Man who won art competition with AI-generated image now says people are stealing his work

midian182

Posts: 10,633   +141
Staff member
Facepalm: In what many are calling a deliciously ironic twist, a man who won a digital art competition using an AI-generated image and was thoroughly unapologetic about it is now complaining that people are stealing his work – an accusation that artists have long leveled against AI-powered image-generating tools.

In 2022, Jason M. Allen of Pueblo West, Colorado, an executive at a tabletop gaming startup, took home first place in the Colorado State Fair's annual digital art contest. His piece, Théâtre d'Opéra Spatial (top), had been created using Midjourney, something that angered many artists.

"I'm not going to apologize for it," Allen said at the time. "I won, and I didn't break any rules."

"Art is dead, dude. It's over. AI won. Humans lost," he added.

Allen's hubris appears to have come back to haunt him. As reported by Gizmodo, Allen has been trying to register his image as copyrighted work since late 2022. That's proving difficult, given that more than one judge has ruled that art created by generative AI cannot be copyrighted as human authorship is an essential part of a valid copyright claim.

Allen filed an appeal in Colorado federal court last week arguing that he should be allowed to copyright his work, mostly because he's not making enough money from it.

"I have experienced price erosion in the sense that there is a perceived lower value of my work, which has impacted my ability to charge industry-standard licensing fees," he told Colorado Public Radio.

Allen also complains that people have been stealing his work. "The Copyright Office's refusal to register Théâtre d'Opéra Spatial has put me in a terrible position, with no recourse against others who are blatantly and repeatedly stealing my work without compensation or credit," he said.

Ever since their inception, image-generating AIs have faced complaints from artists that they are scraping images to train their models without consent from the creators. In 2023, a class action copyright lawsuit was launched against Stable Diffusion, Midjourney, and other AI-related companies by artists.

"There have been instances where people outright have ripped off my work, incorporated the entire piece into a new piece," said Allen, who might now know how it feels. "There are people who have literally posted my work for sale in print or as crypto and are trying to sell it on OpenSea or Etsy."

According to his lawyer, Allen had an "extensive dialogue" with Midjourney to create the image.

Allen says he edited Théâtre d'Opéra Spatial in Photoshop and with Gigapixel AI after Midjourney produced it. He argued in court that entering the series of prompts that created the image, adjusting the scene, and dictating the tone of the image was on par with the creative effort "expressed by other types of artists and capable of copyright protection." One imagines that other artists would strongly disagree with this assertion.

"As AI continues to evolve, it is imperative that our legal frameworks adapt to protect the rights of those who harness these technologies for creative expression," Allen's lawyer said. They should probably protect those whose hard work is being used to train AI, too.

Permalink to story:

 
Image synthesis is easy.
Good results are not.
Most people working with the technology do not know the difference.

Even then, with the most pristine, detailed, and natural looking result one must fully accept that they are creating visual remixes, nothing more. The Taco Bell of digital art.
 
I know it's easy to have it in for him, especially given his statements at the time. But he has a point and some legal protections should be enshrined at some point.
Corporations will use AI, may they will get trademark and IP protection to stop us reusing it with our grubby little hands
Corporations want to get assets for free and then control their use. So think giving rights to us grunts will be a protection from businesses exploiting , taking , not paying and then controlling said output with other laws and lawyers
 
Last edited:
This took about 30 minutes. I need to make enough from it to last a lifetime somehow. :)
hSUVtXJ.jpeg
 
Aside from this dunderhead getting some richly deserved karmic payback, there's a serious issue that people seem to be overlooking that this article is hinting at. The more AI generated material becomes available, the more it will be used to "train" AI and machine learning. This is a problem. It would essentially be an inbreeding of data. And increasingly hallucinated and incorrect data at that the more it happens.

People complain about AI "hallucinating" now when it scrapes stable original data. What's going to happen to its output when it scrapes artificially created data and then uses that to reason? (See, everyone always forgets the "artificial" part of AI. It's artificial for a reason.) To give you a human metaphor, history has shown that royalty that has inbred through marriages between family members resulted in devastating mutations and diseases due to the cross-breeding. You can expect similar technological disasters from artificial data cross-breeding and AI then using it to operate.
 
Aside from this dunderhead getting some richly deserved karmic payback, there's a serious issue that people seem to be overlooking that this article is hinting at. The more AI generated material becomes available, the more it will be used to "train" AI and machine learning. This is a problem.
We didn't overlook it. We saw right through it. That point didn't need to be made because it is extremely evident and because it is glaringly obvious.

It would essentially be an inbreeding of data.
Amusing perspective. Not inaccurate.

(See, everyone always forgets the "artificial" part of AI. It's artificial for a reason.)
Again, you're pointing out the glaring obvious. We know it's artificial, most of us have seen beyond that to the point where artificial becomes actual. AI is scary NOW. The better it gets the more scary it becomes.

That is the real concern.
 
We didn't overlook it. We saw right through it. That point didn't need to be made because it is extremely evident and because it is glaringly obvious.


Amusing perspective. Not inaccurate.


Again, you're pointing out the glaring obvious. We know it's artificial, most of us have seen beyond that to the point where artificial becomes actual. AI is scary NOW. The better it gets the more scary it becomes.

That is the real concern.
Another concern, is that using raw AI scraped data as a tool, does NOT infer, reason, or pass CONTEXT to any APP, API, or secondary tool, or a human moderator/user. For example, the well publicized Google account ban for a user who was asked by his doctor to send a picture of his sick child's rash to his clinic via a share. Because the child was partially naked, the AI tool they used thought it was KP.
 
Back