seems this artist is using AI to make images to copy for traditional painting, which is such an odd way to use the plagiarism machine. anyway, if you would find it unethical for someone to paint an exact copy of someone else's work and sell it for money (it is), then this fails the same vibe check. - ThreadSky

shroompunk.com • 14 days ago

seems this artist is using AI to make images to copy for traditional painting, which is such an odd way to use the plagiarism machine.

anyway, if you would find it unethical for someone to paint an exact copy of someone else's work and sell it for money (it is), then this fails the same vibe check.

Reposted from Kim Hu

TIL that this dude is an AI artist.
(uses generated ref, by their own admission)

Shame. I really liked their colors. 😮‍💨
Happy to see @aimod.social was already up to speed tho with the label when I went to unfollow.

Comments

kimhu.bsky.social•13 days ago

Yeah, it was a gut punch for sure finding out about it. :(
Also, given his level of skill and subject matter, this is all so unnecessary. I don't get why he must use it at all, especially when he is aware of all the different issues surrounding the tech.

nixiecoyote.bsky.social•14 days ago

is it taboo to paint something using someone else's non-AI photos as reference? kinda sucks that ai is used in their process instead of using real photos but i don't necessarily think using it as reference is the problem here

shroompunk.com•14 days ago

for transformative work, where it's not 1:1, i think there's wiggle room in the ethics of references. like i'll use multiple angles of a car from different photos, for example, to understand the form better and draw it accurately. i actually use a ton of photo references, but not selling 1:1 copies.

shroompunk.com•14 days ago

i've definitely done 1:1 copies for practice, which i didn't share. but if someone's doing a 1:1 copy of a reference and then selling it for money, that's where i think we're really getting into a problem. this artist appears to generate AI art and then 1:1 copy it onto his canvas, then sell it.

shroompunk.com•14 days ago

since midjourney is fed on stolen art, the output is plagiarising artists without permission. then this artist does a 1:1 copy, and cannot ask permission, and sells it for money.

the ethical issue here is that it's being used to directly copy and then sell.

nixiecoyote.bsky.social•14 days ago

i won't disagree that midjourney is a plagiarism machine, though i feel like it is unfair to say him selling his work is unethical. for example, if an artist looked up "roaring lion" on google images and found a photo of a non-CC image of a lion from a professional photographer >

nixiecoyote.bsky.social•14 days ago

and used it as a 1-1 reference for their own painting to sell, without asking for permission, i think that would be within their right. along with say, collage artists or samplers who rip directly from source material.

stephanie-dharma.bsky.social•14 days ago

Damn. That explains a lot. I had seen his work on Threads. I thought it was too oversaturated, too slick and commercial for my taste.
There's always going to be a market for the Thomas Kinkade's of the art world.

shroompunk.com•14 days ago

honestly at least kinkade didn't do AI, which just makes mass-produced slop even easier.

vinchenzojackal.bsky.social•14 days ago

From what I learned... he uses AI to create a pencil sketch, and he paints over the pencil sketch... which isn't much better than using AI to create the painting, and then paint over the painting. It is an unethical shortcut. I assume he couldn't find free pencil sketches so he used AI for them.

shroompunk.com•14 days ago

ugh. yeah i didn't know too much detail but that's frustrating shit.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply