(NiOut) (2024)
Image description: A painting of a red racing car, speeding through a cloud of dust and debris on a dark, dusty road. The driver is wearing a helmet and is barely visible through the dust cloud.
Full Generation Parameters:
masterpiece, hyper realism, a high-resolution photograph, golden ratio, dutch angle, dynamic, side view, Rocket Red
Steps: 33, Sampler: euler_beta, Seed: 94364613076775, VAE: ae.safetensors, Model: flux_dev.safetensors, Copyright: © 2024 NiOut, Model hash: 4610115bb0, Lora_0 Model hash: 379e73dccf, Lora_0 Model name: flux_realism_lora.safetensors, Lora_0 Strength clip: 1, Lora_0 Strength model: 1
You must log in or register to comment.
New Lemmy Post: Speed Pioneer (https://lemmyverse.link/lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/33832437)
Tagging: #StableDiffusion #AIArt(Replying in the OP of this thread (NOT THIS BOT!) will appear as a comment in the lemmy discussion.)
I am a FOSS bot. Check my README: https://github.com/db0/lemmy-tagginator/blob/main/README.md
Why does an image generated from an AI trained on other people’s stolen copyrighted work, in itself copyrighted?
what was stolen? !
Sounds like you don’t know… So here you go:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2023/08/08/is-generative-ai-stealing-from-artists/
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/is-ai-art-stealing-from-artists
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-62788725
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2023/12/30/ai-generated-art-was-a-mistake-and-heres-why/
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/08/is-art-generated-by-artificial-intelligence-real-art/
copying isn’t stealing, which seems to be the premise of these pieces, but AI doesn’t copy, anyway. it uses a predictive model to approximate responses.
are you an artist? are you working on, or with, ai? are you a lawyer?
where does this comment come from and why do you feel the need to add this comment under a prompt based image?
Read the full generation parameters you fucking dolt
masterpiece, hyper realism, a high-resolution photograph, golden ratio, dutch angle, dynamic, side view, Rocket Red`
Steps: 33, Sampler: euler_beta, Seed: 94364613076775, VAE: ae.safetensors, Model: flux_dev.safetensors, Copyright: © 2024 NiOut, Model hash: 4610115bb0, Lora_0 Model hash: 379e73dccf, Lora_0 Model name: flux_realism_lora.safetensors, Lora_0 Strength clip: 1, Lora_0 Strength model: 1It might be related to the code and not the output.
Since it doesn’t mention either, you have to assume it’s intended for both.
the prompt has nothing to do with my question. I am questioning your comment.
with the way things are, there surely will come a day when people can copyright their prompts. Why do YOU care, you fucking dolt?
Apologies, I will address the first comments questions: no, yes, no, because the generating prompt has a copyright for no reason I can discern and should be omitted and looks unnecessarily/impotently litigious.
You cannot copyright a fucking prompt, but you could sure as fuck try, but it will fail because that shit would not hold in any court of law otherwise companies could copyright: a fucking cooking recipe, a fucking figure of speech, a fucking vulgar word, a fucking random sequence of words, your dad’s slut-name during his weekly peggings, etc.
You cannot copyright a fucking prompt, but you could sure as fuck try, but it will fai…
☞ “there surely will come a day when people can copyright their prompts”
every song is made of words, like prompts too are, yet nobody today (again ☞ today) argues that they’re not copyrightable. You can make a song with a “random sequence of words” and if a year later, let’s say, Taylor Swift makes another song with the same random sequence of words, I’m sure you won’t still be claiming : oh, it was just a random sequence of words.
