Do you want to stay up to date with the latest news? Follow us on Facebook / Twitter / Instagram
Artificial intelligence has recently been in a lot of controversies. While many users have been using AI photo editing and generation programs to witness its peculiar results, others have been using it to try to recreate illustrations with as few visual errors as possible and sell them.
This time, artist Lauryn Ipsum made a Twitter post in which she compiled photos of different people who used the Lensa app to get artistic portraits ,but appear to contain traces of what could be illustrators' signatures.
I’m cropping these for privacy reasons/because I’m not trying to call out any one individual. These are all Lensa portraits where the mangled remains of an artist’s signature is still visible. That’s the remains of the signature of one of the multiple artists it stole from.— Lauryn Ipsum (@LaurynIpsum) December 6, 2022
A 🧵 https://t.co/0lS4WHmQfW pic.twitter.com/7GfDXZ22s1
This issue has generated a lot of discussion in the artist community. Mainly because the AI has to feed on art pieces made by different people and recreate too similar a style. This has been considered art theft by many as if it were done by a person instead of a machine it could easily infringe copyright.
The Lensa app, developed by Prisma Labs, has a feature that uses AI to generate artistic portraits as if they were illustrations of real artists. It has been returning results that appear to have hints of artist signatures, showing that it is taking illustrations from other artists without possible consent. Or it may also be taking illustrations with features very similar to the photos of users who use the app and adapting the original art to then create the portrait.
Some thread comments have also been giving comments that do not consider this situation as art theft, as in the following comment made by Daniel Lestarjette, telling us that:
"AI is trained using human-created portraits that included a signature. Once the training is complete, the AI no longer refers to those images. Instead, it creates its own complete with a "signature." It's not stealing from anyone. It's just mimicking human artists."
...complete with a "signature." It's not stealing from anyone. It's just mimicking human artists.— Daniel Lestarjette (@dlestarjette) December 9, 2022
More info here: https://t.co/8BUwFzHkaj.
Moreover, Andrey Usoltsev, the Prisma Labs CEO, sent an email to ARTnews and stated that “the notion of ‘remains of artists’ signatures’ is based on the flawed idea that neural networks might combine existing images. The actual process is different."
In case you missed it: Fans ask for Henry Cavill at the UCM; they want to see him as these marvel characters
At the moment we have two sides that continue to comment on their perspectives on the issue. And although AI-generated art encompasses many different topics of discussion, this is currently one of the most talked about controversies.
We are also interested in your opinion on this matter. Do you consider that AI-generated art is really stealing the art of other artists, or do you consider that the purpose of its function is being achieved correctly? Let us know in the comments!