4 ms·

> I expect the competition contains some rule along the lines of "entries must be the entrants own work" or similar. So yes, most likely. This seems too vague/

> I expect the competition contains some rule along the lines of "entries must be the entrants own work" or similar. So yes, most likely. This seems too vague/ill-defined. In what way is the entry "not his own work"? Using tool X or Y in the generation of digital artwork doesn't make the work belong to the tool. By this logic, using stuff like Photoshop's context-aware fill (which, in some sense, generates/hallucinates novel image data without human intervention) would also make the resulting work "AI-tainted" and "not human-generated", right? > My understanding is that testing for all banned substances is actually extremely hard. ...but still quite doable (so there's always the risk of getting caught). How exactly do you propose that digital art gets tested for "use of AI in its production"? Sounds like a situation that is ripe for selective enforcement (i.e., the only people that are going to get caught are the people that are honest/dumb enough to get caught). > In any case, the point is moot - this artist did use AI and is not trying to claim otherwise. It may be moot in this particular case, but it's not moot in the general sense, since most people are not necessarily honest (unlike this person). Either way, unless the competition had an explicit rule against the use of AI tools (or whatever you want to call them), I still don't see how this person did anything wrong: as far as I can tell, the person submitted their own work (note: there is no legal mechanism under which a machine can claim authorship over something).

esperent 4y ago
>This seems too vague/ill-defined. In what way is the entry "not his own work"? Using tool X or Y in the generation of digital artwork doesn't make the work belong to the tool It's up to the judges to decide, no doubt. Every possible rule (including laws in a legal system) will at some point encounter edge cases. That's why we have judges. In this case, I expect most judges will feel that having an AI generate art is not the same as having a human draw art using a drawing program, which seems reasonable.
- fjkdlsjflkds 4y ago
  Yes. And judges (in the context of the legal system) have generally decided that non-human animals and machines are not entitled to authorship (and copyright) rights, and I don't see "stable diffusion" changing this. So, even if you use such tools... as far as the law (in its current form) is concerned, you are still the author of the work. In the context of an art competition, I can see how it would be useful to restrict the use of such tools (as you state), but then it should be done explicitly, rather than through generic/vague "you should make the work yourself" clauses (and, again, it might not be possible to effectively enforce such rules).

esperent 4y ago

>This seems too vague/ill-defined. In what way is the entry "not his own work"? Using tool X or Y in the generation of digital artwork doesn't make the work belong to the tool It's up to the judges to decide, no doubt. Every possible rule (including laws in a legal system) will at some point encounter edge cases. That's why we have judges. In this case, I expect most judges will feel that having an AI generate art is not the same as having a human draw art using a drawing program, which seems reasonable.

fjkdlsjflkds 4y ago
Yes. And judges (in the context of the legal system) have generally decided that non-human animals and machines are not entitled to authorship (and copyright) rights, and I don't see "stable diffusion" changing this. So, even if you use such tools... as far as the law (in its current form) is concerned, you are still the author of the work. In the context of an art competition, I can see how it would be useful to restrict the use of such tools (as you state), but then it should be done explicitly, rather than through generic/vague "you should make the work yourself" clauses (and, again, it might not be possible to effectively enforce such rules).