They absolutely should be labeled & ideally, given their own category. I agree with Lori Rudolph's comment (comment #11). I'm not sure everyone realizes that AI companies (which are run & owned by companies worth billions of dollars) scrape whatever is on the web & use what they find (mostly WITHOUT permission from the artists & authors) to create images & writings from prompts by users. AI isn't creating anything new - it's just putting together items others have made in reaction to the prompts.
I'm sure AI is fun to play with, & I've downloaded several items I am positive are AI-generated, but knowing several writers/authors whose work was scraped for use, without permission or payment, I won't be using or downloading anything, be it articles/books or designs, that I know (or suspect) was made by AI.
I've also noticed at least one item in the commons I know was AI-made that includes watermarks from one of the big stock image companies. After some research, I found that company has given permission (& will receive payment) for AI to use it's images but seeing the watermarks reminded me, again, that AI is scraping everything on the web - because if the watermark is there, they scraped a preview rather than the full permitted image.
And one final issue that may never be a problem for DS but...if an artist spots their art used in an AI piece that they did not give the AI company permission to use, or receive any payment from the company for that use, they have the right to issue a take-down notice, the same as they would for piracy (because this pretty much is piracy).
PS RE: the comment about using CU products to make images you claim as your own - the big difference here is that the creator of the CU product was paid by the user & the TOU say that the buyer may use the image for their own designs. AI images are pretty much the exact opposite - the original creator may not even know their item is being used for AI work. And the artist was most likely never paid for their art, never mind giving permission for it to be used in this manner by companies who can well afford to pay artists & writer.
Yes, it should definitely be marked. "AI" tools, etc. "learn" from looking at other works already out there. My daughter is an artist, and this is a very touchy subject for us. The machines weren't just given stuff that is in the public domain, they also take from intellectual properties that are not. For this reason, we do not support the use of "AI" softwares such as Midjourney, ChatGPT, etc.
AI-generated images are a new medium that can be used creatively and ethically. It's important to recognize that innovation and progress often require us to reevaluate our assumptions and adapt to new possibilities. Let's focus on understanding and harnessing the potential of AI-generated images rather than dismissing them as theft simply because they're new.
A hammer is a tool that can be used to build a house or murder a person.
Or imagine a chef who has spent years perfecting their recipes. They learn from various sources, experimenting with different ingredients and techniques. When they create a new dish, it's inspired by the culinary knowledge they've accumulated, but it’s also a unique creation. The chef's new dish isn't considered theft of others' recipes; rather, it's a product of learning, innovation, and creativity.
Similarly, AI generates images by learning from vast amounts of data. It's not copying any single image but creating something new based on the patterns and styles it has learned. Just as new recipes contribute to the culinary world, AI-generated images can add value and creativity to the visual arts.
Change can be uncomfortable, especially with new technologies. However, innovation has always been a part of human progress. Let's embrace this new tool and explore its potential while being mindful of ethical considerations.
As I said earlier, either way label or not is ok for me. I use images from 5 different CU sites. When I purchase I purchase the rights not to have to give credit every time (mainly it just time consuming).
Maybe I should label every item I make with this disclaimer: I can't draw a stick figure without help, but I know how to label pretty and I know how to do quality control.
AI art is generated by specific prompts, just like I hire people to make my Bible typography. I place an order then tweak until I get what I want.
It's is VERY HARSH to call people thieves or liars. Am I a thief and liar if I purchase art I do not have the ability to create and then use it in a kit?
I don't really care. Artists have been using photos, free and purchased digital images, clipart, etc. for years to create unique art. That practice seems true to me whether the resulting art is physical, digital or print. The original images used in the finished product are often not recognizable. Those artists rarely cite their sources or give recognition to the artist who created an image they incorporated into their art. I love all the creativity that results in amazing images!
What bothers me about AI is when they are created of and about people or situations that bring on alot of controversy and problems... But as far as designs... You're not hurting anyone
The goal of using AI not to deceive or steal but to explore new creative possibilities. If you say "person is lying" then every single person in the commons utilizing CU images are all lying.
Imagine a world where everyone writes by hand. It's a slow process, prone to errors, and requires a lot of practice to achieve good penmanship. Then, someone invents the typewriter.
The Skeptics: Some people are resistant to this new invention. They argue:
"Typewriters are cheating! It takes away the skill of writing beautifully by hand."
"Real authors should be able to write neatly and efficiently without a machine."
"This will lead to a decline in the art of calligraphy!"
The Open-Minded: Others see the typewriter as a tool:
"This doesn't replace good writing, it just makes it faster and cleaner."
"I can still focus on crafting my ideas while the typewriter handles the mechanics."
"This allows me to write more and explore new ideas more easily."
The Outcome: Over time, the typewriter becomes widely adopted. While calligraphy remains an art form, most writing shifts to typewriters. This leads to:
Increased productivity: Authors can write faster and with fewer errors.
More widespread literacy: The ease of typing encourages more people to write.
Exploration of new formats: Typewriters enable new writing styles and layouts.
Just like the typewriter, AI art is a new tool. It doesn't replace artistic skill, but it can:
Speed up the process: Artists can generate ideas and explore variations more quickly.
Reduce technical limitations: AI can handle complex details or repetitive tasks.
Open new creative avenues: Artists can combine AI with traditional methods or explore entirely new styles.
The takeaway: Like the typewriter, AI art is a tool that can enhance creativity and expression. It doesn't diminish the value of human artistry, but rather expands its possibilities.
AI should defintely be noted. Many generated images are easy to tell are AI. Many are not and I don’t want waste my time examining every image to figure it out. That’s my creative time!
To those saying about AI "it's just another tool" - yes, BUT much of the material AI uses to "create" images from prompts is scraped (stolen) from creators without credit or payment.
CU items OTOH are purchased from a creator with a TOU allowing people to reuse them as their own. AI (& the very wealthy companies behind it) does neither. The original creators have almost always had their work taken without consent or payment.
I do believe it should be labeled.
No
Our members are very talented and creative
I prefer them
They absolutely should be labeled & ideally, given their own category. I agree with Lori Rudolph's comment (comment #11). I'm not sure everyone realizes that AI companies (which are run & owned by companies worth billions of dollars) scrape whatever is on the web & use what they find (mostly WITHOUT permission from the artists & authors) to create images & writings from prompts by users. AI isn't creating anything new - it's just putting together items others have made in reaction to the prompts.
I'm sure AI is fun to play with, & I've downloaded several items I am positive are AI-generated, but knowing several writers/authors whose work was scraped for use, without permission or payment, I won't be using or downloading anything, be it articles/books or designs, that I know (or suspect) was made by AI.
I've also noticed at least one item in the commons I know was AI-made that includes watermarks from one of the big stock image companies. After some research, I found that company has given permission (& will receive payment) for AI to use it's images but seeing the watermarks reminded me, again, that AI is scraping everything on the web - because if the watermark is there, they scraped a preview rather than the full permitted image.
And one final issue that may never be a problem for DS but...if an artist spots their art used in an AI piece that they did not give the AI company permission to use, or receive any payment from the company for that use, they have the right to issue a take-down notice, the same as they would for piracy (because this pretty much is piracy).
PS RE: the comment about using CU products to make images you claim as your own - the big difference here is that the creator of the CU product was paid by the user & the TOU say that the buyer may use the image for their own designs. AI images are pretty much the exact opposite - the original creator may not even know their item is being used for AI work. And the artist was most likely never paid for their art, never mind giving permission for it to be used in this manner by companies who can well afford to pay artists & writer.
PPS Sorry for the long rant!!
It should definitely be marked as AI or not
yes I think they should be marked as AI generated
it should be marked.
I also think that people should have a choice to support Designers, over AI.
Ine Straeter.
I think AI-Generated Designs should definitely be identified as such. It has it's place but I would want to know if something was AI-Generated or not.
Maybe I'd importent; so I vote Yes.
It should be labeled. Using AI to edit a photo is one thing but using it to create "art" is not the same.
I don't think it matters. The quickie graphics made with AI are pretty obvious. If it's not obvious, then I don't see what difference it makes.
Yes, it should definitely be marked. "AI" tools, etc. "learn" from looking at other works already out there. My daughter is an artist, and this is a very touchy subject for us. The machines weren't just given stuff that is in the public domain, they also take from intellectual properties that are not. For this reason, we do not support the use of "AI" softwares such as Midjourney, ChatGPT, etc.
It should be clearly marked on this and every site!
It should be marked, yes.
Clearly marked please.
Yes
AI-generated images are a new medium that can be used creatively and ethically. It's important to recognize that innovation and progress often require us to reevaluate our assumptions and adapt to new possibilities. Let's focus on understanding and harnessing the potential of AI-generated images rather than dismissing them as theft simply because they're new.
A hammer is a tool that can be used to build a house or murder a person.
Or imagine a chef who has spent years perfecting their recipes. They learn from various sources, experimenting with different ingredients and techniques. When they create a new dish, it's inspired by the culinary knowledge they've accumulated, but it’s also a unique creation. The chef's new dish isn't considered theft of others' recipes; rather, it's a product of learning, innovation, and creativity.
Similarly, AI generates images by learning from vast amounts of data. It's not copying any single image but creating something new based on the patterns and styles it has learned. Just as new recipes contribute to the culinary world, AI-generated images can add value and creativity to the visual arts.
Change can be uncomfortable, especially with new technologies. However, innovation has always been a part of human progress. Let's embrace this new tool and explore its potential while being mindful of ethical considerations.
As I said earlier, either way label or not is ok for me. I use images from 5 different CU sites. When I purchase I purchase the rights not to have to give credit every time (mainly it just time consuming).
Maybe I should label every item I make with this disclaimer: I can't draw a stick figure without help, but I know how to label pretty and I know how to do quality control.
AI art is generated by specific prompts, just like I hire people to make my Bible typography. I place an order then tweak until I get what I want.
It's is VERY HARSH to call people thieves or liars. Am I a thief and liar if I purchase art I do not have the ability to create and then use it in a kit?
Yes, it should be clearly labeled as such but I’m not opposed to using some AI designs.
I don't really care. Artists have been using photos, free and purchased digital images, clipart, etc. for years to create unique art. That practice seems true to me whether the resulting art is physical, digital or print. The original images used in the finished product are often not recognizable. Those artists rarely cite their sources or give recognition to the artist who created an image they incorporated into their art. I love all the creativity that results in amazing images!
YES .... otherwise the person is lying about it being their art (it is not their art if AI created it)
Yes, I think it should be marked. I think we all like to know how it was created.
AI generated designs are fine with me...
What bothers me about AI is when they are created of and about people or situations that bring on alot of controversy and problems... But as far as designs... You're not hurting anyone
The goal of using AI not to deceive or steal but to explore new creative possibilities. If you say "person is lying" then every single person in the commons utilizing CU images are all lying.
Imagine a world where everyone writes by hand. It's a slow process, prone to errors, and requires a lot of practice to achieve good penmanship. Then, someone invents the typewriter.
The Skeptics: Some people are resistant to this new invention. They argue:
"Typewriters are cheating! It takes away the skill of writing beautifully by hand."
"Real authors should be able to write neatly and efficiently without a machine."
"This will lead to a decline in the art of calligraphy!"
The Open-Minded: Others see the typewriter as a tool:
"This doesn't replace good writing, it just makes it faster and cleaner."
"I can still focus on crafting my ideas while the typewriter handles the mechanics."
"This allows me to write more and explore new ideas more easily."
The Outcome: Over time, the typewriter becomes widely adopted. While calligraphy remains an art form, most writing shifts to typewriters. This leads to:
Increased productivity: Authors can write faster and with fewer errors.
More widespread literacy: The ease of typing encourages more people to write.
Exploration of new formats: Typewriters enable new writing styles and layouts.
Just like the typewriter, AI art is a new tool. It doesn't replace artistic skill, but it can:
Speed up the process: Artists can generate ideas and explore variations more quickly.
Reduce technical limitations: AI can handle complex details or repetitive tasks.
Open new creative avenues: Artists can combine AI with traditional methods or explore entirely new styles.
The takeaway: Like the typewriter, AI art is a tool that can enhance creativity and expression. It doesn't diminish the value of human artistry, but rather expands its possibilities.
AI should defintely be noted. Many generated images are easy to tell are AI. Many are not and I don’t want waste my time examining every image to figure it out. That’s my creative time!
You took the words right out of my mouth! (Or off my keyboard! 🤣)
Thank you for your input!
To those saying about AI "it's just another tool" - yes, BUT much of the material AI uses to "create" images from prompts is scraped (stolen) from creators without credit or payment.
CU items OTOH are purchased from a creator with a TOU allowing people to reuse them as their own. AI (& the very wealthy companies behind it) does neither. The original creators have almost always had their work taken without consent or payment.
Clearly marked, please
I think it should be labeled as AI.
Pages