Technology

Does Photoshop or any digital art not count? I don’t have to have the skill to draw a perfect circle?

Did you read what I said or just start typing the moment you saw brushstroke?

"When you draw a art, whether paint or digital, you're the one doing each and every brushstroke, deciding each and every detail as you draw."

Of course digital art counts. While there are more tools for digital artists, ultimately they're still the ones drawing the art.

So we should artificially handicap the art at the expense of the lesser abled?

You could say this for literally anything gate-kept by requiring decent skill.

If you want to profit from a creative work you should have to make that work yourself. It's not difficult.

Same as clicking a button on a camera at something that just happens to be beautiful. Does it matter if someone next to me is using the same ISO or exposure?

Is this meant to be your gotcha?

The fact that two people chose to photograph the same thing with the same settings doesn't actually matter in my argument because each person still made the creative decisions behind their photographs. Each one chose those settings, even if they chose the same ones.

You can have art classes full of people painting the same thing, but they're all still their own works.

It's the fact that those people did the work and made the creative decisions that matters, not the what they chose to point that creativity at.

I don’t have to realize the complexity of lighting, shaders, or materials to render a scene in Unreal. I get to utilize the processes that pioneers before me discovered.

Guess what, that's why developers have to acknowledge Epic and their engine in any games they male with it, and why they have to pay royalties to Epic (over a certain amount of sales) - because the engine was their art!

You may not need to understand the exact lighting, shaders, etc. required to render the game, but you still made the creative decision to as to where light sources would be.

Just because the engine has AI powered tools, doesn't mean the engine just makes the game for you, you have to build it. The reason you even own the game is because you made those creative decisions.

If the AI tools just made the game, you wouldn't own it because you didn't make the game, you just provided the inspiration. At best you can claim copyright over that inspiration.

The person who wrote the Witcher books doesn't own the Witcher games, CD Projekt Red does, because they made the game.

The person that wrote the Metro series doesn't own the Metro games, 4A Games does, because they made the game.

Both pay royalties to their respective inspirations, because those inspirations are the works the writers own, not the derivative works. Just in the same way the developers don't now own the works they derived their games from.

I understand the frustrations, but this seems stifling in the same way that cotton-gin-phobes, typewriter-phobes, and computer-phobes wpuld have stifled the ability of the average joe to accomplish something.

No offence, but the fact that you're making those comparisons shows you clearly do not.

You're can act like I'm out here arguing against the democratisation of art, but that's not what I'm arguing against.

If you want to use an art AI to make you some cool art, go ahead and do that.

You want to use AI art as the basis of a creation you want to make, sure.

But to claim an AI art piece as your own and to then claim copyright over it as though you made it is wrong. That is what I'm arguing against.

AI art is art, but in its raw form, it isn't anybody's to own because nobody made it, AI did.