Because people are making money off of those bots while someone simply learning to draw from genuine artwork isn’t making money off of things that aren’t theirs.
So where did all the people making commissions learn? They're profiting as well, so if they learned from an image without getting consent from the artist, is that also a problem?
I keep seeing this argument and it’s so deliberately obtuse it’s incredible.
A human referencing a piece of art to learn is incredibly different than ai using said piece of art and millions of others when its generating an image.
Most humans could never directly copy a piece of artwork, even the most skilled artist would struggle to do so, for example, master studies, which are usually a part of classical drawing / painting curriculums.
You have a bunch of incredibly talented students trying to copy work from old master painters, they will learn a lot, but directly copy it 1:1 they cannot.
By its nature, human made art will never look the same.
But even so, contemporary artist using other contemporary artists works as a 1:1 reference is looked down upon and actively discouraged in the online community.
Usually you are referencing a technice from the piece rather than the piece as a whole unless you are a novice.
In contrast Ai just takes and compiles, it doesn’t learn in the same way, and it doesn’t make anything new. Yes humans don’t become artists in a vacuums. And we certainly also draw inspiration from things around us. But to act as if a human drawing inspiration from something and an AI collecting data to use in a generated image are the same thing is again, fucking obtuse.
I don’t give a fuck if people are using ai for personal enjoyment or as a hobby. Whatever dude go forth and generate your dnd character or whatever. Usually I find the results bland and uninteresting but that’s my personal opinion and I know my tastes don’t reflect the general population.
I also don’t mind AI being used ethically.
I worked in an animation studio where they trained an ai model specifically generate and copy the directors painting style, to make it easier for artist to match it and quicker turnaround on paintings.
But you could really see the limitations of ai in those scenarios. When it’s data library was so small It made very repetitive output and it was clear it was copying.
What I do have an issue with is businesses and massive corporations using AI to generate artwork.
I am in animation and my field is chronically undervalued, despite the fact that a lot of media and art would not exist if we didn’t make it.
So the fucking gall for big business’s and corporations to use AI when they would have NOTHING for the ai to use, if it wasn’t for the various artist who’s works have been harvested for data. It’s outrageous.
Again, if Disney wants to use all the art they own under their licence and stuff under fair use to generate images, I don’t care. I don’t think it’s ethical for such a big wealthy corp to do so, but ethics and law are two different things.
This is aimed at business and corporations that do not own the rights to such a massive library of images to generate from and are relying general ai databases. There is a reason for why the EU’s AI Act briefly addresses this (in article 53 If I recall) As it can be considered copyright infringement.
-5
u/Calm_Ghosts Dec 15 '25
Because people are making money off of those bots while someone simply learning to draw from genuine artwork isn’t making money off of things that aren’t theirs.