Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
You bet! See those three pixels in that image, their mine and I hold the copyright to them. Payup.
Very well said, and I think for the most part it's likely going to play out like that.
Back in the Glory days of the CG society forums the “Pro” Character modelers said similar things about people who used canned models Like Poser/Zygote/Daz or even Mocap instead of hand keyframing everything.
Movies Like “Final Fantasy the spirits within” and “Beowulf” were highly divisive and controversial at one time.
People can’t hold back the tidal wave of technology with angry internet screeds and a push broom.
I think you are off base slightly. The AI I use has a (as they call it) --creative flag. This allows the AI to stray farther from what it was trained/learned for the given words. I believe it also allows it to inject it's own (random) words or influences. Straying from the original to produce something different, seems like being creative to me, machine or person. You are right that the machine posesses no actual creative conciousness/sub-conciousness, but the person writing the prompt does.
In eg. Riddick is obviously a copyright name and likeness, as is Vin Diesel's likeness himself. I fed in two reference images from the Riddick Movies, along with the following prompt that got the one I liked.
- Full long shot 70mm Kodak, frontal, Riddick from movie The Chronicles of Riddick, as a young boy, glowing cataract eyes, black leather gloves, black futuristic rogue clothes, torso hands legs feet, spaceship ineterior, 8k, photorealistic, insanely detailed, sharp-focus,
The last few as well as the first two, are for composition and quality obviously. Now I don't own any pictures of Vin Diesel as boy, I have my doubts whether there are any on the internet, but certainly none with him dressed as the Riddick character. To give you an idea of just how many times I had to change my prompt, modify, change words, until I got the one I was happy with you can simply look at the image, and it doesn't show them all.
edit: (of course I forgot the point/question) So who owns the copyright on those images? Vin Diesel (if that's what he looked like as a kid)? The movie studio (producing company)? Or me since it was my terms, in my order, to produce images with randomness based on character. I know technically I couldn't use the name Riddick. But other than Vin Diesel's (derived) likeness as a kid, it could be any kid in a post-appocalyptic future wasteland.
Back when I worked as an art handler in the 80s I found an interesting revelation... many pop artists (at least ones that had become popular) didn't actually make their art... they'd tell an assistant to put together their vision or they'd do some of it and have the assistant finish it... the silver inflatable bunny guy and broken plates guy (I think he's a director too now) did that... bunny guy had his assistant buy a vacuum from Sears, a plastic case and base from a manufacturer in NJ and put all together and ship it to the gallery... I'm pretty sure he may have glanced at it once after the fact, but we picked up the vacuum and the case and the assistant assembled it right there and we took it to the gallery for a showing, right from there.
And the classic artist did it too... Leonardo, Michelangelo, all the ninja turtles... art is hard, once you become famous, why sweat it?
AI is the natural progression of that, only now you don't have to be famous to dictate your visions to a subordinate.
Enjoy it now while AI is still doing what we tell it.
Also some of that is satirical (not the part about 80s pop art)...( not to be confused with 80s Pop-Tarts)... technically I'm beyond caring about what constitutes art anymore, it seemed to matter once, but I just make stuff... I don't have the credentials or requisite papers to be allowed to have a valid opinion.
+10000000000000!
These are not equal things. Humans were directly involved with every step of the process. That isn't the case with AI generated art. It is quite literaly the mythical "MAKE ART BUTTON" that we have joked about in these Daz forums for years.
Now it is possible to train an AI specifically on your favorite Daz art images in roughly 2 hours. Somebody can feed the AI all of the images that wolf359 has posted online over the years.
Then they can generate a ton of images in your style. They can also upload the code for this AI online, so now everybody can just download the code and create their own wolf359 style pieces. Aren't some based on your own likeness?
How would you feel about that?
Now you might think that is ok. In fact this can be pretty cool if you created this tool for your own use. But the problem lies in the permissions, and how the AI is trained. If you used your own art to train it, then fine. But when you use other people's works, things get messy.
This is happening. https://waxy.org/2022/11/invasive-diffusion-how-one-unwilling-illustrator-found-herself-turned-into-an-ai-model/
There is also the story of the manga artist who died recently, and somebody posted an AI generator in his style just days after he died. To say fans were not happy about this is an understatement.
As I said, AI can be cool, and it can be a great tool. But AI also needs strong regulation to prevent abuse.
...and now I'm depressed... :(
It will interesting to see how to regulate this without making parody or something like George R. R. Martin's mentioning that he was influenced by Tolkein thus making his work derivative and hence illegal.
Would not care…might even be a bit flattered.
As far as “regulation” is concerned.....I laugh derisively at such notions .
If the Mighty “Hollywood lobby” and the Great Microsoft inc. failed to induce international governments stop piracy of Physical Media and failed even worse to prevent the torrenting of digital content today.
what would lead one to believe that still Illustrations artists will fare any better with “regulation”??
deleted
Artists are likely to lose this one. The way I see it, Artists sre historically marginalized workers. The AI people have the money and the momentum both on their side. They live to "move fast and break things," to disrupt whatever they can disrupt because... TECHNOLOGY! Understand that the function of these ai image generators is to obviate human artists. The algorithms are trained with the work of human artists. They are not a tool for human artists. They are a replacement for human artists. And whatever arguments are used, the simple fact is the output will continue to improve and anything new that happens or emerges will be harvested into the ai's capabilities. At this point, I can recognize AI art and block the person showing it. That will not always be true. The nature of tehnology is such that the day will arrive when the work the AIs spit out will be impossible to differentiate from art made by humans. And I suspect that day will come sooner than later. It's not a rosy outlook for human artists.
Derivative is more than just a word, it is Copyright concept and can be determine through examination in a court of Law.
Suppose it uses just your products instead of images from the net. I would still be on the fence about this, even though you have to manually adjust poses since they are so well-made because they are so well-produced. Which gives you some input into the art
That only matters in countries that care about that.
Have to wonder how artists felt back in the day, when folks first started using computers to create art. What we have here is probably the same thing, just now from a different means this time.
Also on AI generated content, they are already working on AI generated animations. There is one where they are using text imput to create different types of animations.
Is it though? I've seen the same sort of comparison with the advent of the digital camera. Those using digital cameras (i.e. full-frame DSLR's that work the same as film cameras with the only difference being that the picture is exposed onto a light-sensitive digital sensor rather than a light-sensitive strip of negative)...they still need to understand the concepts of light and shadow, composition and subject matter, among other things. Exposure. Shutter speed. Aperture. Focal length. Prime lenses. These all exist with digital cameras just as they exist with film. Even post work existed with film, it was just done with chemicals rather than with a program like Photoshop. Sure, there's an auto-button on a lot of digital cameras, or on cell phone cameras, but viewers can definitely see the difference between a user who understands the concepts of art and photography vs a user who doesn't.
AI is taking the human out of the equation. I have to wonder how all this would be received if it was an AI generating written word and story rather than visuals. Put in a few prompts and out pops The Hobbit. Yup, that would go over well. It's the same exact concept.
Will be interesting to see, when AI will create the actual 3D models,
which can be imported to Daz Studio afterwards.
For example: 3d model of Victoria 11 ...
That could be very interesting as that would be one step closer to true character randomness.
Essentially all it would take is someone making an AI model trained on copyrighted Disney images of Mickey Mouse to autogenerate new Disney art from prompts and it will all get shut down the following week. They just haven't pissed off the right person/company yet. A lot of it, like most things, will come down to if existing large corporations can monetize it for their profit. Some companies like DC have gone in pretty heavy on NFT because they can monetize their existing IP's and products into new digital products with scaricity and other bs terms. Others saw no monetization routethey liked and didn't bother.
I setup an offline stable diffusion server and after a few hours of training it, and watching my computer for the first time ever overheat and shut itself off, I quickly realized how stupid this seemed. I was watching a computer try to learn, badly and through brute force, what I already knew how to do in Daz and Zbrush. So I just went back to working in Zbrush and Daz.
If a person were to take other peoples art and cut them up and blend them together, he would be laughed at and condemned for his copyright violations.....but somehow this is ok because it is done with a computer?
...and that loops the conversation back to potential environmental impacts. These AI servers...are they any different than crypto-farms when it comes to impact?
One thing from reading some of the comments, it is quite interesting in what folks think of AI generated art / content or what have you. Like everything though I think we will all have to get used to it being around. Because like anything that people have invented in the past, and being continually invented, there will always be a use for it.
100% agree, which was part of the reason I stopped. Like years of rendering on top of the line nvidia cards and my computer has been cool as a cucumber. 20 minutes AI training and my 3090 and cpu were overheated and shut off. There was no way that it could be good for either the environment or me electricity bill.
Most would be laughed at... or at least ignored...
Unless of course you had a good story about why you are doing it... and could "talk the talk" well... then you could probably eventually convince some gallery to display it.
You'd also probably have to come up with something different to incorporate the chopped up art into... like if they were posters or prints, maybe if you dumped the bits in a bucket of acrylic floor sealer and mixed in some pigeon feathers and rat fur and dumped that on some old rotty plywood... then you'd have something...
You could call it "Urban Desire" or "Metropolis of Lies" and say how the idea of it haunted your nightmares for weeks before you forced it out of your dreams into the world like a stillborn goat corpse spilling onto the plywood, left to dry in the sun... technically you wouldn't even have to use real rat fur or pigeon feathers, you could probably get by with shaving a hamster and using chicken feathers from a cheap "down" pillow (sticking of course to only grey feathers)...
Nobody would check that...
But you couldn't just say "I thought it'd be a cool idea"... that'd be dumb... very pedestrian.
You'd have to have some demons you are fighting or truths about mankind you are laying bare...
Then you could do whatever...
Then it's okay... maybe even if you did it with a computer too...
But it would probably help if you claimed you actually "did it with the computer" before you rendered it... like "did it" in the biblical sense... like you and the computer got it on... then that would make you especially interesting, an artistic maverick, a true technophile and computer lover... as long as eyebrows got raised at the opening gala, it'd be fine.
Again, I'm not sure where the convoluted satire and parodistic sarcasm ends and the eternal blasphemy of reality intersects... nothing is impossible or surprising in that paradigm.
Ow... writing that last bit hurt my brain.
Well... I'm off to buy some floor sealer and shave a roadkilled squirrel (no point in letting a random idea go to waste)...
Apparently yes, at least at this point.
If there are pure AI images, or images built from photos etc., please rport them. AI can be used as post-processing, or to generate part of an image (e.g. to makea fake old master portrait of a character for a vampire's lair) but not to thee xclusion of 3D work (or 2D work using things like Ron's Brushes).
AI is cold, hard factual mathematics and of course can and will run roughshod over a lot of egos because it can tirelessly do better what people earn their living and reputation at. You can count on that.
...at the cost of the overarching soul of the artist, that artist's living, as well as the environment.
Someone posted a link to a video which compared the legal rights negotiated in AI for music compared to AI for visual media. Does anyone remember that video? I'd like to watch it again.