Are the images generated with the "Pro" user subscription able to be used commercially?

JoelLovell

And the other question is, like Adobe Firefly and Getty Generative AI, are the images trained solely on DAZ Artists IP?

soulstorm.paradox

I know a *lot* of artist-focused spaces specifically forbid any kind of AI-generated art.

Not to mention that AI images can't receive copyright protections. Makes it a complete non-starter for most serious creators. Anything an AI generates is free game for anyone with a copy of the image to use however they want.

As has been mentioned elsewhere, the model they are using is trained on art they (Daz) own outright, but it is still built on top of a checkpoint that will most certainly have ethical concerns over its training and creation.

Richard Haseltine

Daz does not prevent you from using the images commercially - obviously there may be other roadlocks over which Daz has no control.

Pantros2

You can sell them, but  whoever buys them should know they are not buying the sole rights to the image since, as mentioned above, AI generated images cannot be copyrighted.

FirstBastion

If anothr user types in the exact same prompt,  and the exact same seed,  they will get a very similar image to the one you generated moments ago, or some other user generated weeks earlier.

Roman_K2

I just heard about this "Adobe Firefly" thing. Doesn't the term overlap with something else in DAZ Studio?

Leana

Roman_K2 said:

I just heard about this "Adobe Firefly" thing. Doesn't the term overlap with something else in DAZ Studio?

One of Poser's render engines is called Firefly, maybe that's what you're thinking of?

DNSHoyt

soulstorm.paradox said:

Not to mention that AI images can't receive copyright protections. Makes it a complete non-starter for most serious creators. Anything an AI generates is free game for anyone with a copy of the image to use however they want.

The linked article has a very different interpretation:

1. "Art generated from simple prompts likely uncopyrightable" -- "simple" and "likely" are the operative words here. The judge in the Thaler case reiterated the relevant factors (https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/ai-generated-art-lacks-copyright-protection-d-c-court-rules):

1a. "Human authorship’ is the bedrock of copyright law, judge finds" -- essentially, if a human conceived of the image, used AI to generate the initial concept and iterively modified it using other tools (which could also use AI), there's nothing preventing that human from claiming authorship other than accessibility by others (which is why non-free tiers exist for most generative tools, and it's important to determine if the images generative are available to the public or only the customer).

1b. "Copyright Office had denied registration for AI-generated image" -- yes it did, but there's an important distinction: Thaler 'said in his registration application the art piece ... was “autonomously created” by a computer algorithm.' In fact, "Thaler admitted in his application that he played no role in creating the work." To clarify, he did NOT seek human authorship (see 1a), but attempted to claim AI as the SOLE author. This is not the first time Thaler has done this as he has "sought IP protections for AI-generated art and inventions around the world—mostly without success." It's clear from both articles that this is his personal crusade.

Again, to make sure this is understood, because this is CRITICAL: the Copyright Office denied registration for an AI-generated image with the AI as the sole author (emphasis mine).

2. "The judge said her decision was limited to what he put in his application to the Copyright Office. That could create an opening for future cases where an artist claims greater involvement in crafting AI-generated art." -- so this decision isn't the final word by any means. In fact, the Copyright Office issued rather important clarifications (https://www.eversheds-sutherland.com/en/global/insights/copyright-office-issues-new-guidance-on-ai-assisted-works-but-legal-concerns-linger):

2a.  "As an initial matter, the Office maintains its position that works that are entirely the work of non-human authors, such as artificial intelligence, cannot be protected by copyright. The Office specifically rejected the notion that prompts, queries or commands to create a specific type of image or text made by a human to AI technology are sufficient to meet the authorship requirement." -- the key word here is "entirely;" this means that if you use text-to-image AI technology and do nothing else, they're going to reject you. Few artists are going to do that, to be frank. Are you seriously trying to sell naked Vicky in a temple with a sword? Please.

2b. "On the other extreme, the Office likewise reiterated its position that copyright protection extends to works that are wholly the product of human creative decision-making with mere mechanical assistance from technology, such as cameras and editing software." --  the Copyright Office recently approved (with limited scope) a graphic novel "that was written and compiled by a human author, Kristine Kashtanova, but contains illustrations created by an AI web service."

2c. "Kristine Kashtanova has recently filed a new application for a digital art piece ... which was created by an AI-generative model based on a sketch and detailed prompts regarding subject matter, composition, and artistic style." -- there's no question that image-to-image involves significant input from the human author, so this will be an interesting one to watch.

Bottom line, it's not cut and dry and as simple as "AI art is uncopyrightable."  

FSMCDesigns

DNSHoyt said:

Bottom line, it's not cut and dry and as simple as "AI art is uncopyrightable."  

 I have an easier interpretation, better safe than sorry, LOL Seeing as AI is typing text, loading image prompts and hitting a generate button, it's probly best to go into it knowing it probably can't be copyrighted.

 

richardandtracy

There is already a lot of prescedent to copyrighting uncopyrightable material. Think of classic books more than 80 years after the author's death. A reprint edition can be copyrighted by sticking a summary discussion/thesis at the front. The copyright free material is still copyright free, but the page annotations, carets, references, page numbers, layout etc are all copyrightable and it means you need to go to a great deal of work to extract the copyright free material from the copyrighted stuff before you can exercise your right to do what you will with copyright free material.

In the case of an AI image, if you put a gradient shader layer over the AI image, every pixel has your copyright amendment to the AI image, and the person wanting to use the copyright free material would have to remove all of your copyright gradient first. That's fun to do...

Just food for thought.

Regards,

Richard.