I would like to use the image I created for a book cover and sell it, would that be okay? Or would that be illegal?
Yes, but it will make your book look trashy.
Dangerous question to ask on Lemmy with a strong anti-AI “in any form” presence
Yea it would be ok, no it won’t be illegal, though it might not be copyrightable
Is your audience the average joe? They probably won’t even notice tbh
Ai art makes a book look like a machine wrote it, unfortunately. Getting art from a living person kinda ups the sincerity, I think.
i once wanted to read a book, and upon closer inspection saw it was ai generated cover. I put it down, and left. it just doesnt feel real i guess. so even if legal, i wouldnt recommend it. just snap some picture remotely related and put some Text and color filters over it.
Wow, so you literally never learned to not judge a book by its cover? That is some admirable honestly, a really brave confession.
I also take idioms literally, I read the entire book right there before deciding whether to buy it. Obviously you can’t trust how they chose to present the book so you need to read it to know if it’s worth reading.
I mean, judging by a title, a synopsis, or a review would all be a better method than the cover art.
well, a books cover can tell you a LOT, Like the time it was written in, which is one of the core factors when i choose a book. Also regarding people, I used to be tolerant and excpect nothing, but it got me nowhere so now I openly do my silent judging, and I’m mostly right with my first impressions.
They say with wine there’s an opposite correlation, the worse the label, the better the wine. I’m not sure I agree with either. Anyway, no worries, I was just teasing a bit.
I agree. I avoid any AI gen smell. It has the hallmarks of being subpar. Any images, however esoteric, would be much better.
You could, but I wouldn’t buy it. I want art that someone sweated, swore and agonised over.
You could, but I wouldn’t buy it.
If you noticed…
I demand that my books are written by hand, with a quill pen, by candlelight. I need to know that some effort went into the creative process.
And the author should be syphilitic and working in a drafty garret, at the very least.
I wouldn’t buy that book
So You will literally judge a book, by it’s cover.
Well duh, that’s why publishers use cover art
That’s what the cover is for. The cover is your first impression of a book.
I’m not judging the book by its cover, rather the author.
BRB calling the fire department for this burn.
If the author is ok with profiting off of unpaid labor then I don’t care to read what they have to say
Why not pay a local artist to make you a cover?
Skip the whole moral/legal hurdle and help support someone being affected by AIs takeover. I’m sure you can come to a reasonable agreement.
Or put together one yourself. A photo and some filters; or a stylized painting tool.
Not illegal, just unethical. You effectively stole people’s art and are profitting off of it. Considering AI is being used to take jobs from artists and writers by stealing their work, you are a scab
And my friend, as an artist selling your work, you could also think about this as an opportunity to connect with another artist and work together. Commission a work for your cover from a small artist, credit them prominently. They will share it with their community, you will share it with yours. Lift others up and be uplifted in turn
How is it unethical for a machine to source many images and combine it into one different image, but when DJs and music producers sample multiple different songs and combine them into something different, it’s not? For the record, I’m against both, but just wondering why there’s so much blowback to this, but not when it happens with music.
Musicians pay royalties when they use samples. AI companies don’t pay artists for their work.
As someone else said, they pay royalties. Secondly, because they are not costing musicians their jobs. DJs aren’t stealing artists jobs, music labels aren’t dropping musicians for DJs, and DJs are at least putting some level of effort to create something (which I will admit is debatable and the weakest argument).
It may vary depending on your jurisdiction. Under US copyright law, I believe that generated images are not copyrightable, so you wouldn’t have any protections from anyone copying your cover, but I doubt that’s a big concern. The model or service that you use may also have various terms in their license that restrict what you are allowed to do with the generated images. Finally, you also need to make sure that your image isn’t violating someone else’s copyright. If you generate an image that is too similar to an existing image, that could be problematic.
Okay, yes, I don’t care if someone uses the image afterwards, and I’m not trying to copy someone else’s work either…so the big if for me is…
“is terms in their license that restrict what you are allowed to do with the generated images.”
I’m not trying to copy someone else’s work either
ah i have bad news for you on how all current ai generation systems work
I have bad news for you, that’s how humans work too. They get trained on how to draw/paint/etc. on copyrighted material, then make derivatives.
Yes but ai doesn’t add anything new. The artists in our history we value are often valued because they challenged artistic conventions. An LLM literally cannot do this.
The difference is that a human inputs their labor into their art, therefore adding value. When a machine takes hundreds of peoples labor and sells it without compensation it is exploitative but when I view hundreds of peoples labor, learn from it and add my own, I am participating in a valuable human tradition.
Be that as it may, I’ve seen a lot of art and made some myself, but recreating a Sistine Chapel is not in within my reach for the foreseeable future.
It’s not like Michelangelo did it without significant training.
“Among them was Domenico Ghirlandaio, a master in fresco painting, perspective, figure drawing and portraiture who had the largest workshop in Florence.[16] In 1488, at the age of 13, Michelangelo was apprenticed to Ghirlandaio.” -From Wikipedia
He didn’t paint the chapel until 20 years later.
Fair enough!
Its legal but unethical. If you do this you are profiting off of unpaid labor.
Stolen labor from a plagiarism machine, but even in terms of pure self interest I’d assume an AI cover means AI content.
I don’t think it would be illegal as long as a similar human-created work would be legal (i.e., it doesn’t use trademarked characters or otherwise infringe on other works). But your publisher and/or readers might object.
Just pay an artist in “exposure” lol
I’m using perchance.org
