AI created images vs. Photoshop fabrications. Is there a difference?

[Sirius Glass]

I have no use for FauxTow$hop fabrications or AI generated images.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.

 

[Pieter12]

There's always Jerry Uelsmann.

 

[MattKing]

There's always Jerry Uelsmann.

Sadly, no longer the case, although his work lives on.
Jerry Norman Uelsmann (June 11, 1934 – April 4, 2022)

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

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.

 

[Pieter12]

Sadly, no longer the case, although his work lives on.
Jerry Norman Uelsmann (June 11, 1934 – April 4, 2022)

Yes, I know. I was referring to his work.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

So the question remains, if film ("analog") is scanned, doesn't that make it digital?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

As you are aware, words must have definitions whose meanings are described in law, at least in America. Otherwise, you argue over their meanings as we do here. Whose dictionary would apply? Which definition? If the term Artificial Intelligence is used in the legislation, then it would have to be defined in the legislation or in another government document approved by Congress.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

What is the antithesis of Artificial Intelligence?

Real Stupidity​

 

[Pieter12]

No, It is film that was scanned to make a digital artifact, but the photograph is still on film.

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.

 

[Pieter12]

As you are aware, words must have definitions whose meanings are described in law, at least in America.

Kind of like "obscenity."

 

[MattKing]

As you are aware, words must have definitions whose meanings are described in law, at least in America.

Kind of like "obscenity."

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.
Note that "Fair Use" was part of the US law for 200 years, but wasn't part of the legislation during those two centuries.
Most of the law out there in our common law jurisdictions works that way.
The technology will advance, and three things will happen:
1) Courts will consider and interpret existing legislation and common law principles in light of the new facts that present themselves as a result of the new technology; and
2) Legislatures will consider the new technological advances, try to predict their effects, most likely enact legislation in response; and
3) Courts will then repeat #1 in light of all such changes.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Interesting research paper on not using the term AI and problems with its legal definition. It seems it;s like trying to define the word "art".

"When policy makers want to regulate AI, they must first define what AI is. However, legal definitions differ significantly from definitions of other disciplines. They are working definitions. Courts must be able to determine precisely whether or not a concrete system is considered AI by the law. In this paper we examine how policy makers should define the material scope of AI regulations. We argue that they should not use the term "artificial intelligence" for regulatory purposes because there is no definition of AI which meets the requirements for legal definitions. Instead, they should define certain designs, use cases or capabilities following a risk-based approach. The goal of this paper is to help policy makers who work on AI regulations."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335600149_A_Legal_Definition_of_AI

 

[runswithsizzers]

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?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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?

I think that's the argument the AI programming company is using. That they're searching and downloading images to train a computer but not using it to create new work for sale. They claim that's legal. We'll find out during the lawsuit.

But the real issue is when AI is used to create saleable images. I think it will open up all sorts of lawsuits using public web photos unless they're paying stock photo companies to use their pictures to create "new" work. The stock photo company will charge a special rate for Ai just like different rates are currently charged for what the eventual use is for a stock photo.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pieter - "Don't most scan film?" ... Well, I just took an official survey of all the photographers in this specific neighborhood, and none of them scan film, but actually print it in a darkroom. Of course, the statistical sample consists of one - myself. But as far as I'm concerned, that's proof enough.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.

 

[Brendan Quirk]

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.

Reminds me of Gus from the Greek Wedding movie...

 

[Pieter12]

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.

I think the term analog has its roots in “anal.”

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Mine do not get scanned. Many here do only darkroom work or partly darkroom work, but without a verified source, you comment lacks validation.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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?

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.

 

[Pieter12]

Mine do not get scanned. Many here do only darkroom work or partly darkroom work, but without a verified source, you comment lacks validation.

It is a guess based on the discussions about scanning negatives on this forum vs wet printing. As valid as yours.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

I don't know any definition of art that requires it to be produced by humans. AI art is initiated by humans at least.