Is it fair, bros?
>>7163533But he flipped it.
photographers are not artists and will never becope, sneethe, etc I don't carepick up a pencil
>>7163533Copying photographs is the lowest form of art so yeah
>AI does it>nothing happenshumiliation ritual
>>7163545i think doing it is fine if you have construction skills and can make something on your own, unlike those hyperrealistfags that work like printers that boomers like to post on facebook
>paint a photograph>get sued>photograph a painting>post it on your social media account>nothing????
>>7163533>because without knowing that I can own what I create & make a living off it - I could never have chose this path for my life.hmm. then you don't enjoy the process and don't do it for your soul. you were just doing it for money. she's not an artist, medium irrelevant.
Did he try to sell the painting?
>>7163570he used it in contest and won something
>>7163571If it was in consent why was he sued?
>>7163533>chinks
>>7163574where do you see consent from the photographer? maybe you don't know the word?
>>7163541>108 years of seething
>>7163533This is fair, copyright laws must become a lot harsher, it’s the only way for us artists to survive without having to find a real job. Of course this must be true only if it benefits me personally, for example if doujinshi became illegal I would be against it.
>>7163577you're the one that brought up consent, the photographer claims consent from the artist was needed, are you just plain fucking retarded?
>>7163568Wagecucks be like: >NOOOO YOU MUST WORK IN THE CAGIE TOO!! YOU CANT JUST LIVE OFF DRAWING ALL DAY!!!
>>7163568I will never understand why /ic/ romanticizes being a starving artist. You can enjoy the process and make money the two aren't mutually exclusive
>>7163645It's either non-artist or just retarded hobbyist.
>>7163533Don't worry I'm sure the new multi million dollar AI copyright algorithms the corpos are investing in to monitor the internet ecosystem will streamline the process of litigation and take downs so (you) can focus on more productive things in life.
>>7163645it's always bitter wagies or tech niggers who think maintaining Goldstein's network infrastructure makes them essential workers lmao
>>7163584>>7163571look retard, contest is not consent, you brain rot fucking nigger cuck.
>>7163537true fpbp
>>7163581Outrageously based
>>7163663>I'm sure the new multi million dollar AIThe bit at the end of OP's image seems to be a shot at AI, at least to me anyway.
>>7163805It's a step forward, I guess. But with how long the legal process took here I bet it's going to be just as tedious whenever big AI copyright cases eventually do pop up
>>7163533An asian won, so yes it is.
>>7163533Based, retarded reference fags are fucking cancer. At least add your own twist to it, dumb fuck, not just fucking copy it 1:1
But if he were to paint that bitch in the exact same pose from life, he would be fine.
>>7163533Shut up Jeff. You lost.
yea, referencing stuff in a non transformative way should only be done for practice
>>7163805>>7163815This has always applied to AI, but the problem is AI produces unique results.
copyright is incredibly cringe
>>7163581get in the cage wagie
>>7163955>the problemnot a problem at all, its a good thing actually
>>7163533realism copy "artists" are fucking hacks. Only normies eat up their uninspired garbage. They should be sued more often, maybe it'll finally kill this trend
>>7163581>doujinshi became illegalDo you mean doujinshi fan work of another IP not self-public original comic?if the original author doesn't want it then it is already illegal.
>>7163533>chinks copies everything>"haha lol just chyna things" >someone else copies chinks >"Lawyer up white man" Fucking chinks.
>>7163568she was doing fashion photography, of course it was for money. imo the issue was asian narcissism. the painting being such a copy was lame
>>7163533aesthetic photo of an Asian woman in aggressive makeup, bare shoulders, from behind, looking back
>>7164271The thief fears theft.
>>7163815>Like no, it was never ok to use works without consent, period.It's always good when it benefits me, otherwise it's bad.That photo, very original. Absolutely based on nothing. Made absolutely whole-cloth. A work of pure one-in-a-millennium genius.
>>7164428>aggressivemost likely a noise token, if anything it probably contributed something to her face. you could take it out.
bump
>>7163533It is, and I'm glad we now have a precedent like this.
reminder that this board hosts 1.1TB of stolen content for education. You can't support that and support overreaching copyright when it potentially hurts your income.
Based photographers btfoing imaginationlets/priced out plebs who cannot afford models once again.
>>7167629>You can't support that and support overreaching copyright when it potentially hurts your income.I can and do.
>>7167629>1.1TB of stolen content>he pretends like that's a lotlol
>>7163533Ooooh I remember that hack loser Jeff Dieschburg, a real piece of shit who thinks it's okay to steal. Screw that guy.
>>7163645those are the people who don't actually draw
>>7163545reason why teachers in the good times always insisted on making your own homework and not stealing from others, but the people are retarded and lazy with no love for what they do, and prefer shortcuts through theft.
>>7163533>hire a pretty model>hire a makeup artist>hire a fashion designer>hire a hair artist>setup the most basic of lighting>take credit for all of it.
>>7163568If I get paid for it as if it were a job, I can do it all day long.Fuck photographers, but the logic itself applies. The renaissance greats were paid for their work, had comissions and they would not have been able to invest as much time into art if it weren't for paying patrons
>>7163904I use a lot of photo reference for my work. First I'll make a rough sketch of what I want and then I search for all the reference I'll need for it. I'll try to find reference for the hair, different parts of the face, something close to the pose, different references for lighting, reference for anatomy, reference for clothing and lighting, reference for props like flowers and stuff. I can use over 20 photos for a single painting.I just combine it all in my head and use it to make a final painting. There are ways to use other peoples photos as reference without copying directly. Usually when I'm done with a piece you could never tell what photos I actually used I change them so much.
>>7163955>AI produces unique results.fucking kek. There are hundreds of examples of AI just copying someone else's painting by barely changing anything because it didn't have enough data in the model to create something on it's own. It's just proof that AI steals from actual artist and wouldn't work if they didn't.
>>7163533The painting is objectively superior to the photograph and therefore he should win
>>7163533Artist? He's a photographer and he thinks he is an artist? Not only that, but he says he "Creates" and lives off from that?Fuck that. Why are people like that allowed to live? He should be picking rice in a field, the fucker does jackshit and now has put an innocent man in prison, the guy probably had other activities other than painting that now he can't do. Artists are scum.
Reminds me I went to a photography studio the other day to get a portrait for a job application. The dumbfuck photographer told me to sit there and took the picture as if it were some passport shit. Then I told him to retake it, i told him the specifications and the idiot got angry and didn't want to refund, because he saw himself as an "artist" and couldn't be wrong. Fuck him. Hate people like that are allowed to exist under this shitty capitalism.
You shouldn't be able to copyright a photo that doesn't make any sense. You didn't make shit
>>7163541Photography and art are two distinct disciplines, with some overlap, but photography still requires some amount of skills. An extreme example are wild-life photographers who spend many hours outside at once, still and silent.
>>7163546The issue I guess is it's literally the same pic, just painted. AI is really no different than copying a artists style and mixing it with you're own. Like all the sakimi copycats and all that
>>7164229i think there's difference between two, the internet hyper realists that just autistically print out the image and those who can actually construct the image and understand the way it works
>>7168932That’s not really true. A lot of non-photographers don’t realize how much professionals design the lighting, pick costumes, perspective, travel, make camera/lens choices, etc. Then there’s photo editing which has been done since the 19th century. It's part of why drawing copies of photographs is seen as unskilled. Because the photographer has made all of the artistic decisions already.
>>7168578Take your meds.
>>7163533> defending or pretending to defend deviantart tier plagiarismAnd this is how you know /ic/ has turned to trash
>>7170222these digits
>>7167929The key word is "hire". He paid a commission for their services, so yes, he gets credit for the photograph.
>>7171083I should "hire' a bunch of koreans to make a bunch of paintings for me and then just say I made them all.
