While I am quite excited about the Walton Goggins-infused Amazon Fallout series, the show debuted some promo art for the project ahead of official stills or footage and…it appears to be AI generated.

  • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    130
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    My guess is that AI’s first big victim for graphic design will be stock art. Previously, crap like that background asset would just be stock purchased from Getty or Adobe stock. Now it can be generated.

    I’m already starting to use it instead of paying for bullshit licenses.

    • coffeebiscuit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Graphic designers aren’t the first. Automation ended a lot of jobs for decades. Ai is just a form of automation.

    • jimmux@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They will be generating it themselves soon enough. I contributed some stock photos in the past. They recently sent me info about their new contribution pipeline, for content that may not pass the usual quality threshold, but will help train the models. If they do it right, who knows, maybe they can get better results worth paying for.

    • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The fun part here though is they dont have copyright on that art. If any of the “stock AI footage” becomes iconic, its public domain.

      Dicey spot for a studio to be in, but it does save some bucks, so they are plowing ahead.

      • Balios@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Neither do they have copyright of the stock art they used to purchase. The complete piece, however, including pip boy, is not AI generated. Someone put this together, put effort into it, which easily qualifies it for copyright protection, even if the background is AI generated instead of bought stock art.

      • AEsheron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you’re talking about that recent legal case, look again. The artist made the claim that the AI was the sole author, but that he should own the IP. I think the vast majority of people would claim that, in it’s current state, the AI is a digital tool an author uses to make art. The recent ruling just reconfirm that A machines aren’t people, and B you can’t just own another author’s work.