I am seeing more and more AI work here but it is not being mentioned that it was an AI that helped create the pieces. I have been creating work in a few different AI programs and they all require you to mention that it was created using help from an AI, in fact many other sites such as Adobe stock require you to mention it as well. With AI taking over a lot of creative work, is there a way that we can start mentioning it here. There are still a lot of copyright court cases going on and as a way to protect anyone who is using it commercially, it is best to mention it. I also say this because I am friends with Kris Kashtanova who owns the first copyrighted graphic novel that was created with the help of AI and if you have followed the drama she has had to go through with the copyright offices, you need to mention it as well. Sites such as Creative Fabrica, Design Bundles, The Hungry JPEG and Creative Marketplace also require it.
Since many of us pay for the commercial license here, I just want us all to be protected. Thank you for your help with this.
You're not exactly correct about CF Spark, Creative Fabrica's AI. A bit more information about how CF Spark works: CF Spark gives ownership of the final product to the creator, not to Creative Fabrica itself. Those who download other people's creations on Creative Fabrica are indeed limited to the CF TOS and licensing, whereas the creator can use them however they wish because they are not bound by the CF license.
Hi Megan, thanks for bringing this up! Obviously AI tools are a hot topic right now, and things have been developing very quickly. I agree this is an area we need to think through, form expectations around, and discuss with our community and our designers. It’s a big topic that’s clearly in flux, and something we want to have plenty of conversations about moving forward.
Before we get further into the discussion, I just want to say that I completely understand wanting to make sure you are safe to use any images we host here on DigitalScrapbook.com for commercial purposes, and that’s the main thing I want to address in my post right now.
From a usage standpoint, the nice thing about images created with the help of AI tools, is that they are actually probably safer to use than almost any other type of image. That’s because (as you point out) the US copyright office is arguing that computer-generated images may in fact be in the public domain--which would mean that anyone could rightfully use such images for any purpose at all.
But regardless of what sorts of images we are talking about, when it comes to DigitalScrapbook.com, we have always had a system in place to deal with the possibility of receiving a DMCA notice for any of the graphics on our site. Fortunately we’ve never had to deal with this, but of course the possibility of copyright infringement and a DMCA notice is something that any image distribution site has to be ready to handle--whether regarding computer generated art, or elsewise.
What happens at DigitalScrapbook.com is that if we ever receive a DMCA notice for anything uploaded here, we immediately unpublish the item, contact the designer to seek clarity on the issue, and send an email to every single account that ever downloaded that item from our site, letting them know that someone has questioned the rightful ownership of the image--and all of this is set up to happen automatically, with the click of a button.
Regarding attribution, one of the tricky things regarding AI tools is that some tools require that you credit them (as you mention), while others give full ownership of the output to the person who generated it (as Christina mentions). Of course tools that require credit must be mentioned. But I feel that it would be strange to try to “force” designers to disclose the tools they’ve used to generate images which they own the rights to. We could potentially ask designers to credit AI tools as a courtesy if that would help people feel better--but it’s also a little tricky to know where the line is; for example, what about images generated in Photoshop using a bunch of actions and AI-powered routines? (A question that will only become harder in the near future, as Photoshop continues to implement ever more powerful AI-driven algorithms under its hood, and dips its toes into more robust image generation.) All of this being said, we will definitely take a look at some of those other sites you mention (thanks for that!), to see what kinds of policies they have in place, and how they deal with this question.
Like I said, we want to keep the conversation open going forward. At the end of the day I’m most concerned with the central question you raise, which is: “can people feel safe using the images we host here at DigitalScrapbook.com, including for commercial purposes?” I feel that our DMCA response plan is really the most significant factor in that regard, because just like with any other website, it’s always possible that someone might upload an image here that they don’t have the rights to, whether intentionally, or by accident (they may not have understood that something they extracted, for instance, was copyrighted). But whatever the hypothetical cause might be (AI tools or otherwise), we are ready to deal with any disputes that might arise regarding any of our images--which includes keeping anyone who downloaded those images fully in the loop.
Anyway, thanks again for raising this topic! We’ll take a look at those sites that you mention to see what common policies are in place as we continue to think about these issues!
I actually wasn't referring to CF Spark. I was referring to items that are created using MidJourney, NightCafe, BlueFlower, etc. that are being offered on those sites. Since Midjourney, Stability AI, and DeviantArt in a current lawsuit, there is a lot of talk in the communities that talk about mentioning how the pieces are created with the 'help' of an AI. That is also the issue that stands with Kris's copyright that she received. She had to mention to the Copyright court how she used the AI as well as other software programs to help create her images. She since is dealing with the Copyright offices and has an attorney working with her to help build a community with better understanding of how to move forward, I am trusting what she is telling me.
I don't see how asking people to mention that the piece/item was created with the help of AI is any different than CU designers asking to be credited when we designers who use them - such as GS Creations, KimB, Miss Tina, The Urban Fairy, etc. I have seen many pieces here from those designers especially in the commons area. I have a reseller's license for a couple of designers that allow me not to credit them but I had to pay extra for it. But that is just me.
I'm confused, then, because you mentioned Creative Fabrica: "Sites such as Creative Fabrica, Design Bundles, The Hungry JPEG and Creative Marketplace also require it." That's why I responded with how CF Spark works. Unless you were referring to downloads from there in general? In which case, if you have a CF subscription, in their Subscription Full License Text it states, "No attribution is required." I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm simply relaying facts from CF's website, so other people know. However, they are more restrictive with their fonts, such as you can't create an alpha set using them.
I understand that AI is the latest thing and there is a lot of confusion and unknown things surrounding it and its future in designing. It's definitely worth talking about. Admittedly, I am completely unaware of Kris's copyright case, so I can't comment on that. Nowadays, I don't venture too often onto other sites besides this one. But, I don't see the need to give credit to AI, as long as the AI program doesn't require it. That's similar to giving credit to Photoshop or Paintshop Pro when designing products from scratch using those programs--no one does that, and it would be completely absurd to do so. Why should AI be any different? I guess that's something the courts may have to decide.
No need to be confused. Design Bundles isn't sure how to handle AI images yet even though they are downloadable. They are still working on how to do the licensing. It doesn't matter what the sites such as Creative Fabrica, etc. say in their license if you are breaking the TOU with the AI programs. Also, you are stating facts from a perspective of someone who is the 3rd party using the download from Creative Fabrica and those sites. I am talking from the perspective of the creator of the items selling on those sites mentioning the AI so those who are downloading it will know that is copyrighted because without stating it, according to the Copyright Office, it is not.
Currently, copyrighting work created using an AI program is not copyrightable completely. From my friend's case, she had to explain to the copyright office her entire process using the AI as well as Photoshop and other programs, such as Gigapixel since the AI doesn't produce 300dpi images but 72ppi. Here is information on my friend's work - https://research.aimultiple.com/generative-ai-copyright/
Here is info on the law - The rise of generative AI has also raised questions about the copyrightability of works created with an AI program. As interpreted by the Copyright Office, US copyright law requires human authorship. While the office won't register a work created solely by AI, it will register works created with assistance from AI. Nov 18, 2022
Again, I don't see why it is so hard to just say that an AI helped. It is not similar to giving credit to Photoshop or Paintshop Pro. It would actually be similar to giving credit to a designer - such as those here whom we get their items and use for whatever purpose commercially. The challenge if we use something here commercially that isn't attributed to the AI and someone challenges us if we try to sell something, then we personally are responsible for any costs associated and I am just wanting to keep everyone safe at the moment. Just because the software says you own the rights, the Copyright Office doesn't. There is potentially a case where an person created some work in Stable Diffusion and used the designer's name they wanted their piece to look and style. The original artist saw the creations and how similar they were to her work and she brought it up in the group and was talking about suing the individual who created derivates of their work from the use of the name and 'style' in the prompt. Even though the pieces were never created by the original artist they are so closely similar you would have never known someone else created it in an AI. I think may end up happening in the near future from some artists out there who want their money from derivate works.
And we don't know if someone has a paid membership or not. You can still produce work without a membership which if you try to sell commercially is against the TOU for at least Midjourney. In fact Midjourney did just change their TOU recently because of a situation where someone was using other people's prompts in the free area and started selling their work on Adobe Stock and other people filed complaints. There are many groups on Facebook for these and many of us in these groups are trying to do our best to make sure we aren't sued, including those who own NightCafe and MidJourney. I am still learning about Blue Flower.
I understand where everyone is coming from but at the same time I don't because it is not hard to mention that it was created using an AI. Give credit where it is due, it feels like cheating/lying when you don't. In the future hopefully this changes, but for now this is the law.
Again, these are my thoughts on this because of everything I know and my law background. I say this just to protect everyone until the law is clear on it that's all.
I am not speaking from a 3rd party user. I'm speaking from a creator's perspective about CF Spark, as mentioned in my original reply. All ownership goes to the creator, not any entity or CF itself. I directly spoke with CF customer service for clarification when they initially launched CF Spark. Neither CF Spark nor CF holds ownership to anything created by CF Spark. Again, the creator can do whatever they like with it. Yes, it gets published on CF and users who download CF Spark creations on CF are subjected to CF's TOU and licensing, but the creator is not. I can do whatever I want with the product outside of CF: I can sell it for PU or CU, offer it as a freebie, create my own license for it, etc. I'd much rather go by what customer service explained to me.
Without the human component, AI wouldn't work at all, same with PS, PSP, and other programs. You have to feed it prompts in order to create something, which is indeed similar to clicking on various functions/tools or whatever in PS and PSP. Essentially, you are feeding prompts to PS, telling it what to do. When you click on a style, you are prompting PS to add all of that style's attributes to that specific layer. Either way, the human is the maestro, not the computer program.
You are certainly free to give credit to AI. That is your personal choice, and I would never deny you of that. If the AI program doesn't require it, nothing can force a person to give credit to it. That is their personal choice to make...not yours, not mine, not anyone else's but theirs.
I dug a little deeper about your friend's comic book. I actually have heard of it before, but I didn't recall your friend's name, meaning I know about the comic book case. I believe cases like hers are going to force Congress to intervene and update laws currently on the books. Copyrights, in general, haven't been revised since 1976, nearly 50 years ago. lol It's definitely time to update them given technological advances. As the laws regarding AI are clearly riddled with a lot of confusion and unknowns, it's best to go by whatever the AI program's TOU and licensing states. Everything is up in the air until Congress works out these issues and creates new laws regarding AI artwork.
I think I’m going to close this thread now, since we’re kind of rehashing things at this point, and in danger of descending into an unproductive conversation. The thread has been open for a few days, but at this point no one else has weighed in.
If anyone wants to express additional thoughts or opinions on this topic, please get in touch with us directly via our contact form. We definitely want to hear everyone’s perspectives, but we also want to keep the conversation productive. (Megan: I’m going to be sending you an email directly, so that I can continue to better understand your concerns.)
Thanks again Megan for bringing up this important topic. As I said at the beginning, this is something we need to think through and form expectations around based on evolving technologies and considerations. At the end of the day we want to find the best possible solution for our community, as well as for our designers.
For now I’m going to be doing additional research on the various licenses governing the output of different AI tools, and the different policies that various other graphic download sites have in place. I'm also going to discuss this issue with our designers, and make sure that they are aware of the TOUs for whatever tools they are using, and that they have thought through concerns like not using AI tools to copy another artist's work too closely.
One concern I have about having a one-size-fits-all policy for crediting AI is that there are a lot of different ways that AI output can be used. Some artists are generating and distributing work by computers “as is” (though they may spend lots of time tinkering with prompts), where others are spending time and energy to touch up the work, and yet others are using AI elements “remixed” with their own illustrations and drawings. (And on the far extreme, as I mentioned earlier, it’s possible to create an image in Photoshop that involves the computer doing most of the work. Does such an image, then, need to be credited to AI?) I think this is a complex issue that deserves careful thought and consideration, and I feel that crediting every maner of AI assistance in the same way is probably not the right path.
I’m also hesitant to create a universal policy at DigitalScrapbook.com to try to govern this, when the various AI tools themselves have their own TOUs governing how output can and can’t be used, and whether credit is required or not. It goes without saying that credit needs to be given when required by the TOU of the tool you are using, but what about if it is not required? Megan mentions that crediting AI is similar to crediting a designer whose designs you use to create something--but we don’t require people to do this if they have a license that permits them to use those designs without credit. Which then raises the question of why they should have to credit AI if they likewise have a license that allows them to use and distribute the AI output without credit? We have limited resources, and I’m not sure if this is something we should attempt to govern at a local level. Generally, on our site, we just ask that people respect whatever TOUs they are bound by, and play by the rules.
Finally, to reiterate regarding the question of whether it’s “safe” to use images that might have been generated by AI, I don’t see this as a particularly new kind of question. It’s possible for someone to use AI tools to copy another person’s work too closely--but it’s also possible for people to do that without AI tools. In either case, designers need to be responsible and aware, and in either case it’s important for sites like ours to have plans in place in case someone disputes ownership of an image--plans which we do have in place at DigitalScrapbook.com (which, as I mentioned previously, involves contacting every user who downloaded the disputed image, to let them know).
At the end of the day this is a super complex topic that is evolving quickly. We want to do additional research and be ready to make changes as needed, and we are very open to feedback from our community as we move forward. Again, if you have thoughts or concerns, please contact us via our contact form.