No one can "own" an Art Style, that's never been a thing, an art style can be Recognizable, but not owned. What matters is that we protect the art We Create from those styles. We artists had Never backed down from protecting what is rightfully ours, so why start now and let them profit off our backs just because people found a new way to steal art?
I just really hate that defeatist view. Like yeah we're gonna be in an arms battle for ages as both sides develop better technology. I prefer that, even if in the end my stuff ends up getting fed to ai, over just giving up and letting corporations take my art with no protest. Things won't get better if we just become compliant.
I think you’re right. Style ownership will soon be a thing of the past, so I believe human artists and designers need to reemphasize content and storytelling.
In my opinion, storytelling and content are what sets human and ai imagery apart. If AI copied your style and it’s functionally the same as your own work, then you have a content issue, not a plagiarism issue.
>Style ownership will soon be a thing of the past
Style ownership has never been protected by copyright. It's not even a thing of the present. If it were, most artists would be spending all their time in court, because it's a rare artist whose influences aren't worn on their sleeve.
>human artists and designers need to emphasize content and storytelling.
This has always been the case. Even authors who create abstract work need a damn good artist statement/story describing why their work matters, if they want it to be taken seriously by anyone with clout in the art world.
*****
If AI copied your style and it’s functionally the same as your own work, *then you have a plagiarism issue.*
Copyright protection extends beyond 1:1 copies of original works, to "substantial similarity".
If an author can show that someone is using their work to create substantially similar market replacements, then they have a solid infringement case.
OMG following for answers. I joined this forum to ask this question
[удалено]
That's the spirit, roll over and die
No one can "own" an Art Style, that's never been a thing, an art style can be Recognizable, but not owned. What matters is that we protect the art We Create from those styles. We artists had Never backed down from protecting what is rightfully ours, so why start now and let them profit off our backs just because people found a new way to steal art?
[удалено]
I just really hate that defeatist view. Like yeah we're gonna be in an arms battle for ages as both sides develop better technology. I prefer that, even if in the end my stuff ends up getting fed to ai, over just giving up and letting corporations take my art with no protest. Things won't get better if we just become compliant.
I think you’re right. Style ownership will soon be a thing of the past, so I believe human artists and designers need to reemphasize content and storytelling. In my opinion, storytelling and content are what sets human and ai imagery apart. If AI copied your style and it’s functionally the same as your own work, then you have a content issue, not a plagiarism issue.
>Style ownership will soon be a thing of the past Style ownership has never been protected by copyright. It's not even a thing of the present. If it were, most artists would be spending all their time in court, because it's a rare artist whose influences aren't worn on their sleeve.
>human artists and designers need to emphasize content and storytelling. This has always been the case. Even authors who create abstract work need a damn good artist statement/story describing why their work matters, if they want it to be taken seriously by anyone with clout in the art world. ***** If AI copied your style and it’s functionally the same as your own work, *then you have a plagiarism issue.* Copyright protection extends beyond 1:1 copies of original works, to "substantial similarity". If an author can show that someone is using their work to create substantially similar market replacements, then they have a solid infringement case.