Raw LLM Responses

When I was a representative on the Columbia Council of Camera Clubs we discovered than one of our contest winners had walked into a photo gallery, took a picture of a photo and later entered it into one our of contests under his own name and won. His honor was removed, he was dishonored and his crime reported to the FBI. Turns out this was not an isolated incident. So the question I pose is should cameras be forbidden in making art? Clearly they _can_ be used to steal other people's art. Also it is just sooo easy to take a picture. It literally takes a fraction of a second. You just press a button and blam! An image is recorded and it took no effort or skill on your part. People could be taking photos of your art work and you'd never know. And think of the number of painters who lost portrait commissions when photographers began doing portraits for a fraction of the cost. Unfair, right? And poor Pablo Picasso. All those people--camera or no camera--copying his cubist style. And Salvador Dali, people stealing his surrealism. It belongs to him, doesn't it? And all the Jackson Pollock imitators just throwing paint around. What an ethical dilemma. And this copying someone's personal style business goes way way way back. The Impressionists, the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, the Classical period painters, the Neo-classical painters, the Futurists, the Photorealists whose crime was not only to copy each other but to copy photography! The list does not stop there. How can I continue when my eyes are full of tears? It's too bad that there are no copyrights on facts, ideas, procedures, or an artist's style, no matter how distinct. How about that? So having put that aside for a moment how is AI image making any different? Just to let you know I'm not a witless techie dilettante: I have a BA in Fine Arts from Indiana University, I attended the School of the Art Institute of Chicago studying printmaking, formally studied art anatomy in classes for several years, was an art gallery director, taught art in public schools for many years, and have been active in the photography community for the last 20 years or so. I know a heck of a lot more about art than I do technology. No, stop. Before you say anything go and spend some time with AI software and then tell me how easy it is to make an image and how easily you can violate someone's copyright of whatever. Also you might find how much fun it is, how creative you can be, how enticing it is. If you don't try it, you've got nothing to say. Not a word. Also while you're away you might want to check on the terms and conditions of the social media sites you post your images to. See what rights they (the site) have over your work. What they can do with your art without your permission. Just too you don't make false claims about copyrighted work. If you didn't read the fine print you have only yourself to blame. Of course, just because somebody can copy your style (which is not copyrightable) doesn't mean they all will. Just think of your scanned image as a drop in an ocean. It's not like AI takes chunks of your images and pastes them in. It learns just as you learned to talk by listening to others. Just as you learned by copying drawings of the masters. (If you didn't you should have.) AI doesn't copy. AI learns. The techniques and approaches using AI software are as varied as the number of artists using it. Like any other tool there is no one way to use it. Professional commercial digital artists (one of whom is my son) use it in their workflow in whatever way they find useful. They are not running around ripping off other artists' "styles." They, like 99.999% of AI users, couldn't care less about your style. They don't even know you exist. Since my son and the other members of his commercial art team are using it and they're already Photoshop masters or professional photographers or Illustrator masters then no one can say that AI is stealing jobs away from artists. Really, you can't tell artists what tools they can and can't use. You're fighting against history when you try that. Besides 95% of AI use is just people horsing around making little pictures for fun. Why punish the 95% of hobbyists and the 4.95% of pros for a few people who _might_ steal someone's art? People have been stealing art long before AI. It's called forgery and people spend time in jail for it. Anybody who does steal an artist's style (that is, makes and sells a work of art in a distinctive style and _attributes it to the original artist_) can be prosecuted by law enforcement. There are already laws in the books to cover that. It happens. If you don't believe me read the story of Han van Meegeren. So back off. Take a deep breath. Stop turning this into an overblown issue and stampeding everybody. You do know what the acronym FUD means, right? If you don't want to use it, then don't, but don't knock it until you've tried it. I promise along with all my fellow AI artists not to "steal" anybody "style" who isn't in the pubic domain--except maybe for satirical purposes. We all have our little jokes, eh?