Here’s another example of artificial intelligence creating original images:
This was created by using the following prompt to the AI: Gothic Victorian London with harmonic colors created by subtle brush strokes.
This was created using Hotpot.ai, which provides online creation of images via artificial intelligence. The site offers some rudimentary images at no charge, but if you want to get faster results and more detail, you’ll need to pay them some money.
Here’s a link to a variety of AI images on the Hotpot.ai website.
Hmm. Maybe a way to get art for original book covers. IF the user of the program owns the resulting art outright, or IF the company is willing to license it for that use. Interesting, PG.
If that’s your interest you may want to look at this more grounded use of faux AI:
https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/ai-arrives-for-serious-photo-editing-not-just-smartphone-snapshots/
Thanks, Felix. I was thinking more of illustrations rather than photos. Most fiction book covers are based on illustrations.
Current “AI” is too dumb to know the difference. 😀
Of course. But the AI in the OP is creating an illustration, not a photograph. The purpose of the one to which you referred is to modify photographs.
If they work well and are priced right, some of hotpot.ai’s products look interesting.
I tried a few images, and wasn’t impressed by the results. Maybe I could spend hours tweaking the parameters and get something better.
In summary, remember that AI isn’t intelligent – it’s statistical interpolation, and doesn’t extrapolate, or truly create.
Would the result be copyright at all?
If not, how much postprocessing by a human would be needed?
I’m not interested enough to look at the moment, but probably the terms of service at hotpot.ai address copyright. I suspect how much postprocessing is necessary would be up to the human and what s/he saw as the finished product.
Eh, The US Copyright Office has once again rejected the copyright registration of an AI-generated artwork.
https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2022/02/us-copyright-office-refuses-to-register.html
Not unlike the case of the monkey selfie copyright situation:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute
In both cases if the “creator” isn’t human there is no valid copyright to fight over. Not even the owner or user of any device doing the “sweat of the brow”.
(At least until the BPHs lobby the government to let their robot slave output be deemed “work for hire”).
Works for me.