I have no use for FauxTow$hop fabrications or AI generated images.
There's always Jerry Uelsmann.
Me neither! Time to retreat behind the walls of the "analog-only" part of the forum, and defend the future of mankind! I don't know why it's even called "analog"; I refer to it simply as photography. When anyone asks me if I do digital photography too, I always reply, "never heard of it". Or if they ask me if I'm shooting real film, I reply, "Is there anything else?"
But fake began long before Fauxtoshop. There was an interesting documentary a week or so ago about the sophisticated propaganda skills of Stalin's specially set up State photo department, which compared original archived negatives and prints to the images being published and widely distributed at the time. If Lenin was making a speech before two dozen workers, the published photo would show a crowd of thousands. If Trotysky was by his side when it happened, Trostsky was removed with great precision, and Stalin put there. If Stalin was otherwise nowhere around at some key event in Lenin's career, the official released image would have him dubbed in right behind Lenin every time. It's not that these kinds of tricks weren't well known before, but the sheer skill and precision by which they were done in that case which surprised researchers.
Sadly, no longer the case, although his work lives on.
Jerry Norman Uelsmann (June 11, 1934 – April 4, 2022)
I too call it photography and when I need to I call it film photography but I never call it analog photography in the real world because it is not analog, it is silver based.
Any such legislation won't define what AI Imaging actually is. It will be what it turns out to be, and I would suggest it is in the midst of just its initial evolution - lots of changes still to come.
I expect that legislation will, however, define how what types of creations are subject to copyright law, and how that law applies to them.
And that there will be lots of "catching up" in the legislative field - lots of "bobbing and weaving" types of legislative amendment, as the technology explodes.
So the question remains, if film ("analog") is scanned, doesn't that make it digital?
No, It is film that was scanned to make a digital artifact, but the photograph is still on film.
Kind of like "obscenity."As you are aware, words must have definitions whose meanings are described in law, at least in America.
As you are aware, words must have definitions whose meanings are described in law, at least in America.
Or "Fair Use", which was a common-law doctrine in the U.S. until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107.Kind of like "obscenity."
If I understand correctly, the AI is trained by exposing it to phototgraphs which it somehow analyzes so it can learn what a photograph is, right? How is that different from a student of photography who studies photographs and analyzes them, for the purpose of learning about photography?
If I study Michael Kenna, and later one of my photos kinda looks like a Michael Kenna photo, have any laws been broken or artistic norms been violated? Artists "borrow" from each other all the time. There is a quantitative difference between artificial intelligence and natural intelligence, but are they qualitatively different?
If I understand the technology correctly, AI "training" is just copying parts of photographs to reassemble into new images. It doesn't learn how to fashion a nose, it renders a nose from the various images of noses it has digested. You can have it just work from your own images if you want, thereby not violating anyone's rights, just the good sense and taste of the human race.If I understand correctly, the AI is trained by exposing it to phototgraphs which it somehow analyzes so it can learn what a photograph is, right? How is that different from a student of photography who studies photographs and analyzes them, for the purpose of learning about photography?
If I study Michael Kenna, and later one of my photos kinda looks like a Michael Kenna photo, have any laws been broken or artistic norms been violated? Artists "borrow" from each other all the time. There is a quantitative difference between artificial intelligence and natural intelligence, but are they qualitatively different?
Sirius ... being serious, I should remind you that the term "analog" is a contraction derived from "another log"; and everyone knows that paper, including printing paper base, comes from wood pulp. On the other hand, I think the term "digital" came from the trained Gorilla named "Digit", who pretended to do things real people do.
Sirius ... being serious, I should remind you that the term "analog" is a contraction derived from "another log"; and everyone knows that paper, including printing paper base, comes from wood pulp. On the other hand, I think the term "digital" came from the trained Gorilla named "Digit", who pretended to do things real people do.
But don't most who scan film end up using the digital file to go forward? So the image is a digital representation of the film photograph just as an image made with a digital camera is a digital representation of the scene. Scanning introduces its own set of distortions and the files are usually manipulated, as a digital camera file would be.
If I understand correctly, the AI is trained by exposing it to phototgraphs which it somehow analyzes so it can learn what a photograph is, right? How is that different from a student of photography who studies photographs and analyzes them, for the purpose of learning about photography?
If I study Michael Kenna, and later one of my photos kinda looks like a Michael Kenna photo, have any laws been broken or artistic norms been violated? Artists "borrow" from each other all the time. There is a quantitative difference between artificial intelligence and natural intelligence, but are they qualitatively different?
It is a guess based on the discussions about scanning negatives on this forum vs wet printing. As valid as yours.Mine do not get scanned. Many here do only darkroom work or partly darkroom work, but without a verified source, you comment lacks validation.
The objects produced by are not produced by a person or persons and therefore is not art even though it may be based on art.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?