This is not about any specific case. It’s just a theoretical scenario that popped into my mind.
For context, in many places is required to label AI generated content as such, in other places is not required but it is considered good etiquette.
But imagine the following, an artist is going to make an image. Normal first step is search for references online, and then do the drawing taking reference from those. But this artists cannot found proper references online or maybe the artist want to experiment, and the artist decide to use a diffusion model to generate a bunch of AI images for reference. Then the artist procedes to draw the image taking the AI images as references.
The picture is 100% handmade, each line was manually drawn. But AI was used in the process of making this image. Should it have some kind of “AI warning label”?
What do you think?
No, though I think the right thing for the artist would be to disclose that the references were ai.
Artists draw from reference all the time, regardless of whether the references are random google image search results, or photos they have taken themselves. Generally we have never expected artists to share exactly what references were used, because it’s simply part of the drawing process.
If those references happen to be AI, what does that change?
It just gives the audience a clearer picture of the artist’s process. I’m not saying artists (and btw I’m an artist) need to disclose every piece of reference they use for everything, every time. However many artists do share their process, and the way in which reference is used can vary greatly. Many artists use reference to practically copy the subject, others just use reference to understand the subject and then create something completely different. Or in a completely different pose.
As someone consuming art, I would appreciate knowing what type of mastery and skills the artist has- did they envision this in their minds? How much? What inspired them? Is this an accident or deliberate? Etc. This may be irrelevant to some people, but many at some point want to understand how the artist thinks and feels.
Before AI it would have been obvious that if the subject is not realistic and not found elsewhere then it has to be the artist’s imagination, or an accident. Now an artist could be copying AI instead and you would never know.
I find that artists that tend to copy their references with high fidelity (such as many wildlife painters or illustrators, or personal portraits) are also among those disclosing their references the most. This makes the audience appreciate the artists’ skills more. You can see the difference between the original and the result whereas you would otherwise have to guess.