zlacker

Not safe for work, but one example I saw going around:

https://twitter.com/ebkim00/status/1579485164442648577

Not sure if this was fed the original image as an input or not.

Also seen a couple cases where people explicitly trained a network to imitate an artist's work, like the deceased Kim Jung Gi.

>>keving+(OP)
It's really interesting. I suspect the face was inpainted in, or this was a "img2img".

I think over time we are going to see the following:

- If you take say a star wars poster, and inpaint in a trained face over luke's, and sell that to people as a service, you will probably be approached for copyright and trademark infringement.

- If you are doing the above with a satirical take, you might be able to claim fair use.

- If you are using AI as a "collage generator" to smash together a ton of prompts into a "unique" piece, you may be safe from infringement but you are taking a risk as you don't know what % of source material your new work contains. I'd like to imagine if you inpaint in say 20 details with various sub-prompts that you are getting "safer".

>>lbotos+D1
Features outside the face is lost/changed from original on the right, so can’t be face inpainting. Unlikely to be style transfers, because some body parts are moved. Most plausibly this was generated.

So much for “generation” - it seems as if these models are just overfitting on extremely small subset of input data that it did not utterly failed to train on, almost that there could be geniuses who would be able to directly generate weight data from said images without all the gradient descent thing.

>>keving+(OP)
That's clearly lifting style, pose and general location but in each of those there are changes. Even for the original art we could find tons of examples of very similar poses and backgrounds because anime girl in a bathing suit on a beach background isn't that original of an image at the concept level. That pose also is a pretty well worn.

This is the problem of applying the idea of ownership to ideas and expression like art. Art in particular is a very remix and recombination driven field.

>>rtkwe+ql1
I think the key detail is to look at what happened in the bottom left - in the original drawing, there's dark blue (due to lighting) cloth filling the scene, but the network has instead generated oddly-hued water there, even though on the right side there's sand from the beach shore. There's seemingly no geometric representation driving the AI so it ended up turning clothing into mystery ocean water when synthesizing an image that (for whatever reason) looked like the original one. It's an interesting error to me because it only looks Wrong once you notice the sand on the right.