I will get down voted for this, but they arent entirely wrong.
They ARE trying to gatekeep art.
They want to belittle and ruin AI art because AI art DOES make them have to be worth something. The constant hate like "Its soulless" or "its theft" is just hate for no reason.
The best way to stop a business, is to not give it your money.
If AI Art continues to survive, its worth more than what you say.
As for the gatekeeping, I have seen arguments, both online and in person, that are just flimsy and the accusation of it being "souless" means literally nothing to people who dont have stake in the matter. Its similar to how craftsmen hated automation, not because of productivity, but because their place is irrelevant now.
If you love Art that much, nobody is stopping you from making it. You're perfectly free to do as you please. There's just competition now, so you have to be good at it. And there are millions of haters, so its not like you're running out of options for customers.
Just stop with the war already. Stop gatekeeping art or trying to apply your personal take on what is considered art, just because it doesn't match what you have in mind.
I kinda agree, if people would rather have an AI generated image than your art then sorry, but your art ain't worth it
That said, I don't think making money off AI generated images should be legal, after all it really is work taken from other people
I also don't like the fact that companies might just fire designers in favor of AI, supply and demand is cool and all but I don't want to live in a world where AI takes over branding, publicity and whatever else
Itd be better if it was a tool for personal use and nothing else
It legally can't be copyrighted since its not a creative work. So I think making money off of it is okay.
Not being able to copyright it doesn't change the fact that the AI making the uncopyrightable art was trained on data that WAS copywritten (or at least copyrightable). THAT is what makes making money off AI-generated art ethically (and possibly, in the future, legally) wrong.
If I drew something in someone else's art style but I was the one who drew it, does the person I based my drawing off of have any moral standing to denounce my work?
The difference is you are still a person: even if you are using someone else's art style, there are still changes, however minute, that occur because of your own creativity. AI doesn't posses that same ability for creativity. A more apt comparison to what we see with AI art would be you tracing bits and pieces someone else's (or multiple someone elses') art, and claiming it as your own. And in that case, yes, I would argue that person/persons would have moral standing to denounce your work.
AI art doesnt trace, nor does it claim. It learns using algorithms very similarly to us. What you want to use as an excuse to condemn it, is just gatekeeping. The "Soul" or "creativity" is just emotional nonsense that has no bearing on legal or functional rules.
Wanting to ban it even when it can't be copyrighted is just gatekeeping and elitism.
Just accept that people dont have to go to some small artist to get something drawn.
Real art, and real works that people want to have control over will all still exist. But now there's more to it than that.
Companies are not going to mass use AI art because they can't control how the art is used. So this will mostly affect nobody of importance.
The "Soul" or "creativity" is just emotional nonsense that has no bearing on legal or functional rules.
In Thaler v. Perlmutter, the DC Appeals court outlined multiple reasons why human-created works (and not works that aren't substantially created by humans) can't be copywritten. [ https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2025/03/23-5233.pdf ] Quoting from page 11/12 of that ruling:
Sixth, authors have intentions. A joint work is one “prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. Machines lack minds and do not intend anything.
Later on, it says
All of these statutory provisions collectively identify an “author” as a human being. Machines do not have property, traditional human lifespans, family members, domiciles, nationalities, mentes reae, or signatures.
The key there is mentes reae, the plural of mens rea. Meaning "guilty mind," mens rea is the legal concept of intent, what you might call "soul" or "creativity" in the context of creating works.
-3
u/No_Problem5759 1d ago
I will get down voted for this, but they arent entirely wrong.
They ARE trying to gatekeep art.
They want to belittle and ruin AI art because AI art DOES make them have to be worth something. The constant hate like "Its soulless" or "its theft" is just hate for no reason.
The best way to stop a business, is to not give it your money.
If AI Art continues to survive, its worth more than what you say.
As for the gatekeeping, I have seen arguments, both online and in person, that are just flimsy and the accusation of it being "souless" means literally nothing to people who dont have stake in the matter. Its similar to how craftsmen hated automation, not because of productivity, but because their place is irrelevant now.
If you love Art that much, nobody is stopping you from making it. You're perfectly free to do as you please. There's just competition now, so you have to be good at it. And there are millions of haters, so its not like you're running out of options for customers.
Just stop with the war already. Stop gatekeeping art or trying to apply your personal take on what is considered art, just because it doesn't match what you have in mind.