Images created by AI: 2 questions

[John Di Leo]

1)Should there be a section for images created by AI on Photo.net? I am actually surprised that it does not yet exist.

2)Have you played with AI images and what do you believe is the best AI software for same?

 

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

Well technically, are AI created images photographs? They are images, butso are drawings and paintings.  Should we change the name to image net? In any event, despite my reservations as to whether they are photographic images, the site could create an AI image group. It would probably be popular. Just don't call them photographs even though they can be photo realistic images.

[AlanKlein]

How does one create an AI photo?

Edited April 16, 2023 by AlanKlein

[David_Cavan]

One of the questions we have to ask is whether we have the rights to post an AI photo. I ran some tests on a couple of applications this weekend, and got some surprisingly interesting results. But, apparently the copyright of AI images is a raging debate in the legal world (as opposed to the illegal world I guess) and I believe I can only post on photo.net if I own the rights to the photos. There is a side of the debate that believes some or all of these are public domain images, but the AI tool creators are for the most part saying they believe they need to own the creations. After reading some articles online I decided to hold off posting the images - perhaps we need to consider this challenge.

[Gerald Cafferty]

The simple answer is no.

[mikemorrellNL]

18 hours ago, John Di Leo said:

1)Should there be a section for images created by AI on Photo.net? I am actually surprised that it does not yet exist.

2)Have you played with AI images and what do you believe is the best AI software for same?

 

Great question! 

In short:

a) yes, but with a broader scope

b) No, so can't advise; many reviews available on the web though

I think that, these days, there definitely should be a (sub-)forum to discuss - and post photos/images that have been created and/or edited with the help of AI. IHMO the scope of the (sub-) forum should be broader than just 'images created by AI-apps' and should also include 'photos/images' .

There's probably a fine line between the two categories. As far as I know some 'image creation' AI-apps can take an uploaded photo/image as a starting point.  The user can then - using keywords, references, etc. manipulate the image to get the desired result. These apps can also 'generate' images based on keywords,  references etc. for further manipulation.

So, as far as I know, strictly speaking, only images generated without an uploaded photo/image as input could be considered to be an 'AI- generated image'. The use of AI-apps to manipulatie uploaded photos/images falls IMHO in the category (advanced) 'postprocessing'.

I personally believe that there's a more important reason to discuss and post examples of photos/images created with the help of AI-apps. The two main reasons for this are:

- AI-based functions are increasingly becoming available in (broadly) post-processing apps. Just taking one (Photoshop, which I use) as an example, AI-based functions and plug-ins are regularly added to the range of options with which users can manipulate images. And yet Photoshop is still regarded as a 'traditional post-processing' app.

- new - supposedly AI-based apps and plugins - are springing up that, according to the blurb, drastically reduce the time spent on manual 'post-processing' of photos

So IMHO, the application of rapidly developing AI to photography/imaging is not only relevant to  (autonomously) creating  images but also to the way we post-process photos/images.

There's a common Dutch expression that roughly translates as "why should I care, I’m happy with what I have". This expression probably applies to many PN members. Still, for those of us interested in what the future of photography/imaging might hold, An AI-based (sub-forum) would be a great place to exchange views, experience, tips, etc.

In any case (IMHO) a better alternative to the current situation in which seemingly unrelated threads are posted.

 

[samstevens]

It often seems like this site is on autopilot anyway, so for all we know we’re already inside an AI chamber. It would be ironic, but not far-fetched, if whatever passes for an administration here were to forbid AI photos from being posted. 

I’m just happy that it looks like AI vs. non-AI might replace film vs. digital as the new senior citizen photography battleground. Years of fascinating debates ahead. 😊

[mikemorrellNL]

Haha, I love your sense of humor, Sam!

I'm not sure whether the AI vs. non-AI discussion might replace the film vs. digital discussions on PN anytime soon, but I hope - going forward - that it may be a more relevant discussion.

I saw - but didn't read/watch - a recent BBC article entitled 'are we living a Matrix-like life?' Unfortunately, I've not (yet) been able to track it down.  But given all the current (social and tradtional) media biases and - especially - the continual media ads, I can well imagine that many heavy media consumers are living a 'matrix-like' life.  In the sense that their media consumption has  big influence on their ambitions: what kind of life they want to lead, what they want to buy, etc

5 minutes ago, samstevens said:

It often seems like this site is on autopilot anyway, so for all we know we’re already inside an AI chamber. It would be ironic, but not far-fetched, if whatever passes for an administration here were to forbid AI photos from being posted. 

I’m just happy that it looks like AI vs. non-AI might replace film vs. digital as the new senior citizen photography battleground. Years of fascinating debates ahead. 😊

 

[samstevens]

9 minutes ago, mikemorrellNL said:

are we living a Matrix-like life?

It's a new version of Descartes back in the 1600s.

"How can you be certain that your whole life is not a dream?"

He did come up with a solution, though that is still fodder for argument 5 centuries later. Some things never change, haha. (And that, too, is being argued). 😊

 

[inoneeye]

The Sony World Photography Awards

AI creations are part of the current active dialogue of photography. These creations are being presented throughout the photography world. As a tool the creatives are experimenting and exploring new pathways. The question of labeling is as of yet unanswered.
Yes there are those who want to suggest that their AI creations are photos they took. But why deceive… take pride and own it as  BORIS ELDAGSEN did in the link. In time I suspect it will evolve beyond the debate of authenticity of it being a photo or not. As photo sourced AI and CGI are being blended …(also in the early stage are attempts to create photorealistic faces without sourcing existing photographs in the database)… what is is emerging imo is a new medium. 

Edited April 16, 2023 by inoneeye

[David_Cavan]

1 hour ago, inoneeye said:

The Sony World Photography Awards

AI creations are part of the current active dialogue of photography. These creations are being presented throughout the photography world. As a tool the creatives are experimenting and exploring new pathways. The question of labeling is as of yet unanswered.
Yes there are those who want to suggest that their AI creations are photos they took. But why deceive… take pride and own it as  BORIS ELDAGSEN did in the link. In time I suspect it will evolve beyond the debate of authenticity of it being a photo or not. As photo sourced AI and CGI are being blended …(also in the early stage are attempts to create photorealistic faces without sourcing existing photographs in the database)… what is is emerging imo is a new medium. 

Good article, raising the right questions without going ballastic on "this is not photography". We are clearly in the middle of something revolutionary (as opposed to evolutionary) that will change how images are perceived. I use a lot of post-processing to get the results I get, and those results in that past two years have changed my business into a profitable venture. As @mikemorrellNL points out above there are a number of dumber, but still quite powerful, AI tools in the basket of software I use. Is there a bright line that can be drawn that to quote Gandalf "you shall not pass"? I don't think there is actually, except for some small group artistic perspectives that strive to maintain the purity of something that less and less people care about. As an analogy, we are seeing synthesizers start to appear in symphony orchestra performances, which is a thing that was unacceptable a few years ago. I think we will see a mix of categories from "pure photography" with RAW images required, to full-on AI images. If photo.net is to survive it will need to be embraced, much as digital was 20 years ago. 

In the meantime, I mentioned the copyright issues above - this is a troubling issue that can't be ignored and we as photographers, and photo.net as a voice should not hope this issue will just go away.

[inoneeye]

revolutionary - +1... exciting way to look at it.

[inoneeye]

 

1 hour ago, David_Cavan said:

n the meantime, I mentioned the copyright issues above - this is a troubling issue that can't be ignored and we as photographers, and photo.net as a voice should not hope this issue will just go away.

Copyright infringement is a serious concern for many photographers. Cases are in the courts now. We will see what impact they have. Reminiscent of the relatively recent issue in the music world with streaming and sharing copyrighted music. Although the music had not been sampled or changed. Now sampling and sharing has been determined to be an infringement and musicians have some protection.

I have found some of my photos on websites (including x2 low res for sale) not AI. No credit was given to me. I wish my name was attached but I don’t really care enough to make it an issue. It is completely understandable that others would be justifiably pissed off to see their images being used in this way or finding their work in AI databases.

Hopefully some safeguards will soon be in place to choose to remove, opt out or be compensated.

[David_Cavan]

1 hour ago, inoneeye said:

 

Copyright infringement is a serious concern for many photographers. Cases are in the courts now. We will see what impact they have. Reminiscent of the relatively recent issue in the music world with streaming and sharing copyrighted music. Although the music had not been sampled or changed. Now sampling and sharing has been determined to be an infringement and musicians have some protection.

I have found some of my photos on websites (including x2 low res for sale) not AI. No credit was given to me. I wish my name was attached but I don’t really care enough to make it an issue. It is completely understandable that others would be justifiably pissed off to see their images being used in this way or finding their work in AI databases.

Hopefully some safeguards will soon be in place to choose to remove, opt out or be compensated.

I hadn't thought too much about that aspect, where the creation begins with your work - that has seen mixed results in court cases over the past few years. Jeff Koons and Richard Prince get mentioned frequently in that regard, and the cases have gone both ways. What I was more interested in was that some AI software companies are arguing they own copyright to original creations meaning the creator does not have that copyright - that language is built into their software agreements for what that's worth. Not a great analogy, but I would not be happy if Canon claimed copyright to all my photography.  On top of that, Fortune had a recent article saying the US Copyright Office is rejecting the idea that the creator can claim copyright on an AI generated image so perhaps there will actually not be a copyright. That will be an interesting world.

[inoneeye]

Odd for me to think of wanting to be able to copyright an AI image that is created by using copyright protected photos to create it by a 3rd party algorithm.

"[...]the US Copyright Office is rejecting the idea that the creator can claim copyright on an AI generated image..."

The US Copyright Office ultimately made a decision that was a bit more nuanced. For example with text to image AI generated images the text and original elements could be copyrighted even if the final image that was produced may not protected citing "only human-made creations are eligible for copyright."

and the statement of policy read.
“A human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that ‘the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.’ Or an artist may modify material originally generated by AI technology to such a degree that the modifications meet the standard for copyright protection,” This requires a judgement on their part. The gray area.

[Ed_Ingold]

Artificial Intelligence has been with photography for a long time. Face and eye recognition can only be described as AI. In the processing field, HDR, panorama stitching, and processing enhancements add to the list. Of particular note, AI (e.g. NegativeLabPro) makes the transformation of negative color scans into positive digital images quick and reliable.

The real danger is not in its use, but misuse by bad actors and politicians. For the latter, AI is a godsend, having given up on the real thing 😉 

[za33photo]

😁🫢

Does the whole point of AI not revolve around the point of excluding all "Human" intervention from the process.

"Ad-Nauseum" arguments lie ahead , and to what purpose really 🤐.

 

[samstevens]

Just now, za33photo said:

Does the whole point of AI not revolve around the point of excluding all "Human" intervention from the process.

AI is often designed to interact with humans. 

[inoneeye]

 “It’s the machine and human collaboration that produces exciting results—novel approaches and combinations that likely wouldn’t develop if either were working alone.”

“As the world of AI and human creativity continue to expand, it’s time to stop worrying about if AI can be creative, but how the human and machine world can intersect for creative collaborations that have never been dreamt of before.”

Edited April 18, 2023 by inoneeye

[JDMvW]

I suspect that when things settle down, an image --however created -- will still be an image.

Will it be a photograph? Probably not. but all graphic arts have some connection. There are probably at least some good reasons to treat charcoal sketches differently than oil paintings.

Similarly AI and computer creations are, in some sense, different media than pixels created from the real world, whatever that might be.

Like mixed media, there will be blurring too.

 

As photo-realism does not make a painting a photograph,  so it shouldn't (at least not yet) make a realistic AI image into a photographic image.

Edited April 18, 2023 by JDMvW

[John Di Leo]

I took care to NOT call an image produced or augmented by AI, to not call it a photograph.

For sake of discussion there is a line between an image and a photograph in the sense of "all photographs are images, but not all images are photographs." Having played with some sites that produce text to images, I note that they all have the site's watermark on them, suggesting that there is some conflicting opinions who the image belongs to, the author or the generating site.

Clearly the jury is out on the whole issue, but notwithstanding the nomenclature issue of "photo.net," I would like to see what the members here could produce just to look at them, perhaps to be inspired. I bet it would be popular.

I would want to know the originating site, and the keywords—though I suspect the author might want to keep that info in secret for professional purposes.

Attached is Marie Antoinette in a Jaguar convertible done is seconds on freeimage.ai

[inoneeye]

3 hours ago, John Di Leo said:

notwithstanding the nomenclature issue of "photo.net," I would like to see what the members here could produce just to look at them, perhaps to be inspired

Why would a dedicated photo site open the door to non photographic ai created imagery?  Inspiration can be found from images of any medium. The video forum makes sense but introducing non photographic ai does not imo. The question of photo sourced ai is a gray area. The copyright issue is valid and a solid concern for a photo site to consider as a reason to not present ai photo generated images. Maybe in the future when the issue is settled. ?

I also like browsing ai work. There are many sites available that offer ai images.

Edited April 18, 2023 by inoneeye

[samstevens]

3 hours ago, John Di Leo said:

Marie Antoinette in a Jaguar convertible

Let her eat virtual cake.

[John Di Leo]

2 hours ago, inoneeye said:

Why would a dedicated photo site open the door to non photographic ai created imagery?

Reframing my original question in a different way, but, yeah, right, I don't disagree with the question being asked. That's why I asked it. If the mods or the members say no, that's ok with me, though I would prefer there to be a section for AI images. AI images are here, and will be much more so in a rapidly changing future. They will be in bed with Photography in the public's eye, if not many photographers' eyes.  Do they warrant a place on Photo.net?

[inoneeye]

John my question was why would PN create a space for AI. I could understand if it was about photo sourced AI generated images that some would see as photographic. But not the CGI AI images without the use of photos. As to your question “should PN create a section for AI” …? I would think not for now.
This may answer my question.“They will be in bed with Photography in the public's eye,“.  I had not considered that people were equating non photo generated AI with photos. For me it is an obvious blending of cgi and ai. At least for now. In time…? 
And yes there are many to be found on PN that are blending CGI and photography and using some AI photo generated images. So you might find support for a new forum as well as resistance.
But probably not before photo copyright issues are settled.