Lit really should reconsider the AI image policy.

[furfag]

All current major AI models were created in an unethical way by scraping actual artists' hard work without consent. No thank you.

 

[RobLivesInTexas]

All current major AI models were created in an unethical way by scraping actual artists' hard work without consent. No thank you.

Agreed. It's one thing for someone in any artistic field to learn from the past and the works of others, internalizing what they see or hear or read, then distilling it all into something original. It's another thing entirely for what is essentially a machine to analyze works of art and then logically piece elements together into a "new" work. It may be legal, I'm not sure if it's ethical, but I know it's repugnant and offensive to call it art.

 

[dmallord]

I'd very much like the ability to add covers on Lit stories. However, I have physical limitations: missing fingers, hand tremors, and advanced arthritis making hand-drawing impossible. By providing alternative options, like pre-made cover templates or integrating with graphic design tools, we can ensure that all users can fully express themselves creatively. If it is AI-generated using text entry, I can do that. I can still type.

Nothing here on Lit is earning money, so that is not taking away anyone's livelihood is it?

 

[OffNSFW]

I'd very much like the ability to add covers on Lit stories. However, I have physical limitations: missing fingers, hand tremors, and advanced arthritis making hand-drawing impossible. By providing alternative options, like pre-made cover templates or integrating with graphic design tools, we can ensure that all users can fully express themselves creatively. If it is AI-generated using text entry, I can do that. I can still type.

Nothing here on Lit is earning money, so that is not taking away anyone's livelihood is it?

This is plagiarism software, programmed with material stolen from all corners of the Internet. In turn, it threatens artists anywhere and everywhere, not just here. Not everybody on Lit makes art or writes stories exclusively for Lit, or exclusively for free. But, even if they did, it still hurts other artists and writers besides the ones here.

The way I see it, you have a couple very good options.

One is, just pay an artist. Either commission them or license something they've already made. This is good, because artists like to eat.

If you're unwilling or unable to do that, there are boatloats of free artwork that anybody can use. Some of it is in the public domain due to the lapse of its copyright. Some of it is in the creative commons, where artists will deliberately make their works free to share and modify, subject to terms of use. One good resource for images with free use licenses is Wikimedia Commons.

There are some artists who want their work to be free for the benefit of the public--and it's important that it be their choice.

 

[JakobKings]

No.

 

[dmallord]

This is plagiarism software, programmed with material stolen from all corners of the Internet. In turn, it threatens artists anywhere and everywhere, not just here. Not everybody on Lit makes art or writes stories exclusively for Lit, or exclusively for free. But, even if they did, it still hurts other artists and writers besides the ones here.

The way I see it, you have a couple very good options.

One is, just pay an artist. Either commission them or license something they've already made. This is good, because artists like to eat.

If you're unwilling or unable to do that, there are boatloats of free artwork that anybody can use. Some of it is in the public domain due to the lapse of its copyright. Some of it is in the creative commons, where artists will deliberately make their works free to share and modify, subject to terms of use. One good resource for images with free use licenses is Wikimedia Commons.

There are some artists who want their work to be free for the benefit of the public--and it's important that it be their choice.

The pay process might work. Hard to keep one's anonymity that way, wouldn't you think?

Lit's current policy seems to preclude the use of 'free use' licenses, it seems. Their wording says it has to be your own creative hands, as I recall. I tried a generic 'free image' once in an attempt to add a cover for the illustrated category. It was rejected anyway. No explanation, other than that it had to be original. So, I set the idea of art aside and have remained in written word mode.

 

[gsnowpainter]

Re original art AI etc. The owner of Literotica seems very concerned that the business should not be protected from copyright infringement. I doubt that these standards are also applied to nonvisual submissions . As an illustrator, I use public domain images and combine them with original content which is perfectly acceptable in the industry. " All artists borrow. Great artists steal: : Pablo Picasso . I would not advocate that but it would be helpful to know the differences.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I doubt that these standards are also applied to nonvisual submissions .

The policies are identical for both visual and text content - not allowed.

You must have missed the threads in the Authors's Hangout this last year, started by authors struggling with rejections for their written content being AI assisted. It's been a major issue for the site for a year or so (seems to be reducing now), but that's why the site published its policy on AI.

 

[jaF0]

There really aren't restrictions on the CONTENT of images. In fact, the rules on non-photographic images are more relaxed than those for photos.


The restrictions are on HOW the images are created and those same rules apply to written text ... no machine generated content, images or words.

 

[OffNSFW]

"I don't have the talent for it" Of course you don't. None of us start out having talent. Every last artist in this forum, from the middling (me) to the excellent (everyone else) had to start with nothing and put in a shitload of energy and effort to get to where they're at.

A crucial part of the A.I. grift is that tech companies have weaponized the misconception that people are either blessed with talent or they're not. "Finally, you too can have the experience that these TALENTED people have so callously kept to themselves!" It's the nonsense of a society that trains its people to hate artists and have an endless appetite for art at the same time.

 

[jaF0]

Let's not use the 'w' word here, OK? Leave that for the PoliBoard.

 

[DemonDanielle404]

Like, it is okay to use AI-generated face with your profile image, right? Because I've seen other posters do that, and I really don't want to use my own face here.

 

[RobLivesInTexas]

"I don't have the talent for it" Of course you don't. None of us start out having talent. Every last artist in this forum, from the middling (me) to the excellent (everyone else) had to start with nothing and put in a shitload of energy and effort to get to where they're at.

A crucial part of the A.I. grift is that tech companies have weaponized the misconception that people are either blessed with talent or they're not. "Finally, you too can have the experience that these TALENTED people have so callously kept to themselves!" It's the nonsense of a society that trains its people to hate artists and have an endless appetite for art at the same time.

Bravo! In my field of music, having taught high school choir since 1983, I long ago recognized the difference between talent and skill. I can teach anyone the skills of singing. Those who have real talent will take those skills to a higher level, but anyone who learns the skills can productively participate in music making. I often heard students protest that they couldn't be in my choir because they couldn't sing. I pointed out that they didn't take algebra because they already knew it. Anyone can learn math skills. Not everyone will become Einstein.

 

[gsnowpainter]

I agree re art and talent. I have taught basic skill levels of fine art to a Junior High School art club. They had the foresight to open it to anyone who wanted to join and some of the results were surprising. Yes, we can all draw a straight line and luckily there are not many in nature. Participation, wanting to learn, and sharing can go a long way. Nobody is born with all the skills.

 

[RobLivesInTexas]

This really doesn't have directly to do with AI and art, but art affects my emotions. Some of the art I see here on Lit arouses me sexually. Other art can move me, or amuse me, or inspire me, or just make me think. But I have no desire to use AI (or even a good artist) to illustrate my own stories on Lit. The images are all in my head. Even if I had the skills to faithfully reproduce them, or if I used AI to make that happen, I want them to remain in my imagination so they become my friends, not objective representations. In my stories, the fictional characters live in my mind, and I want my readers to have the same experience. In my autobiographical stories, the characters live in my memory, but anyone else who reads them should be able to imagine these characters for themselves.

I love the Lord of the Rings. But ever since the Tolkien calendars began appearing years ago, my mind began to get confused. So many artists imagined those characters and places so differently from me. Even Tolkien's own artwork confused me to some extent. When I read fiction, I want the images to be my own, not even the author's. Let the author evoke my images with words, not art. And especially not AI-generated art.

 

[Mogrem]

The pay process might work. Hard to keep one's anonymity that way, wouldn't you think?

Lit's current policy seems to preclude the use of 'free use' licenses, it seems. Their wording says it has to be your own creative hands, as I recall. I tried a generic 'free image' once in an attempt to add a cover for the illustrated category. It was rejected anyway. No explanation, other than that it had to be original. So, I set the idea of art aside and have remained in written word mode.

Technically, according to copyright law, there is no difference between paying an artist (i.e. buying an exclusive license to their copyrighted material) and taking advantage of a public free license. In both cases its a license, in neither case are you considered the creator, and in neither case does the copyright transfer to you, unless you signed an explicit "transfer of copyright" contract with the artist, which so far as I know is not common practice. (IAMAL.) However copyright law isn't the same as site policy of course, and I can well imagine that regardless of both the law and site policy paid for art would get through because it counts as 'original' whereas free stuff gets snagged.

 

[Bramblethorn]

"I don't have the talent for it" Of course you don't. None of us start out having talent. Every last artist in this forum, from the middling (me) to the excellent (everyone else) had to start with nothing and put in a shitload of energy and effort to get to where they're at.

This. It's not some fuckin' thing where an owl shows up on your twelfth birthday to tell you whether you're an artist or not.

I can't draw for shit, because I haven't put in the effort. (So mostly I just lurk this forum and appreciate the work of those who did.) But I'm a halfway decent writer because I did put in the work to learn that. Reading what other people have written, thinking about why this or that story doesn't work for me, figuring out my own voice.

Is it equally easy for everybody to learn? Definitely not. Different people do have different aptitudes. But work beats aptitude any day.

 

[nice90sguy]

But work beats aptitude any day

That post inspired me 1%

 

[Cubik]

[ See: https://forum.literotica.com/threads/policy-on-artificially-created-images.1593507/ ]

 

[summer_reine]

I don't like AI, I'm going to say that first so hopefully I don't get as much hate. I also don't like how it is 'trained' though there is some misunderstanding about how it uses scraped data to 'create' new images.

I have prosopagnosia, face blindness. I am an artist but cannot create faces, nothing even partially realistic anyway. So when I needed a profile picture I used AI. My profile also clearly states that. I used ai once to create a basic concept for a shirt and gave that concept to an artist who did a stunning job making it perfect.

Anyone remember when digital art started becoming a thing in the early 90s? Do you also remember the fight between traditional and digital artists? We were convinced digital artists weren't real artists for a time but now we each have our place and no one is out of work because of it.

I'm not suggesting that AI is real art but I hope in a decade or less we can all settle into a comfortable place where AI art and real art live side by side. And that there are simple ways to determine if art is real or AI, just like there are ways to determine if a photo is shopped or not.

I'm interested to hear responses and I really hope it isn't attacks but I understand the anger, frustration and fear that is wrought by this new technology.

 

[Hipshot1554]

I don't like AI, I'm going to say that first so hopefully I don't get as much hate. I also don't like how it is 'trained' though there is some misunderstanding about how it uses scraped data to 'create' new images.

I have prosopagnosia, face blindness. I am an artist but cannot create faces, nothing even partially realistic anyway. So when I needed a profile picture I used AI. My profile also clearly states that. I used ai once to create a basic concept for a shirt and gave that concept to an artist who did a stunning job making it perfect.

Anyone remember when digital art started becoming a thing in the early 90s? Do you also remember the fight between traditional and digital artists? We were convinced digital artists weren't real artists for a time but now we each have our place and no one is out of work because of it.

I'm not suggesting that AI is real art but I hope in a decade or less we can all settle into a comfortable place where AI art and real art live side by side. And that there are simple ways to determine if art is real or AI, just like there are ways to determine if a photo is shopped or not.

I'm interested to hear responses and I really hope it isn't attacks but I understand the anger, frustration and fear that is wrought by this new technology.

I think it will be up to history determine the effects of AI. Most technology has been a double edged sword.

 

[WyrdWilly]

Use the tool for your own amusement, BUT do not try to pass it off as your Artistic endeavor.
The harm (and there IS harm) is AI art (and writing) is generated by STEALING work from actual Artists without the any of the work (labor) that was required to generate that source material. Read @blurhead 's post.

 

[gsnowpainter]

As a visual artist I concur with the advice on Ai images and the stealing of artwork.
" All artists borrow. Good artists steal". Pablo Picasso

 

[whitedudenj]

Here's one I made earlier. Norman Rockwell never dreamed.

I like!

How was it created?
What software/app did you use?

I've been asking same questions in different forums (regarding other images I've found) for the past few days.
No answers.
Frustrating.

 

[000zing]

We needn't get too hung up on this concept of "art" and whether or not AI images are art or not. For me it's just a tool for those who are not artistically talented to generate a visual image of an idea in their head. I see no harm in having a space for that here on lit - have a separate place for it away from the visual arts corner to keep the "art" purists happy if need be.

Er... and just how happy do you think the mouse clickers would be to be segregated from those with genuine talent?

Their whole strategy lies in the ego trip of being seen as a creative artist, i.e. deceit.