There's an interesting discussion going on over in DPReview regarding a photo that was submitted to GPTchat to get it enhanced. When it came back, it had been combined with some standard pictures (it was of the moon) to produce a nice picture. But then comes the 'issue' - is it the same picture?
My feeling is that, no, it's not my picture any more. But do I claim ownership of it? Can I sell it as 'mine'?
I think this could run and run.
Alan
For what it is worth to anyone else, I have zero interest in AI as represented by GPTChat. I consider it a big time waster, and similar implementations have already ruined the usefulness of Google for me, such that I now use Duck Duck Go instead. With any luck it will wean me off using my computer completely, which would free up a lot of time. 😁
David
That's the subject of a separate thread I think.
Alan
Well, the opening gambit was submitting the photo to GPTChat... 😀
David
@AlanSh wrote: But do I claim ownership of it? Can I sell it as 'mine'?
I looked into this back in January 2024 in relation to Microsoft’s app Copilot, and this is what I found.
The rights to the DALL·E 3 generated images are passed on to the creator, and you are freely able to sell any of the images you create or use them for commercial purposes. Yes, you are allowed to remove the digital watermark. If you are a stand-up guy like me, you will include… artwork assisted by AI rather than claiming it is all of your own work.
People in the art world aren’t stupid.
DALL·E 3 is an advanced AI system designed to generate high-quality images from textual descriptions.
Google: How to Save Your DALL-E Images Without the Watermark.
Classic photo forum re-naming of ChatGPT to GPTchat.
Personally I never use AI imaging work of any kind. I find it more that adequate for technical questions asked in plain English, step by step.
chatgpt.com/share/68c05afb-a034-8013-93db-aaccb6810cad
Over on discuss.pixls.us quoting AI is not allowed - the Mods will slap you around if you do.
I think that the image remains your property but being able to sell it is moot.
In this composite, three of the images are shot by me but I stole the UFO off the net, as does AI.
Hmmm ...
In conversation or debate: an opening gambit is the first remark or tactic someone uses to set the tone, grab attention, or steer things in their favor.
Looking for a ChatGPT-like experience? Give GPT-Chat a try! Please note that GPT Chat is not affiliated with OpenAI. ChatGPT is a trademark of OpenAI.
So, Alan, which were you referring to? If GPT-Chat, my apologies.
It's chatGPT, but my thread was really to discuss the overall idea of AI taking a photo, modifying it by adding stuff it's learned (in other words, other pictures) and then sending it back as 'your picture'. It doesn't matter which model is chosen.
Alan
I dont recognise your definition of an opening gambit.
David
I think the answer might be slightly more obvious.
In an age where a modified picture can be produced without the input of your original then doesn't that render all such images fairly valueless both creatively and financially? Not that Ai isn't a "valid artistic route" but that because we can all do it so easily then it changes from unique viewpoint to overused common cliche overnight. Any idea that starts to gain traction will be copied and diluted to death within seconds, it's the nature of the beast.
Are you making something unique or handing your ideas over to the Ai collective?
Look at it this way:
You took and own the original photo. You sent it to an AI site which is known for appropriating data without compensation. The site mixes it with other data which it has helped itself to from the internet without permission. The result is a confection of data from various sources, none of which is owned by the AI site, and which can probably not be disentangled to recreate the original data sources.
I see nothing that suggests any actual change of ownedship of the constituent parts. The law seems to he mute on this situation and provides no remedy for the original owners, other than the right to spend money to sue for damages.
It is surely best not to get involved with this kind of AI in the first place. 😁
David
Which begs the question, why would you do this?
For me, my photography is a visual record of places I have been and places I have experienced. I try do do it "artfully" and I try to inject what I felt about a place or subject into the picture, but I cannot quite see the point of an image manipulated in this way.
Which begs another question. Are these heavily manipulated fictional images art?
To answer the original question it is an automated manipulation of your image, which is not really your image anymore.
Sad to hear that.
How about the Cambridge English Dictionary?
Meanwhile, the rest of the world uses the less fancy "OP" (original post).
On DPReview, it was a picture of the moon which wasn't that sharp. So the owner sent it to ChatGPT to see if it could enhance the picture.
Alan
