearly, the person clicking the buttons is on the same level as Da Vinci.
Absolute genius insight! I’m sure traditional artists everywhere are kicking themselves for not thinking of this sooner.

nobody said anything about da vinci level.

a paint and brush artist may spend weeks on a medium to large size painting. keep that in mind.

 

[jaF0]

If you use AI as a tool, but you steer and guide the AI tool to create the art from your imagination then its original. Most AI programs require you in input the details of the image you have in your mind. That's being an artist. If the artist doesn't provide the input, nothing is created by the AI tool. Ive seen AI tools used by artists who are physcially unable to pick up a brush, pencil or any other media and create some beautiful origianal art with AI.

Machines do not 'create'.

Machines manipulate the works of others, sometimes combining bits of works of many others to render an image or story.

 

[000zing]

Machines do not 'create'.

Machines manipulate the works of others, sometimes combining bits of works of many others to render an image or story.

Indeed so. The important words highlighted.

 

[djrip]

Nope, the 3d artefacts would be equivalent to a person, whom you prompt to do so, making the Lego construction for you. That is precisely what is happening in post #6, where the talent of others has been parasitised and then ownership of the 'creation' is claimed, when all that has happened is 'prompting'.

This concept is so simple to take in... but certain people 'don't understand it' because, actually, they don't want to understand it. In these circumstances it is pointless to argue because you're dealing with those who have a vested personal interest in not listening.

It seems like you're misunderstanding 3D rendering programs like Daz. There is no prompting at all. They are not AI. They are more like the people at Pixar, positioning their character models and backgrounds to create a frame of the film. So, if one person at Pixar creates a model, and then a second person poses it and composes images with it, I would say both are doing art, even though the second person is using someone else's model.

 

[SteelPoint]

It seems like you're misunderstanding 3D rendering programs like Daz. There is no promoting at all. They are not AI. They are more like the people at Pixar, positioning their character models and backgrounds to create a frame of the film. So, if one person at Pixar creates a model, and then a second person poses it and composes images with it, I would say both are doing art, even though the second person is using someone else's model.

And, whatever you "would say", it would be what a court "would say" that counts, I would say...

... and he said "prompt", not "promote"... there is more than subtle difference.

 

[jaF0]

It seems like you're misunderstanding 3D rendering programs like Daz. There is no promoting at all. They are not AI. They are more like the people at Pixar, positioning their character models and backgrounds to create a frame of the film. So, if one person at Pixar creates a model, and then a second person poses it and composes images with it, I would say both are doing art, even though the second person is using someone else's model.

That is collaboration within the same studio prior to publication. Sort of the same as two artists standing together in front of the same canvas working on the same picture at the same time to complete an image before others see it. In the early days of animation, that's sort of what they did ... finish your portion of a cel, then hand it on to the next animator for the next addition.


The problem being discussed is the work of Person A asking a machine to create an image that uses bits of works by hundreds of others without their knowledge or consent.

 

[djrip]

And, whatever you "would say", it would be what a court "would say" that counts, I would say...

... and he said "prompt", not "promote"... there is more than subtle difference.

That was auto correct.

 

[djrip]

That is collaboration within the same studio prior to publication. Sort of the same as two artists standing together in front of the same canvas working on the same picture at the same time to complete an image before others see it. In the early days of animation, that's sort of what they did ... finish your portion of a cel, then hand it on to the next animator for the next addition.


The problem being discussed is the work of Person A asking a machine to create an image that uses bits of works by hundreds of others without their knowledge or consent.

Daz3d was being discussed, which is 3D model posing. My post was to correct the misconception that prompting or AI was involved in that.