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
I really hope the artist Karol Bak is ok with having folks use his name to promt a trained AI to generate work in his style.
Until this thread, I'd never heard of him. But I now try to avoid artists in my prompts as much as possible, except for those dead hundreds of years. Less hassle that way -- or should be, unless some Big Name Corporation claims it owns them. Would not be surprised at all to learn that. Extremely disappointed & saddened at the loss to world culture if that should ever become the case, but alas, not surprised. The Mouse Rules All!
Thanks for the info - I was momentarily horrified that I would have 27 duplicate partial posts! (YIKES!) But like a monkey at the keyboard I persisted until I got it right. <LOL>
I deleted my "trained" WendyVain_woman.ckpt file as it made utterly no difference using it instead of the sd_v1-4.ckpt
identical seed and settings gave me identical images
it obviously did not train because I ran out out RAM which is unsurprising, I am short 13GB, I was hoping at least some of the 5 images had a bit of an effect...
all the gatekeeping arguments, and demands of purity tests that you don't use AI in your artwork are sounding mighty familiar. "It's not really art, you didnt really make this, you are cheating". My skin has been hardened against such attacks already by people butthurt I incorporate daz figures into my artworks. AI will be yet another tool in my toolbox, wether people like it or not.
a mix of DAZ and ai in this video
now that was cool
OH my look at the fingers on most of these generated hands. That be scary.
yes ai cannot do hands
it's pretty good with scenery
The lowest in the middle has funny teeth, the ones of the lady at top right are also "interesting".
This^
There will be tools. But the issues are more fundamental than gatekeeping. If you scrape the net for material without consent of right holders, to build "a tool" that then takes away their jobs, i'd say you might have missed a societal discussion of the actual issues. Further the currently discussed "tool" can directly violate copyright, extra to being trained with your works. Of course on top of that, it will in virtually all cases happen for commercial reasons, and will again aggregate power and direct moneyflow into certain directions (another sink). All this is no small feat, but doesn't necessarily touch "a specific tool". That really depends on the implementation and training data (plus maybe laws yet to be made).
I can directly violate copyright with a pencil. So can you. So can anyone. That's no reason to ban AI from the toolbox. Yes, I know the "it's gonna take our jobs!" argument is a point with maybe some validity. In some cases, perhaps. A minority, I suspect. For the rest it'll either have no effect or in a lot of cases actually help them do even better jobs.
Krampus with a switch didn't give me the results I expected
apparently he likes playing Nintendo
Except in your analogy, the pencil you are using is literally someone else's pencil. Also, an entire rain forest was burned down in order to make that pencil. Do you really still want to use that pencil?
I agree, I've looked at Stable Diffusion out of curiousity, but getting the light and composition right in a render can be just so satisfying that I quickly got bored with AI. I wasn't aware of the AI energy consumption but found out later that training AI models costs a lot of energy, up to the equivalent of the CO2 output of five cars during their whole lifetime. And there are a lot of people training Stable Difussion models just so they can try to render their favourite Waifu. I really don't mind people using AI for "art" aslong as they don't cross other ethical boundaries (cheating in contests, using the likeness of someone else without consent), but the enviromental impact is something I really dislike.
But was it you who made it or the artists whose work was used to train the model? What I mean to say is, that is a highly debatable, and too convinient point of view to settle any debate. And also, did the artisits give their consent for the use of their work when the model was trained?
Oh, I do a lot of work on some of my DAZ Studio only renders, some of them, not all by a long shot. I'm not interested in using 2D brushes or post processing to hide my, or DAZ Studio's, shortcomings because then I won't notice the shortcomings later when I do other renders and try to remedy them. 2D brushes and post processing would be fine for me personally and it would be different if I was trying to make art that needs to be printed for hanging on a wall or for sale, or similar to make a living at art, but I'm not. It just lies on a disk never looked at again, even by me, unless I want to go back and see what DAZ Studio, & the 3D models I've bought, can do now that's better that that earlier render. I have a different agenda.
I wouldn't expect anyone that does any post processing by any methods to have any complaints about any AI art methods being integrated into art in any form. I don't care to integrate AI art into my art myself though. Well with one exception, there is one AI postprocessing engine from about 2 - 3 years ago I do like very much and would use it because their results were quite cool at times, but they quickly moved to a pay model and I already have more pressing needs and wants for my meager budget outlays. Besides, I can't remember their URL or name.
I had this big long(er) reply to one of the posts but I'll do all of us a favor and cut it in half by just posting my concerns. {sigh}
The thing people should worry about most is the potential liability introduced by using the current crop of "image from text" AI/ML tools as well as the legal and financial fallout. It's been many weeks since I read the terms of use on some of those websites but the way I remember it they didn't say you had the proper license for commercial use of the resulting images. When some hobbyist cranks out an image I'm not certain how much big megacorp content owner is going to care. But professional artists who become known for providing content without proper licensing might find their reputation damaged enough to impact their income. Also, I can't be the only one who remembers people being dragged through civil court because their kid(s) illegally downloaded and shared music.
Last time I checked DAZ's gallery terms of service I didn't see anything about whether uploading an image granted rights to use that image in AI/ML software. I suspect many websites will just consider it an extension of "you (the uploader) grant us rights to do whatever we have to do to conduct business" clause that's usually in the terms of service. Ditto for images posted to forums. I don't really care if people post AI/ML generated images or not. I do care that uploading an image doesn't grant a right to use it in AI/ML software unless I do something to enable it (such as add a per use fee :-D ). (and I don't have any images in my gallery so don't waste time looking. :-D )
I don't have any concerns about using AI/ML based tools as long as they're built using properly licensed input. Although, the term "Artificial Intelligence" really sticks in my throat. And "Machine Learning" isn't much better. People could debate/discuss for ages the meaning of intelligence and learning.
Most AI pictures look like they've been through a star trek transporter malfunction in my opinion. It is not art (Still seeking that "Make Art" button)
I have seen some awesome stuff in this thread though
https://www.renderosity.com/forums/threads/2974217/figaments-ai-corner?page=1
Guess you've got selective bias in you taste in art or just response to comments
Oh, after the NFT plugging, I fully expect Daz3D to embrace AI generated "art" next.
If machine-learning (or "ai") helps in great craftsmanship, "or even art", like tools could (...), i'm absolutely not complaining. I'm just trying to keep a lantern pointed towards some of the pointy edges :)...
Today I made this anime-style AI image of a character that I've also illustrated using DAZ Studio a few years ago. I did a ton of postwork, manually painted over many parts of it, and used all sorts of Photoshop techniques to shape the face and eye, add more hair where the AI did not, do multiple color corrections, and painted much of the clothing myself.
Is this any different from photobashing? Is it that much different from buying content that others made, dropping it into a scene, and turning some dials? Blender and Maya have add-ons to generate vegetation and landscapes with very little direct input from the user. Is that cheating too?
This is a tool. No one is saying to drop all manual artistic methods and only embrace this, but it shouldnt be waved off as something that "real artists" would never use.
When you directly violate a copyright with that pencil, then somebody can directly copyright strike you with a lawsuit if they find that work online for sale. Just like you do not see Mickey Mouse here in the Daz store to purchase.
These AI programs currently have zero such concerns. Users can faithfully recreate other people's works in ways that were impossible before, and there is no legal recourse at this time. Also, the shear volume of these AI works is far more than any human can do with a pencil. It isn't just a single person, there are thousands upon thousands of people using these generators, and they can easily create thousands of pictures in a very short time.
Does anybody see what the difference is between these two situations?
In another twist, there are also people who are trying to claim their word prompts are copyrightable, which I find hilariously ironic.
When I play around with the generator, I often see the remnants of original artists signatures in the generated pieces. This clearly proves the AI was trained on works with signatures in them. It also shows how the AI is not a human learning from what they observe. AI does not think. AI simply assembles pixels in a pattern using the images it has trained from. That includes pixels that came from a signature, which is something a human would not do (why would you use pixels of a signature that is not your own).
AIs can do cool stuff, but if you remove the copyrighted materials from their training, I am 100% certain the AI generator would lose most of its abilities. Consider for a moment that even when you do not use a famous artist name in a prompt, the AI may still be using that art to generate your result. After all, what is "beautiful"? The prompt "beautiful" was probably used in many of the training pictures that came from these famous artists. So I do not believe removing their name from the prompt removes their images from the AI.
The latest Stable Diffusion 2 has removed a number of famous artists and celebrities from its prompt database. Now why would they be doing this if there was nothing wrong? The question also remains as to whether or not the actual images were removed, or if only the prompts were. Well, it turns out their images ARE still in the database that SD2 trained on, it simply does not associate their names with these works.
So...does that make it better? I do not think so. Actually, I think it opens up things for even more confusion. I have seen several comments that say they will not use a famous artist name in the prompt for copyright reasons. Yet, what they may not realize is that they may STILL be pulling from those copyrighted works in their image generations. Uh-oh.
However, I believe that if SD actually removed all the copyrighted materials, it would suck.
We used to call some people celebrities but now they're "Influencers!"
We used to call people who made things hobbyists if they were just tinkering around for their own enjoyment, or craftsman (or maybe a trade specific name) or even artist but now they're "Makers!"
Now we have people describing (usually loosely) what they want. It may sound like hiring an artist for commissioned work or doing a Goodle search as someone suggested earlier in this thread. Howevver, following this trend of ego stroking I suggest we call them "Imaginators!"
"Don't let people who actually did the work take credit for something you Imaginator'd!!"
Hopefully copyrighting "prompts" wouldn't hold up in court but stranger things have happened. Funny thing is even if it did it would just protect the bunch of words fed into the AI/ML image generator and not the image that pooped out.