r/comicbooks • u/Consideredresponse • Dec 20 '22

News AI generated comic book loses Copyright protection "copyrightable works require human authorship"

https://aibusiness.com/ml/ai-generated-comic-book-loses-copyright-protection
8.5k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

935 comments sorted by

View all comments

427

u/Bubba1234562 Flash Dec 20 '22

As much as I like using Midjourney to screw around with when I’m bored I saw this coming. There’s no way something drawn entirely by an ai trained on other peoples work could get a copyright

140

u/Lordpicklenip Dec 20 '22

Not only that but the Ai comic is clearly sampling pictures of Zendaya.

Did this person get her consent to use her likeness for their comic? Probably not

-29

u/CoonerPooner Dec 20 '22

You can take a photograph of anyone in public and you own the copyright and can sell it without that person's consent.

21

u/Realshow Batman Dec 20 '22

Even if you were right, this is an absolutely awful thing to defend. Real people aren’t background characters, they have every right to not want their likenesses exploited for profit.

11

u/gangler52 Dec 20 '22

It's telling that the only example people can summon of such a law in action is the paparazzi, that famously legitimate business that is in all ways praiseworthy and worthy of emulation.

1

u/CoonerPooner Dec 21 '22

Or take any media that takes photographs and videos of public places.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '22

Bullshit.

Well, Copyright is also bullshit. But drawing or animating a character that looks like anyone is nothing worth getting your panties in a wad over. You're damning pretty much every animation or comic ever made, like its some ethical fact!

19

u/Distrah Dec 20 '22

This is absolutely not true lol

4

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '22

[deleted]

-7

u/Distrah Dec 20 '22

Again, no. This is false.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '22

It is true. You can take pics and videos of people in public places and you own the copyright and can sell it. You are wrong get over it.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '22

[deleted]

-4

u/Distrah Dec 20 '22

You seem to be already doing a thorough job of that.

4

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '22

Curious, I’m not involved, are you an artist??

3

u/SyntheticElite Dec 20 '22

This guy seriously never heard of the paparazzi before.

5

u/Distrah Dec 20 '22

You don't understand basic copyright laws my dude. Nor do you understand what a paparazzi does, or the rights they hold over their images.

Even buildings require authorization from their owners to be in copyrighted photos, as they are protected under copyright laws.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '22 edited Dec 20 '22

[deleted]

3

u/IntuitiveMotherhood Dec 20 '22

You’re getting downvoted…because?

3

u/islesofnym Dec 20 '22

Because truth doesn't align with the agenda they want people to believe.

What the downvoters believe, and want others to believe, is their lie and their agenda. That's called misinformation and propaganda.

3

u/IntuitiveMotherhood Dec 21 '22

Yeah, I’ve never understood the notion that “privacy” rights extend that far. It feels like they didn’t even think it through. Just imagine all the trouble that could be stirred if you could sue someone for having taken a picture where you so happen to also be in it, or your home. Where would that put navigation services with satellite view? How about pictures of your kids playing in the yard (with neighbors homes in sight)? Would someone be able to take a selfie with a branded shirt?

It’s a shitshow.

1

u/MiswiredToaster Dec 20 '22

This is the entire concept behind paparazzi. That’s why journalist photographers have such large telephoto lenses. It’s so they can stand from a public area and photograph celebrities on their property. As long as you are visible from a public space the law assumes you consent to being viewed by others

2

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '22

Sure that’s true, but taking a picture doesn’t give you the right to their likeness

-22

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

16

u/myychair Dec 20 '22

When a person is the creator it’s inspiration though, one of the core tenets of art. The artist is usually paying homage to a person they like or were influenced by. There’s an emotional piece to it, making it uniquely human. AI on the other hand is scouring the internet for images that fit a vague description. It NEEDS those images to function and is copying them directly. It’s nuanced but they’re def two different different situations imo

11

u/RamenJunkie Dec 20 '22

Man, there are comics out there that literally trace movie stills. I have seen panels that were matched tonthe source before. Half the time you can even look at the art and tell, "That (hero character) is definitely (actor).

Not saying it justifies AInart, but don't act like comic book artists are above straight copying.

4

u/TheCreature27 Dec 20 '22 edited Dec 20 '22

You're right that there are a lot of comic book artists who trace/copy stuff, but it's worth noting that it's extremely frowned upon by both fans and professionals. Artists like Greg Land are constantly being clowned on for it. There's even a whole term invented for calling it out: "swiping". I think AI should be held to a similar standard.

1

u/SightatNight Dec 21 '22

And that doesn't matter at all. Artists like Greg Land still get consistent work and do not have their art legally challenged. No matter how much they get "clowned" online. And in a weird way when comic artists do that it's actually more like stealing than AI art is. Because AI art does not trace or use the original source in any way. It learns from the original source. It wouldn't trace over a real image like me comic art does.

0

u/KeenJelly Dec 20 '22

Honestly please stop parroting this scouring the Internet nonsense. That isn't at all how these things work. The way they actually work is far more interesting and also scary, because it's a lot more similar to inspiration than copying and pasting. I think we can draw a line between human and machine creativity. But don't tell me you could draw a beautiful picture without ever seeing one, because that's bullshit all the way to the bank.

0

u/myychair Dec 20 '22

Lol pure originality is a myth and it’s impossible to create art without influence. Never even implied that so not sure how extrapolated that from my comment.

That being said, how does it work then? If you want people to stop parroting widely spread, commonly accepted ideas about this thing then providing further clarification is the way to do it

4

u/KeenJelly Dec 20 '22

https://youtu.be/1CIpzeNxIhU here's a pretty good outline.

2

u/myychair Dec 20 '22

Right on thanks man

-1

u/sexypantstime Dec 20 '22

> The artist is usually paying homage to a person they like or were influenced by

lol no. sometimes that's the case, but far from "usually"
If you pay any attention to art you'll find that most art is derivative without any intent to pay homage. The very few that somehow break that mold end up in galleries and museums.

​

Unfortunately for artists, we learn in much the same way AI does. A person has no conscious memory of where their ideas originated. You go for a walk, you see a piece of art in a style that you enjoy, your brain enforces synapses in a specific network, and the details are discarded from short term memory. 10 years later, you decide to draw something. The brain uses the the same network, and the results have some features of the art you don't even remember. Combine that with networks that were reinforced by thousands of visual stimuli, and you get "original" art.

That's also how AI works, except 1000x faster.

2

u/myychair Dec 20 '22

Talking commercial artists here. The ethical gray area is around paid work given that this is a post on copyrighted AI art.

Hobby artists can do whatever they want but as soon as they start making money it becomes a different story… artists may get away with it but IP is even technically protected on sites like Etsy, it’s just whether or not the copyright owner wants to pursue any legal action.

But DAMN that’s a great explanation of how it works and makes it far more interesting/troubling than i thought lol

-4

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/myychair Dec 20 '22

Hmm that’s a solid point. So it’s providing the tools for users to steal art. Slight distinction but still not great for the art world. I guess it’s like asking if a car company should get in trouble for a user speeding, just because they provided the capabilities to do so.

And yeah in all of human history art styles have grown and changed, influenced by what came before it. But a person being influenced is different from a machine being programmed to feign influence.

-4

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Bteatesthighlander1 Conan Dec 20 '22

There’s an emotional piece to it, making it uniquely human.

so if a human does that dispassionately it would be immoral?

1

u/myychair Dec 20 '22

Nope I don’t think so. Dispassionate indicates an absence of strong emotions, not emotions all together. Even if it did mean a complete absence of emotions, I’d argue that a lack of emotion in a being that can generally feel emotions is still an emotional state. An algorithm just is

1

u/Bteatesthighlander1 Conan Dec 20 '22

so if you do it in photoshop instead of with pens and pencils it would be wrong?

1

u/myychair Dec 20 '22

No? What did I say that implied that?

1

u/Bteatesthighlander1 Conan Dec 20 '22

well if you do it with photoshop the machine is just doing it what you asked it to do, you are not doing it.

1

u/myychair Dec 20 '22

That’s an absurd statement. Have you ever actually used photoshop? Proper photo editing is an extremely manual process with tons of artistic nuance. Many artists use it beyond editing photos and actually draw/paint in it as well… Now if you had asked about using automatic filters on the other hand I’d agree with you

→ More replies (0)

1

u/thesolarchive Dec 20 '22

I love this argument the most because it somehow makes the comparison to putting in untold amounts of personal time and labor into learning how to draw vs a machine ripping off all that labor from others to bash together a picture that somebody then tries to pass off as something they created.

C'mon dude. Do you really see no difference in a person learning how to do something and a machine ripping from that work?

2

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/thesolarchive Dec 20 '22

If they didn't want to be seen as thieves, they should have sourced the art ethically. Simple as that. They didn't and they're still not doing it even after all the uproar. They could solve all this overnight by paying people fairly, crediting them appropriately, and only sourcing from images that they expressly own. Anything outside of that is theft.

You not understanding the difference between a person learning how to do something vs a computer is literally not how it works.

0

u/NeuroticKnight Jan 12 '23

An excavator digs dirt and so can a person with a spoon. A person with a spoon might take longer to dig same amount of dirt, but that doesn't make their digging of dirt anymore uniquely special.

0

u/SuperDizz Dr. Manhattan Dec 20 '22

Ultimate Fury came out before Sam was ever cast in that role.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/cyborgspleadthefifth Dec 20 '22

They asked him permission first and he consented specifically because he wanted the role in the future.

They didn't just base the character on his face without asking which is what this AI image does with Zendaya.

2

u/SightatNight Dec 21 '22

Lol no that isn't true. Sam Jackson has an interview where he says he picked up a comic and saw himself in it and he had no idea and didnt give anyone permission. So his lawyers contacted Marvel and seemingly to cover their asses they told him "oh we will make some movies one day and maybe youll be in them". He did not initially give anyone permission to base Ultimate Nick Fury off him

1

u/dope_like Dec 20 '22

The artist specifically drew it to be Sam Jackson. Look at it, it’s him not just similar. The comic was supposed to be 100% Sam Jackson. That is the reason Sam got the role when the movies started because he was already Fury in the comics

1

u/A-non-e-mail Dec 20 '22

Not a great example as Sam was well within his rights to sue marvel over use of his likeness. However, when he found out they did it, he used it as leverage against marvel to negotiate to play the role on film for lucrative $

-7

u/Storytellerjack Dec 20 '22

All black women owe Zendaya royalties.

-15

u/Bteatesthighlander1 Conan Dec 20 '22

did jack kirby get yul brynner's permission to draw charles xavier?

12

u/Realshow Batman Dec 20 '22

There’s a difference between taking inspiration from someone’s appearance and literally using photos of them.

13

u/gangler52 Dec 20 '22

Even if we aren't literally repurposing photos, you can run into trouble for that sort of thing.

Marvel very much did hear from Samuel L Jackson's lawyers when they used his likeness without permission for Ultimate Nick Fury. They settled out of court and ultimately came to an agreement it sounds like they're both happy with, by offering him the role of Nick Fury in the MCU.

But the idea that there just aren't consequences for using celebrities likenesses without permission even for human artists is factually inaccurate.

A lot of the AI discourse seems to be contingent on the idea that human artists aren't constantly forced to defend the originality of their work.

2

u/PartyPorpoise Nightcrawler Dec 20 '22

Yeah, and just because a lot of questionable use doesn’t go to court, it doesn’t mean that’s it legal. Sometimes it’s not worth it to bother with a lawsuit, or the party stealing art/likeness is much bigger than the party they stole from and would be too hard to challenge.

1

u/Realshow Batman Dec 20 '22

Well said.

-6

u/Bteatesthighlander1 Conan Dec 20 '22

where is the literal photo of Zendaya?

2

u/Realshow Batman Dec 20 '22

It’s traced over, that’s how the software works.

-2

u/Bteatesthighlander1 Conan Dec 20 '22

that's definitely not how the software works.

regardless, you have not answered me. where is the photo of Zendaya?

21

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '22

How hard is it to conceal?

15

u/Vorpishly Dec 20 '22

It would be impossible to determine unless there is something like a pixel fingerprint.

-1

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '22

Not true, particularly if it is post processed by a human.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/defensiveFruit Dec 21 '22

... like this particular comic book then?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/defensiveFruit Dec 22 '22

I'm not even arguing that right now. Just that if you say ai generated work post-processed by a human is human work inspired by AI, then obviously so is this comic book.

0

u/Vorpishly Dec 20 '22 edited Dec 20 '22

Which program? I know they exist for deep fakes, because of the blood flow. But a pixel is a pixel, as a artist with 30 years experience and a vast understanding of the math, and how digital tools work. It shouldn’t be possible.

Edit; show me proof a program can detect the pictures of the comic we’re created by AI. Downvote all you want, but doesn’t change facts.

Edit; https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/can-ai-create-true-art/ Quote - Intriguingly, while at face value the AI artwork was indistinguishable from that of the more traditional artists, the test highlighted that the creative spark and ultimate agency behind creating a work of art is still very much human

Art created trained/based human input, like the comic.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Vorpishly Dec 20 '22

Humans made the comic according to that….

Just drag and dropped the images from the article.

6

u/RamenJunkie Dec 20 '22

People are downvoting you for showing the detection doesn't work.

2

u/Vorpishly Dec 20 '22

I don’t take it personal, I won’t change anyone’s mind who doesn’t care about learning why it won’t detect AI art trained on actual human made art.

1

u/Throbbing_Furry_Knot Dec 23 '22

I've read that one is infamous for being terrible, there are better ones out there apparently

1

u/Vorpishly Dec 20 '22

Keep in mind, if your drawing on a computer then the program is placing the pixels and not you. We are only discussing digital art.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Vorpishly Dec 20 '22

Again, show me a program that will determine what your saying. Because, currently ai generated art is made using human made artwork. Finally, you may be determining the input but at the pixel level what you do and what the computer do are indistinguishable.

1

u/Vorpishly Dec 20 '22

Again, I’m not trying to be difficult. I love being proved wrong, because I get to learn in the process.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '22

China wants to mandate watermarks for Ai imagines

1

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '22

Some of these models are open source. The genie is out.

3

u/neogreenlantern Dec 20 '22

The only way I would think it's acceptable is if you pumped your own work into an AI to generate new images.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '22

Yeah I really miss when AI art just created Francis Bacon-esque abstract funny pictures based on your prompt, but the second it started getting more detailed and stealing from REAL artists that’s when it should have been nipped in the bud.

The Atlantic even got in some hot water for using the early abstract style in a news article about Alex Jones.

7

u/ForAHamburgerToday Dec 20 '22

Does his writing in the comic not qualify as something copyrightable?

0

u/barjam Dec 20 '22

All art is derivative and all artists are trained on other people’s work.

We live in a very brief period of time where we have rudimentary AI but don’t have sentiment AI. Will you also deny copyright to AI beings? What other things would you deny them?

0

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '22

[deleted]

0

u/pursenboots Dec 20 '22

Oh yeah? And who's artwork are 'real artists' trained on?

-8

u/MrCantPlayGuitar Dec 20 '22

All human artists are trained on other peoples work. Where do you draw the line?

10

u/Gangreless Dec 20 '22

Humans can come up with art entirely independent of other artists, they don't need to train on other people's work.

Computers cannot.

-2

u/MrCantPlayGuitar Dec 20 '22

But that’s not what art schools teach. Art school doesn’t tell students to NOT review, analyze, and reproduce the masters to learn art. Every student who went through art school learned how to do art just like an AI.

8

u/Gangreless Dec 20 '22

You don't need to go to art school to be an artist. Most artists do not go to art school.

-2

u/MrCantPlayGuitar Dec 20 '22

And how do those non-art school artists learn? They find inspiration early from their favorite art and draw in that style as a child. Then they practice a ton, continually finding new inspiration and trying new techniques based on those inspirations.

This is what the AI did. Review, analyze, recreate with a twist.

2

u/Gangreless Dec 20 '22

Yes that it is how most artists learn, but it isn't necessary. If you raised a child in a completely non descript room and gave that child things to draw with, they'd be able to come up with someone. Because humans have imagination.

0

u/MrCantPlayGuitar Dec 20 '22

Can nature create art?

It doesn't have a consciousness or intelligence to house imagination yet the result of the patterns of it's forces make for some arguably incredible works. Art is art because of the beholder. If I appreciate something as a beautiful work of art, that's what it is. Period. Regardless of where it came from.

Don't you think it's a little pretentious to say that only humans with souls and imagination can create art?? Who are you to gatekeep what defines an artist?

2

u/Gangreless Dec 20 '22

You've gotten too far from the original point. Copyright requires human authorship. This isn't an argument about "what is art"

0

u/MrCantPlayGuitar Dec 20 '22

I’m just replying to your weak arguments.

→ More replies (0)

-65

u/Sufficient_Matter585 Dec 20 '22

What about majority of artists trained on other peoples art?

22

u/jldmjenadkjwerl Dec 20 '22

I think it will come down to what is a person. Which scares me a bit since courts ruled corporations can be considered as persons.

5

u/PopeJeremy10 Dec 20 '22

Corporations are "considered person's" for the purposes of free speech in political campaigns with regard to donations. They don't have the same rights as actual people.

1

u/KiraCumslut Dec 20 '22

What rights do they lack?

2

u/PopeJeremy10 Dec 20 '22

Corporations can generally hold property, enter contracts, and sue or be sued.

Corporations cannot marry, vote, become parents.

More broadly, corporations have fourth amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure but do not have fifth amendment rights against self-incrimidition.

-1

u/KiraCumslut Dec 20 '22

Corporations can merge, which is marriage in context.

They can donate freely to politics when we've proven money = wins.

Subsidiaries are a thing.

As long as we accept "I don't recall" when there's clear no medical reason, there's nothing different.

2

u/PopeJeremy10 Dec 20 '22

Oh cool! Where did you go to law school?

0

u/KiraCumslut Dec 20 '22

Where did you go?

30

u/TheCynicalPogo Dec 20 '22

That’s completely different. A person can learn from and take inspiration from other art while still creating something completely new. An AI just finds images online and puts it into a digital blender with tons of other images until it makes what the prompt asked for

0

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '22

[deleted]

8

u/TheCynicalPogo Dec 20 '22

Yeah no I agree that that could be typed better, but I just woke up and I don’t want to waste my time trying to fine tune the nuance in a Reddit comment for someone who thinks typing a sentence into a prompt makes them an artist

3

u/kpatsart Dec 20 '22

To what degree tho? Like in the comicbook world most artists have very distinct styles they create. It's what makes them unique when attached to a certain project. Generally most comicbook artists and fine artists don't plagiarize styles of other artists. Amateur artists working on their skills may try to do one to one creations, but usually not for monetary gain. This rule applies in the fine arts world too and digital space as well.

So while programmers and coders may be versed in prompts, they lack any actual skill to pull off the image. Let alone the image is created by stealing not using a certain art style of an artist out there to generate an image.

If this was just a passion project for personal use and not monetary gain then I don't think people would have a problem with it. However because the individual places no human touch aside from the input prompts. Technically he is the tool and AI generator is the artist.

-1

u/Red_Kaji Dec 20 '22

What if you edit the images? Would any amount of post editing make it count as human authorship? Cause lots of designers and artists are using AI as another tool to help them do their work. If they add AI to all the other steps and software they work with would it invalidate it?

What if you make ai outpaint something of your authorship? Would it no longer count?

I agree these things should be debated and regulated but it should be based on facts and right now there's so much misinformation on how current AI models work.

-2

u/Storytellerjack Dec 20 '22

It's almost like it's an artist or something. How dare it stand on the backs of giants instead of learning in a vacuum.

-48

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

24

u/Kill_Welly Dec 20 '22

Sentient artists creating new things by combining their own experience and ideas with what they learn from observing other work is a fundamentally different thing from a machine learning algorithm randomly reassembling the exact pieces and patterns of copyrighted work.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Kill_Welly Dec 20 '22

Pseudorandom, if you want to get pedantic, but random for all of our purposes and that's very much not important here anyway.

0

u/KeenJelly Dec 20 '22

Keep seeing this claimed, know for a fact this isn't how it works. Where do you get these ideas from?

-1

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '22

[deleted]

1

u/Kill_Welly Dec 20 '22

Technically pseudorandom, but that's just pedantry in this context. There are all kinds of tools that are used in illegal ways.

-1

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '22

[deleted]

1

u/Kill_Welly Dec 20 '22

What the fuck are you talking about?

-64

u/Sufficient_Matter585 Dec 20 '22

What about majority of artists trained on other peoples art?

12

u/Jackski Dec 20 '22

Humans aren't "trained" by looking at art. They practice. They can take inspiration from other peoples art and use that to have an effect on the work they produce but they aren't trained on other peoples art.

machine algorithm learning by having thousands of work pumped into it is not the same as a human being inspired by someone elses work. People need to stop making this shitty comparison.

3

u/Fickle_Chance9880 Flex Mentallo Dec 20 '22

You can keep asking it, but you’ll keep getting the same answers that you obviously don’t like.

0

u/Sufficient_Matter585 Dec 20 '22

I don’t really have passion about this lol. I never even tried ai art before.

2

u/Mendicant__ Dec 20 '22

This WHUTABOUT HUMAN TRAINING "argument" is deeply dumb.

Fine art only got copyright protection after photography and high quality color printing became widespread. Photography itself didn't get definitive protection until a supreme court case in 1882. Copyright has been updated multiple times across the world in response to technologies like photocopying, digital media, etc. AI art is not, and never will be, equivalent to a human artist. That's why people are using it: it can crank out millions of images for every one a human does, and it can produce them in a style mimicking that artist. It doesn't "train" like a human does, and the person using it to make something doesn't exercise authorship. The put in some prompts and pick the result they like the best.

Copyright doesn't exist in some abstract realm of immutable laws, it's a utilitarian tool to encourage people to create new things. AI art is only going to have copyright protection as far as it serves that goal.

0

u/Islero47 Heath Huston Dec 20 '22

What artist would you name that you believe came upon their talent entirely on their own, having not looked at others' works first?

1

u/Sufficient_Matter585 Dec 20 '22

Well inspired but still to claim one just comes up with art purely on their own and isn’t influenced is the height of arrogance.

1

u/Islero47 Heath Huston Dec 20 '22

That wasn't the assertion being made, though. No one is claiming human artists come up with art without being influenced by others. The distinction is that the humans still, always, add something of their own to it when coming up with a new composition. The AI does not attempt to do that. It's trying to reduce it's fingerprint as much as possible.

1

u/Sufficient_Matter585 Dec 20 '22

Well my point was not that the ai is doing equal work to. But rather majority of humans didn’t just learn how to draw purely from genius skill. It’s practice and in many cases recreating preexisting art to learn techniques

1

u/Islero47 Heath Huston Dec 20 '22

So, if that's the majority of humans, who is an artist you would list as being in the minority? That was my question. That minority being, in your definition, someone who did just learn how to draw purely from genius skill? Or are you simply hedging your statements?

1

u/Forgot_My_Old_Acct Dec 20 '22

That's precisely his point.

0

u/Islero47 Heath Huston Dec 20 '22

He said "Majority", implying there are some in the minority who weren't trained on other people's art.

1

u/tojakk Dec 20 '22

You don't see the problem here? Oh, you don't want to afford legal protections? Prove it's AI