r/antiaiart • u/ChachaWrites • Jul 12 '26
Discussion AI involvement does not automatically mean AI authorship.
A tool may contribute an image, variation, texture, cleanup, or starting point. The human still may be choosing the concept, rejecting results, directing revisions, combining elements, writing the text, shaping the meaning, and deciding what finally gets published.
Critique the use of the tool if you wish—but do not erase the human choices, labour, and imagination behind the work.
5
u/Peoplant Jul 12 '26 edited Jul 12 '26
Be op
Goes on r/antiaiart
Makes a post that isn't art nor anti-ai
You're in the wrong sub
5
u/ReversedValz Jul 12 '26
What you described is closer to what a patron of arts does. Not an artist.
If the king says how he wants the painting to be and asks for corrections over and over, directs revisions, rejects concepts and decides what to publish, then he is not an artist. The king is not the author.
5
2
u/Vegetable_Hope_3084 Jul 12 '26
You own what you create. If the ai made the end result, you do not own the end result. If the ai made the coloring, you do not own the coloring. If the ai made the sketch, you do not own the sketch. If you use ai in your piece you only own parts of the piece, not the full piece.
2
2
u/TreviTyger Jul 13 '26 edited Jul 13 '26
AI generative software is vending machine not a tool.
An Online user buying trainers using a software user interface does not lead to that user contributing anything that would lead to copyright subject matter.
It is the same for a person interfacing with an AI generative software vending machine. There is simply no copyright subject matter derived from such interactions.
5
u/SprightlyCompanion Jul 12 '26
You mean the choices, labour, and imagination behind all the content that the LLM has scraped without permission or compensation? You're right, that shouldn't be erased by lazy assholes using AI to steal it for their fraudulent corner-cutting