HOME | DD

Description
A.I. software mixes art pieces they got feed with. This feeds have been nonconsensual in all cases, and only one compony so far even claimed to have the idea to make an consensual-art-only database. So using A.I. software is participating in art theft that just yet haven't been officially labelt as such for justice being a bit too slow - but many nations allready cheking for this and warn A.I. companys. USA and the EU are just two who are on top of that list.

Non-con art has been tracked back to use art of recently decayed artists who forbid ther works to be used by A.I.(in some famous case exactly one day after the artist decayed - and the bereaved are outrages to this day), uses private medical data, stock of terroristic videos where people got killed, unconsencual sex including child pornography. This - for all who still think there is something righteous about using A.I. 'art' - is disgusting. Every A.I. generated body can be or part of a raped child photographed in the worst moment of ther lifes. Many A.I.-users don't know that. Others don't want to know or don't care if they somewhat participate in child pornography. At least that one person who don't know should be informed in what swamp he/she got involved in and may be rated by ther response to this.

A.I. don't harm art, as it didn't produce something new. It harms artists existence by spamming the places of marketing and presenting themselve with cheap copys of ther work. Those who can't understand the probleme here - the A.I. is a functional excuse machine for peoples will to comitt art theft. I don't think the most people are like that, but i also see many people not really understand what the whole problem is about in detail.

A.I. isen't the future, nor is it a "unavoidable", as so many claim. These arguemnts are based on either not understanding the technology/law, or to intentionally deceive the majority who isen't much into the technical aspects. A.I. 'art' can only be a thing by being feed with 100% concentual stock material, and this limited data producable this way would create rather crappy products noone would be interested in. Using this 'art' comercially is a copyright infringement the company offering the software might be justifiable for when there is a specific law written down, but the user is also, as he/she made money with the product. If you buy a gun, the company say it presume you're going to hunt or shoot at the range by respecting all legal requirements. It isen't responsible for you going to shoot artists on the street.
A.I. 'art' by now is in fact illegal, just not explicitly. A.I. companys allready excluded music from ther range of used material for there is too much legal resistance to expect from big music labels - which is estimated to be won by the music labes easily and creating a legal direction by that for all kind of intelectual property. Visual art don't have this attention by big buisness - as long as you try to sell a picture that is too close to something Activision, Sony, Blizzard, Games Workshop or Disney held rights about. Then you can see how much fun it can be to pay the bill.

A.I. today managed to identify the signings of artists in ther paintings as a common element people seem to favor, so they copy it. Yes, the A.I. that is told to 'create' art sometimes copy the sign of a robbed artists into 'your' product - from where it is pretty tricky to keep pretending using A.I. software is somewhat acceptable.

DA - after a lot of backfire and after taking all the existing material to any use they like - allowed you to toggle off permission for your art to be used by third party A.I. machines. Not that they would ban bots who collect it from the side. So they still insist in using your material by ther own machine without a chance for you to stop that without not using DA anymore at all (what also don't protect your allready taken art). That's no behavior a even halfe way legally responsible or community protecting company would even think about. DA is owned by Wix.com, and i would like to spread the word that Wix is exactly this kind of scam company, robbing intelectual propperty and frame it a cool thing.

No matter how deep you go into the material, there are only more reasons to find against A.I. softwares, ther companys and often enough ther willing accomplice who intentially ignored the red flags. Don't be that person. Don't support anything that might look to a company/art side that participating in a scam can be benefical enough to compensate the legal damage, the loss of reputation&trust, and the number of people who got dragged into this swamp and where crushed by big corp lawsuits.

Update: Lately a major A.I. company stated that ther data stock is nonconcentual as it is, i cite: "technically impossible to track back so many works to ther owner". This is a thing in that aspect that we now have a open confession from this side that they know and willingly accepted do illegaly use of intelectual property.
Btw.: Also DA's machine uses illegaly taken works, as they - by law - have to ask for every work to be used, not sign them in ther terms as 'agreed by just being here'.

Update II: Seems the legal question is solved, and some art sited allready start banning A.I. 'art'.

Update III: Lol, by court ruling, all A.I. products now can't be intelectual propperty - as there is no effort from the user involved - and been free to use for everyone. This makes A.I: users only able to sell ther works to people who are ... well, morons.

Description
A.I. software mixes art pieces they got feed with. This feeds have been nonconsensual in all cases, and only one compony so far even claimed to have the idea to make an consensual-art-only database. So using A.I. software is participating in art theft that just yet haven't been officially labelt as such for justice being a bit too slow - but many nations allready cheking for this and warn A.I. companys. USA and the EU are just two who are on top of that list.

Non-con art has been tracked back to use art of recently decayed artists who forbid ther works to be used by A.I.(in some famous case exactly one day after the artist decayed - and the bereaved are outrages to this day), uses private medical data, stock of terroristic videos where people got killed, unconsencual sex including child pornography. This - for all who still think there is something righteous about using A.I. 'art' - is disgusting. Every A.I. generated body can be or part of a raped child photographed in the worst moment of ther lifes. Many A.I.-users don't know that. Others don't want to know or don't care if they somewhat participate in child pornography. At least that one person who don't know should be informed in what swamp he/she got involved in and may be rated by ther response to this.

A.I. don't harm art, as it didn't produce something new. It harms artists existence by spamming the places of marketing and presenting themselve with cheap copys of ther work. Those who can't understand the probleme here - the A.I. is a functional excuse machine for peoples will to comitt art theft. I don't think the most people are like that, but i also see many people not really understand what the whole problem is about in detail.

A.I. isen't the future, nor is it a "unavoidable", as so many claim. These arguemnts are based on either not understanding the technology/law, or to intentionally deceive the majority who isen't much into the technical aspects. A.I. 'art' can only be a thing by being feed with 100% concentual stock material, and this limited data producable this way would create rather crappy products noone would be interested in. Using this 'art' comercially is a copyright infringement the company offering the software might be justifiable for when there is a specific law written down, but the user is also, as he/she made money with the product. If you buy a gun, the company say it presume you're going to hunt or shoot at the range by respecting all legal requirements. It isen't responsible for you going to shoot artists on the street.
A.I. 'art' by now is in fact illegal, just not explicitly. A.I. companys allready excluded music from ther range of used material for there is too much legal resistance to expect from big music labels - which is estimated to be won by the music labes easily and creating a legal direction by that for all kind of intelectual property. Visual art don't have this attention by big buisness - as long as you try to sell a picture that is too close to something Activision, Sony, Blizzard, Games Workshop or Disney held rights about. Then you can see how much fun it can be to pay the bill.

A.I. today managed to identify the signings of artists in ther paintings as a common element people seem to favor, so they copy it. Yes, the A.I. that is told to 'create' art sometimes copy the sign of a robbed artists into 'your' product - from where it is pretty tricky to keep pretending using A.I. software is somewhat acceptable.

DA - after a lot of backfire and after taking all the existing material to any use they like - allowed you to toggle off permission for your art to be used by third party A.I. machines. Not that they would ban bots who collect it from the side. So they still insist in using your material by ther own machine without a chance for you to stop that without not using DA anymore at all (what also don't protect your allready taken art). That's no behavior a even halfe way legally responsible or community protecting company would even think about. DA is owned by Wix.com, and i would like to spread the word that Wix is exactly this kind of scam company, robbing intelectual propperty and frame it a cool thing.

No matter how deep you go into the material, there are only more reasons to find against A.I. softwares, ther companys and often enough ther willing accomplice who intentially ignored the red flags. Don't be that person. Don't support anything that might look to a company/art side that participating in a scam can be benefical enough to compensate the legal damage, the loss of reputation&trust, and the number of people who got dragged into this swamp and where crushed by big corp lawsuits.

Update: Lately a major A.I. company stated that ther data stock is nonconcentual as it is, i cite: "technically impossible to track back so many works to ther owner". This is a thing in that aspect that we now have a open confession from this side that they know and willingly accepted do illegaly use of intelectual property.
Btw.: Also DA's machine uses illegaly taken works, as they - by law - have to ask for every work to be used, not sign them in ther terms as 'agreed by just being here'.

Update II: Seems the legal question is solved, and some art sited allready start banning A.I. 'art'.

Update III: Lol, by court ruling, all A.I. products now can't be intelectual propperty - as there is no effort from the user involved - and been free to use for everyone. This makes A.I: users only able to sell ther works to people who are ... well, morons.