I generally consider “OC” to mean specifically that it’s original - you didn’t get it from someplace else, so broadly yes if you’re the one who had it generated.
But if it’s a community for art or photography generally, I don’t think AI art belongs there - the skills and talent required are just too different. I love AI art communities, I just think it’s a separate thing.
No
The way you put original content in quotes is weird.
OC as an acronym typically just means something that someone made. In this sense, yeah, if you make something with AI then it’s "your OC’.
Original content used as the words generally means something slightly different and it’s more debatable.
Having used AI art tools there is more creativity involved than people think. When you’re just generating them, sure, there’s less creativity than traditional digital art, of course, but it is not a wholly uncreative process. Take in-painting, you can selectively generate in just some portions of the image. Or sketch and then generate based off of that.
All that said though I don’t think “creativity” is necessary for something to be considered OC. It just needs to have been made by them.
Would you call fan art of well known characters OC? I would.
That’s an interesting question. I haven’t spent very much time thinking about how to define AI art. My immediate thought is that AI art can be OC, but it should also be labeled as such. It’s important to know if a person created the content vs prompting an AI to generate the content. The closest example I can think of is asking someone to paint something for you instead of painting it yourself.
Steam bans games that contain such AI content because they are not near OC. Except you train the AI on only your own Copyrighted Images, which mid journey and various other AI aren’t. They are all trained on copyrighted images without asking.
No, it is it’s own designation. It’s halfway between OC and a repost.
Not when it copies the art style from real artists
What about humans who do original work in the style of someone else? Monet is usually credited with creating the first impressionist work, but does that mean we should discount the impressionist paintings of Renoir and Degaus?
Yes
I do, yes.
Sure. It’s art just like many digital tool assisted products came before it. Is it always difficult art to make ? No but who cares. It’s OC as long as the source of this AI art is the person posting.
As someone who has been trying to get my vision for a piece to fruition using AI for months…I absolutely think AI is OC. The argument that it references existing work cracks me up because all of art history is derivatives of what has come before. I do think there is “low effort” pieces, but you get that in other mediums as well such as photography. Also…need I mention Duchamp and the urinal?
It can be. There’s a lot of human controlled variables involved. ai is a medium for art and can generate stuff never before possible on this planet. Of course that depends on how it’s used. If you train a mode to copy an artist that’s obviously no bueno. If you train a model to generate nightmare fuel that can create videos from detailed prompts then go ahead
It’s new, but not original. With the recent influx of AI content that doesn’t seem to be slowing down, I’d say we should make a new designation of GC - generated content.
If anything it’s credit goes to the AI generator or the company that produced the AI generator, not the person who asked it to create something. Unless they only used it for a backbone and then adjusted and detailed it from there.
No. Large Language Models only regurgitate what they’ve been fed.
