/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6464011
Art is going to be stolen no matter what you do. Just accept it and hope it doesnt happen as often and learn to mitigate the damage.

>>6464011
kek artists really don't know how datasets work. No anon, this isnt going to do shit against ai dataset. But lets imagine it does, do you know there are scalers and watermark removers right.

Do what AI can't right now, art with storytelling as first class citizen.

>>6464011
If you think AI wouldn't be instantly retrained to remove watermarks within like 3 days of such an attempt, you're an idiot

lmao

Theres programs out there already that remove watermarks.

Its better to just put you handle/name on the piece. I put mine in a shadowy spot.

>>6464035
Nice, I love when the signature is part of the piece also.

>>6464035
>>6464041
Best options, watermarks can be annoying when they have the sort of copy paste look you can find as stickers on apples at the supermarket, but an individual signatur in the piece makes it look even more refined

>>6464011
a more chad strategy is developing an AI resistant style: trad, variety, ever-evolving, individual. Generators have a problem with granularity. The KJG model looked like shit.

>>6464011
just go full schizo and put swastikas in your work.

>>6464022
>But lets imagine it does, do you know there are scalers and watermark removers right.
Yeah, hence why I literally said instead of just spamming a watermark which is easy to remove it could be some sort of noisy/pseudo procedural watermark that makes it hard to remove

And given how AI works and is trained on these datasets, it won't know what's a watermark from an image feature, it's just seeing pixels and while it won't necessarily generate an image with the watermark, it could screw up whatever it generates that tries using that artists work if people give it a prompt specifically for that artist

>>6464019
If the artist is petty enough, just dmca it.

>>6464060
learn how neural networks work (from conception to production) then you will understand why this wont do shit.

>>6464049
This
Trad will have a major comeback. Anyone who bothers to master digital art will be suspected of using AI. It will be valued even less than it is now.

>>6464071
kek no, is just time to mix current out with some kind of texture mapper. We already have printers capable of replicating brush textures. I give it 2 years tops

>>6464022
>put meaning behind your artwork
woah, there, we don't do that kind of thing around here

>>6464071
Same was said about netflix with blockbuster.

>>6464068
Read how stable diffusion actually works. It basically trains the algorithm to denoise a generated noisy image over a number of iterations to produce an image (along with whatever NLP algorithm is used to interpret the initial prompt). Also it's unsupervised learning, meaning there is no real validation afterwards, it just returns after running.

What it means is that if the training images already have some proc generated watermark all over it, generated in a way that it couldn't easily be removed by existing watermark removal tools, than any generated images of that artist's artstyle (ie. generate xyz in the style of so and so) would try to include those watermarks as well and it would make it really obvious that it was AI generated because they'd likely be fucked up looking in ways a human could easily determine (ie. similar to how SD has no concept of how many fingers a hand has and constantly generates fucked up looking ones)

>>6464052
based

>>6464083
>similar to how SD has no concept of how many fingers a hand has and constantly generates fucked up looking ones
nah, that's due to the fact that artists suck at drawing hands so SD just copies these already shitty hands

>>6464082
That's not an equal comparison because it's not just a matter of changing a medium and way of distributing art. Digital art made by people will be held to scrutiny against AI generations, putting digital artists in competition with computers. Nobody will question traditionally made art because it already exists in the real world

>>6464083
questions you should ask your self:
¿in a ai dataset whats the average resolution per image?
¿what happens to an image when you scale it down?
¿how average neighboring of a pixel works?
no wonder misinformation is so effective on your average artists

Security alarms, big dogs, deadbolts, and guns don't guarantee safety from burglars but they provide extra barriers any criminal would have to overcome.

Same thing with watermarks and signatures. Any small sketch I post has my signature and a watermark with my social media on it. Any finished work is signed, cropped and watermarked heavily throughout the image.

If they want my full drawings they can commission me at a heavily inflated rate or
they can subscribe to my patreon, where I'll have access to their info as well.

>>6464098

>>6464011
I care more about the followers that I cultivate than any concern about AI.

In fact, to this day, I cannot understand why any of you feel any need to pay attention to it.
It's every bit as threatening to the art world as Vocaloids was to singers. WAS

>>6464025
Happened with adblock blockers, right?

>>6464087
No, it's due to the fact hands can be obscured/rotated in so many ways that the number of fingers visible (the key word) can greatly vary. It's why it appears even in generated photorealistic images that are based on photos not artwork

>>6464097
Yes, I understand the algorithms use a representation of the image. It's why I said it's not necessarily going to generate images with the watermarks in them, even if the prompt is to generate the image for a given artist.

What i'm suggesting is if the training images for a given artist are already "noisy" with these watermarks, but in a way that's obvious for a human to tell, the AI generated that is meant to look like that artists work will similarly be "noisy".

But the key difference is that it's possible in it reproducing these watermarks it generates them in a way that makes it clear what was an image originally overlaid with them vs an AI generated image that includes them

>>6464232
Artists have insanely fragile egos. Just look at how small and big twitter artists are at odds right now.

>>6464232
based

>>6464025
Retrained how?
Let me put it this way
1. Artist A posts a lot of public art, but all there art includes some watermark repeated, but altered in some semi random way based on a seed/key that only they have

2. This art is scraped and used as a training dataset for an art generation AI

3. Someone only enters the prompt "I want this image in artist A's style" and the AI creates an image

Now, because all of the artists images included that watermarking, the AI will naturally try to include something similar to it, but without knowing that initial seed/key the original artist will have an easy way of proving that this is a generated version, not authentic.

And even if someone altered the prompt to not include the watermark, and it manages to generates something that looks remotely convincing (although it's unclear if it could or how well it would look) given that all of the publicly available images include them, that's also a giveaway

Make sense

>>6464232
vocaloids takes way more effort than merely pressing a button + you cannot flood entire sites with it
like
my IQ drops just by having to explain this simple fact

>>6464232
>comparing vocaloids to ai
holy fucking retard

>>6464261
right
Vocaloid songs can actually get copyrighted.

>>6464254
>you cannot flood entire sites with it
Nah, niconico uses Miku as default robot narrator

>>6464248
how exactly would you even go about this
it sounds nice in theory but what exactly is the artist supposed to do?

>>6465608
Pull the same shit stock photo companies do. If you want the version without the watermark, you pay then. The fear I have is this just might cause people to turn to AI art more often just to "stick it to the man." On the internet, people expect certain things to be used freely and any attempt at squandering that will make people more resentful. But who knows. Wouldn't be surprised if the next big artist uses watermarks and makes it become a staple of digital artwork on the internet.

>>6466098
i don't even think it matters anymore
the sheer amount of artwork already available is enough training data that the AI needs
same thing with porn, there's such a massive amount that if it was literally stopped in production today, you still wouldn't be able to watch all the porn currently on the internet

>>6465608
The more it polished the picture the further away from the original it got.

>>6464071
There's a robot that can carve marble statues now. Although that tech will never be as asscesible as stable diffusion and midjourney.

the ai shill fears the watermark

>>6464011
>Do you think it's time artists cover their art with watermarks?
Yes.

How do I enforce my art to viewable by HUMAN eyes only? Also no references, or photographs and to not speak or memorize it?

>>6467497
Art curation of the future,
>NDAs required to filled, signed and notarized before viewing.
>Phones camera and all electronic devices are prohibited. Phones and cameras locked will be inspected.
>Sketching or using anything to gain a reference is strictly prohibited.
>Artwork will be placed in a hermetically sealed room in vacuum that also acts as as Faraday cage. Viewing will be possible from windows that can be shuttered.
>Viewing times will be limited and recorded vai facial recognition and eye tracking to 2minutes. Attempting to view art after this time will result in the shutters closing before you can see the art.
>Speaking of the names of work or describing them will be prohibited.

>>6467521
that pic is the biggest strawman I have seen yet
Sloppy job Emad

>>6467588
Give me your crappy and/or unfinished art work so I can img2img *fix* it.

>>6467474
Well damn, I guess my idea did have merit! But I'm not surprised. I didn't think I was the only person who would've thought of it. The idea of a procedural watermark using a key to remove/decipher is just an application of how cryptography works for other system on the web

>>6467521
so what will humans do in the future if its all just gonna be ai?

>>6467592
lol
ok
Impress me

>>6464071

you think trad artist are safe?

kek.

too late for that

>>6467816
You think digital is in danger?

kek

>>6467592

AHHHHH an AI just flew over my house!!!!

>>6467474
Sauce?

>>6468431
Is the ai in the room with us right now?

>>6464011
>>6467474
>>6467597
Looks like someone may have beat him to the punch
https://www.artstation.com/blogs/editballai/Xmb0/no-ai-watermark-generator
Honestly its good this many people are coming up with this many methods so fast

>>6468904
Based. We must fight Indians with Indians.

>>6464011
I think it'd be hilarious if artists began making their artwork into nfts

>>6468910
>>6468904
still need to see if its legit or not but it will be pretty big if true

>>6468306
It would be derivative work unless I tried to pass it off as a orginal by the author.
so in other words
PYW
my img2img cock can only get so erect.

>>6468938
tell it to the judge

>>6464046
>>6464041
>>6464035
This is bad to do because it makes it harder for people to find your art if it's reposted anywhere.
>Oh I love this piece, who made it?
>Uhhh... "illegible squiggle" I guess...

>>6464083
>>6464060
Most art has "noise" already from jpeg compression either due to exporting at 80% or the site automatically converting the image to save space.
>>6464239
You'll also shoot your own art in the foot. Nobody likes when there's big watermarks on art already. You're basically trying to implement Battleye or Denuvo for your art which would only drive people away from it lol

>>6464232
Based

>>6464254
Nobody cares that you don't understand how to use a search bar to filter out the art you don't want to see. Are you one of those idiots that was complaining that dA was filled with fetish art or that pixiv had a lot of loli?

>>6464263
Why does that matter? More public domain art is good.
>>6466098
>The fear I have is this just might cause people to turn to AI art more often just to "stick it to the man." On the internet, people expect certain things to be used freely and any attempt at squandering that will make people more resentful.
You're correct and those people would be in the right, because you're worrying about shit that doesn't actually affect you and trying to step on people.

>>6468904
Anti-AI art people installing literal malware out of irrational fear is the funniest fucking thing lmao.

People suggest putting your signature/name and or handle in your piece
>>6468958 responds:
>This is bad to do because it makes it harder for people to find your art if it's reposted anywhere.

...what did he mean by this?
bot moment maybe?

>>6467816
It is. Ever touched a painting done by acriclic or held an actual sketch drawn in pencil or a watercolor painting? AI can't create anything physical. Physical media is still safe from the pajeet menace.

>>6469478
troll, retard or bot (all three).He didn't deserve your reply

>>6467521
Pure projection. We all know very well by now how disingenuine you technerds are. You've managed to revolt even the normies by this point. A bunch of tapeworms oblivious to how absolutely transparent your house of cards really is. We see right through you nerds. And we have for quite some time now.

>>6469478
Yes. He's an npc.

>>6468958
>Nobody cares that you don't understand how to use a search bar to filter out the art you don't want to see. Are you one of those idiots that was complaining that dA was filled with fetish art or that pixiv had a lot of loli?
It's not about us you fucking moron, it's about all the randos out there who are now looking at AI bullshit instead of Your Art because they don't know or don't care about whether something is AI generated or not. Plus even if they do care, if the WEBSITE doesn't give enough of a shit to add in that filter then how the fuck is this supposed to matter? Braindead post from top to bottom.

>>6468958
>This is bad to do because it makes it harder for people to find your art if it's reposted anywhere.
>Oh I love this piece, who made it?
>Uhhh... "illegible squiggle" I guess..

I like to do a thing with my hand writing called printing in capitals to make it easier to read.
I know my signature is just a fancy scribble.

>>6469478
The posts I replied to said:
>I put mine in a shadowy spot
>an individual SIGNATURE in the piece makes it look even more refined
>when the SIGNATURE is part of the peice

This implies a signature, which is not simply a printed (with the text tool or cleanly by hand) name of the artist. Yes I am being pedantic because I've had to explain to artists that the point of marking your work with your name/etc is so people can find you again - it's not to "authenticate it as genuine" or anything. A lot have, in fact, told me they were worried that if it was clearly visible that people would crop/edit it out easier, which is retarded to worry about.

>>6477233
The websites already have filters and tagging in place (except for twitter which only has discoverability via networking with people).
The randos who don't care weren't going to pay you. The point of views is reach, and the point of reach is your art getting to people who would like it enough to want to pay you. You don't really want non-interacting normie retards to follow you as they don't save+share your stuff, don't comment, heck they probably forget about your art after they click "follow" and close the page.

And if some people like AI stuff, that's fine. I'm sure there's people out there who like my stuff too.

KJG had the best way to mentally approach the situation (And future ones.)

>>6477334
>were worried that if it was clearly visible that people would crop/edit it out easier
I've had my work reposted with my sig cropped out, because I placed in an unintrusive place (the corner) which made it easy to remove.

>>6477347

Try to make your signature as part of your art.

find places you place your signature shape on.

This means rather than having a sign of your name you need to come up with a simpler signature.

make it part of any shapes in your artwork.

clothing
armor
mountains
rivers
rocks
flowing hair/dress

etc etc

>>6477347
It's not worth worrying about. Feel better that some shithead SEAmonkey or pajeet felt your art was good enough to waste time saving, editing, re-saving, and uploading the modified version. And if people go "WOW WHO DID THIS I LOVE IT??" they'll likely get an answer if your stuff is publicly reverse-image searchable (basically on dA, pixiv, FA, Artstation, etc. as twitter and insta don't get indexed reliably.)

Besides that, it's far more likely that people just reup without cropping or anything. Having people mod your stuff is a sign you're starting to make it!

>>6477386
This is bad because it increases the likelihood that people will miss it, and if someone REALLY wants to remove your sig then they can still do so.
If you insist on trying to make it as "permanent" as possible, a way to do it is to put a cleanly-readable sig over something that's a bitch to smooth out, like on the border of 2 gradients or crossing past errant strands of hair.
The more out-of-the-way it is the worse you're making it, because smearing it with not-quite-right colors can be more easily passed off. Making it have a feathered border can also make this worse to remove.

But this is a big pain in the ass vs a bar at the top or bottom of the image (reminiscent of one part of a letterbox) that contains your info and probably the date or something too.

>>6464071

>>6477534
>wasting my precious hard drive space and computing power on that when I can both draw AND generate AI shit for future reference material on the side

>>6477539
?
That was only in response to that guy thinking digital will be impossible to verify as legitimate or whatever

>>6464254
Try to create at least somewhat passable AI art by "just pressing a button", faggot. You have no idea what you are talking about.