Is there a way to ask those who are using AIs to help create their work to mention that it was created using an AI? Across the digital scrapbooking industry many sites at this time are not allowing the use of AI in kits and since you sell the option for commercial use with your products, there is a huge chance that many designers would end up using an AI product and have issues being able to sell their work because of it.
It doesn't take much to add that it is AI generated on the image preview. I am asking to help the community as a whole. It's not fair to those who aren't familiar with how the AI generated work looks to download something they think isn't and it's a lie.
While I understand the reasoning behind the ask, I think it can be tricky because many designers may start with an AI generation but then edit it in Photoshop, making it also partially their creation, too. So at that point, which would it be considered: AI or handmade?
In my view, if it is being edited or cleaned up in Photoshop, it isn't purely just AI any longer. I also think using AI isn't that different from designers who use CU items to make their own items. Designers that use CU are also starting with items that they didn't originally make, so I'm not sure why AI should be treated differently as long as the original designers are editing it in some way. Shops typically don't ask for CU items to be identified that I've seen, so I don't think AI should be treated differently than CU in that respect.
Digital scrapbooking has grown a lot over the years, but I remember in the earlier years spotting a flower in many different designers' kits and being able to recognize it from a certain CU seller. Feels a lot like these new days of AI. I think we will just have some growing pains and adjustment and the industry will need to grow and adjust with it. I wonder if some shops aren't allowing AI mainly because it makes certain things more accessible for others to create and lessens the need for designers to buy their CU items?
One of the main reasons AI 'art' is dangerous to artists is not merely the commercial/monetary aspect, or the way in which it diminishes the time and effort human artists put into creating their work.
All, without exception, AI art generating programs were trained by 'scraping' - feeding the programs huge amounts of images as input. Some of those images were legal to use - in the public domain, older than x years, ceded to public domain, CC00, etc. Many more were not - simply taken from the internet like a kid using Google to collect illustrations for their class project, without consideration of the source or creator. As a result, anyone using these programs can type in 'painting in the style of James Christensen' (to take one example) and produce an image that may look 'original' but is instead a computer-generated mash-up of all Christensen artwork found on the World-Wide-Web. The basic concept behind AI image generating programs is unethical if not downright illegal, and we ignore that at our peril.
Tagging AI images is already required across numerous platforms. That allows the end user to decide for themself whether or not they want to participate in and support this technology. It's not 'punitive', and is perfectly in line with Digital Scrapbook's policy of identifying whether other DS pieces were used to create your new Commons item. One more radio button or tick box, and it takes a second to check 'AI was used in the creation of this graphic' or 'AI was not used'.
Legally they have to make changes to it per the US copyright office but it is still made using an AI and like I mentioned stores are requiring designers to mention it - so regardless of it being changed in Photoshop.
And the fact that these stores are not allowing it in the their shops - we are talking about some big name stores as well. Asking those who create CU products to mention it is helped with a AI Generated image - because legally it 100% is and I can tell you straight up a few designers here who are creating AI generated work are NOT making changes in Photoshop because you can still see all the errors. Many designers still require you to mention that they CU item you used in your kit was created by them in the TOUs. AI needs to be treated differently because of the copyright law that is behind it.
There are lawsuits still going on but at the same time, it is still someone selling a commercial use product that is being created using an AI and stores don't want it - so I am thinking about the person who wants to sell the end product and isn't being fully transparent may be kicked out of a store because of the fact that they are using something that isn't allowed.
My thought exactly, that it would be really easy to add a tag and help those who need to know be aware - I would hate for designers to lose their spot in a store because of it.
@Megan: Can you share which stores have a no AI policy please so we can take a look.
I've done a little digging and found some samples of such policies.
https://www.thedigitalscrapbookshop.com/ai-generated-art-ezp-2.html is very clear: "The Digital ScrapBook Shop will have strict rules for designers who wish to sell products made with AI. The store will require designers to disclose how their AI work was made by providing evidence of such manipulation (if requested), to always have a paid plan with an AI site, to clearly identify their work with the mention "AI Product" and to have read and understood all the rules of the store by signing a special contract regarding the sale of AI products. We also reserves the right to change these conditions/terms to adjust to any new changes and/or law that may be made concerning AI in general."
Shutterstock has an 'AI Generated' category - here's the relevant quote from its policy: "Shutterstock users can generate, license, and download new images using Shutterstock AI-generated content capabilities, which will compensate our contributors through the Contributor Fund. However, we will not accept AI-generated content being directly uploaded to our library because we want to ensure the proper handling of IP rights and artist compensation. Because AI content generation models leverage the IP of many artists and their content, AI-generated content ownership cannot be assigned to an individual and must instead compensate the many artists who were involved in the creation of each new piece of content. If you are using an AI-generated image in a context that requires crediting the artist, please use “Shutterstock.AI” for the attribution. You can learn more about artist attribution here."
Etsy is apparently being overrun with cheap and sloppy AI generated images, from 'art' to elements. It currently does not prohibit AI art - of course not! - but to protect itself has a few guidelines that put all the onus on the seller. Relevant text:
"AI Image Generated Art is relatively new and has recently received a lot of attention. So it’s hard to tell where the rules and regulations will go but here are some guidelines that you can follow for now.
Ensure you can sell the artwork from the AI Image Generator you used to create your artwork. Check their rules and regulations to be sure it is allowed. Make sure you own your work. You don’t want to infringe on copyrights.
If AI has been a part of the creation process, you must divulge that information to the buyers.
Refrain from misleading others about the nature of the work when it is not entirely human-generated.
Do not Sell AI-generated content in bulk.
Do not use AI tools to spread misinformation, create deep fakes, or generate faces of humans who do not exist.
Do not use AI in a biased way or potentially discriminates against individuals.
Sellers are responsible for ensuring they have all necessary rights to the content they create, including copyrights."
An American court recently ruled that AI-generated 'art' is not copyrightable: https://www.reuters.com/legal/ai-generated-art-cannot-receive-copyrights-us-court-says-2023-08-21/
Reddit is deeply divided (unsurprisingly) but this is one clear excerpt from a mod: "Our rules around posting artwork that you yourself did not create have always required attribution to the original artist(s) in the post title. Therefore, posting AI artwork that does not attribute all of the contributing artists whose work was sourced to generate the piece will be considered in violation of our rules."
I'll try to find a few more later but it's midnight here and I need to turn in
Thank you, Bard. Why would copyright be of concern when TOU are in place?
Honestly... I care less about the legal issues of copyright - though Megan above has some good points - and more about the ethical issues, particularly for creatives.
I'm passionate about this topic, so #RantAhead
As an artist who creates her own images from scratch (albeit using both physical and digital mediums) it upsets me to see the market for hand-drawn art becoming not saturated but diluted with generated pablum that was created using stolen material to train computers. AI prompt-writers can chatter all they want about the time and 'effort' it takes to run prompt after prompt through Dall-E or MidJourney and how much work it is to refine the words to get the result they want, but that does not and cannot compare to the literal years of daily time spent with pencil, pen, brush, digital stylus in hand, training ourselves to reproduce what we see in our mind's eye and to create the images we want from our fertile brains, drawing from experiences, emotions, passions that electronics can never achieve.
We make reality realer and fantasy come alive. We imagine that which was lost in the past and bring it to light again, or envision what might come to be in the future and paint it as a goal for children to strive towards. We create things that never were and things that are achingly familiar. A computer can produce marvelously beautiful and technically almost perfect images, but with no soul or animation behind it, I disdain to call it art. If materialism and commercialism combine forces with the ability to abuse a mechanical paintbrush, and to steal the work of humans without credit or recompense, this site that showcases human (woman's) art, and many more like it, will be shoved into the wings.
Thank you, Bard. I see your point but I think your art is way much better than any AI generated image.
I'm not seeing the points as to copyright and TOU but maybe I get some clarification. For example. A. (standing for anyone) sells a physical product that contains AI generated items, that pertain to the style of the product (cut, layout i.e. boats, homes, tees) but also to the decoration of it (pattern, color combos etc). A. is not able to register this product with the copyright authorities as it is 100% AI generated. If A. was able to do so and become aware of any such copyright violation A. might file a civil lawsuit under a copyright law. A criminal is someone who is convicted of a crime by a criminal court, in my understanding, not someone who is charged in a civil suit. Pls. correct me if I am wrong. But back to A. A. cannot file as A. has no copyright but A. has terms of use in place for his boat. A. can file under those. I don't see the copyright problem. Copyright laws are an additional layer of protection. Now A. has sold 10 AI generated boats amounting to lets say 100K. And A finds someone in another country with different laws selling these for 5K instead of 10K each. What will A do? File a lawsuit in country x based on terms of use? Now the same applies if A. had copyright (filed and paid for with the relevant authorities all over the planet). A. would be entitled to file a civil suit on A's very own account just with a different reason. To me it all amounts to the same. TOU and copyright that is.
Have a great, y'all and don't let these things boil your artistic vibes and creativity.
It was brought up in a CU group on Facebook and I just asked for a list of stores but Sweet Shoppe Designs is one and they are a big named store. GingerScraps allows it but we need to mention it is AI generated. A lot of customers don't want AI generated work. There are a lot of designers who also are asking for it as well since it's a respect thing for those who draw by hand.
Thanks everyone for your thoughts on this topic. We are working on a policy for AI use and attribution.
Thank you for your help with this.
Bard Judith, I just read through this thread and I feel just as passionately as you do except from the other perspective. There is artistry required to create good AI art; from the choice of models and loras used, to the phrasing of the prompt and then to removing the background (and often having to correct errors in the produced image).
I hope that these past four months have broadened your mind since you know that not all generators use stolen images (Adobe Firefly for example) and perhaps your disdain for my art has lessened.
I have long used digital scrapbooking as an outlet for my desire to create art journaling pieces. This I do without pen, pencil, or brush. My only contribution is that I picked which elements to place on the canvas and where. For me, creating through AI allows me to be a greater part of the creative process. I do not sell what I create through AI although I do buy what others have created just as I used to buy CU products when I designed (many many moons ago).
Anyway, I will search the site to see if a decision was made regarding OP's question.
Well said, Molly!
I'm curious if there has been a decision made regarding designers using AI designs that they're created/assembled. I know it was something that was being worked on a while ago. Any word yet?
We’re still working on it Sharin! Unfortunately we have quite a lot of personal stuff going on at the moment which is taking priority.