Following a campaign by users protesting the inclusion of AI work on the platform and concerns about work being scraped to train AI, Artstation has issued a statement to clarify its position.
On the subject of banning work created by AIs, they state that their content guidelines do not “prohibit the use of AI in the process of artwork being posted”, and that “the works on your portfolio should be work that you created and we encourage you to be transparent in the process. Please only publish work that either you own or that you have permission to publish”. They further clarify that they “don’t want to become a gatekeeper with site terms that stifle AI research and commercialization when it respects artists’ choices and copyright law”.
On the subject of artwork being scraped for training AIs, Artstation asserts that it “does not make any agreements with companies allowing them to scrape content on our website. Any use of ArtStation content that is not consistent with [Artstation’s] terms of service may be an infringement on the rights of ArtStation users.”
Of course, the rapid proliferation of AI is causing many companies to play catch-up and Artstation has confirmed that there are changes that need to be made. In future, they are proposing to allow users to add tags to choose to explicitly allow or disallow the use of their art for (1) training non-commercial AI research, and (2) training commercial AI. They will also be updating the ArtStation website’s Terms of Service to disallow the use of art by AI where the artist has chosen to disallow it although they don’t plan on adding either of the tags by default, in which case the use of the art by AI will be governed solely by copyright law rather than restrictions in their Terms of Service.
Read the full statement on the Artstation website.
my pro was renewed just recently. asked for my money back, got it.
the ai “art” discussion is frustrated and afraid artist on one side and bunch of ai idiots that dont know what art is displaying their massive dunning kruger syndrome.
but barring that however, the point of artstation was to be a meeting point of the industries and artists. cant wait for some ai bro to get a commission and cant fullfill the brief or respond to feedback.
It will be a shitshow. and they invited it.
Any artist that has spent even an hour with Midjourney or SD knows he’s not in any danger – they are just games, glorified Instagram filters. Yes you can create amazing images, true, even copying the style of some artist, but the level of control you have over these images is almost none. It’s like shooting on a range with accuracy of +- 1km – most of the shots don’t even land in your shooting range 🙂 And everyone who has worked a day in their life professionally for a client knows that control is everything. You actually alter your own workflow making it easier to introduce changes later, because there will always be changes. It’s absolutely impossible with an Ai and I don’t think it’s a technical limitation – how do you communicate to Ai that you like what you see but you just want to move the camera 5 steps to the right. But what scale is the world, what scale are you? So before you make that change you have instruct the Ai about the world it just created – and all this through written words. By the time you’ll be able to move the camera those 5steps reliably, you’ve already written a paragraph of text, most likely using some professional terms to keep it short. That’s were it stops being fun and starts being a chore – 99% of people are out at this point, and only the old artists using the new tool remain. Basically if the Ai images are enough for you and you’re happy with them and don’t need anything more – you were never my potential client anyway, so what do I care 😉
It is as you say. It needs ten minutes for an artist to find out that his/her job is not in danger yet. There is no fine control, and too much things are still not achievable. A ladybug for example. And this is what makes it worthless for quite a few jobs.
Well, for most of them. Concept artists and illustrators, where this fine control is not needed, might have a harder time in the future. So i do understand these kind of concerns. So yes, hate it. But please because of the right reasons. And not just because of a crazy wrong claim that “AI steals my artwork”. It does not. There is no copyright breach. The original material is never reused. And style cannot be copyrighted.
Well I’ve spend a month with MJ, I’m an artist and I see it as a danger to my income soure as well as my hobby. And as this protest showed Iam not the only one. It is really stupid to assume that none of protesters tested AI for themselves.
So you’re telling me you are able to imagine an image first in your head and then through countless prompt alterations create that same image in MJ? You’d be the first. From what I’ve seen every image created by the “artists” is a result of a lucky draw. How is it a danger to your income if no one using MJ can create precisely what the client asked for. The best they can hope for is get close to what the client asked – but from my experience, that’s like 30% of time spent on every project. Getting close is simple, but then the client revisions start and that is what takes the most time – and MJ isn’t able to incorporate even a single request from the client, unless the request is literally “can we try something else?”
I heard protest people claiming that AI comes with all the images and just pastes image parts over. I have heard protest people claiming a copyright breach because the style was used. Style cannot be patented. I have seen fake examples using the image to image method with low values and so nearly identical output as the proof how evil AI is and how it steals art. Claiming that the image was generated and not modified. So a plain lie. I heard protest people claiming that every AI user is a clueless moron that has no idea about art. I heard the claim that you just need to type in a few words and AI does the magic for you. But that’s simply not how it works.
So yes. Most of these protest people simply does not know what they talk about. It’s the smallest part that really tried it and knows about the limits. That’s at least what i have experienced so far. Ask any of these neo luddists at Artstation if they have ever tried what they fear. I doubt that you will find half a dozen who really did.
I find it great that you are part of the smaller base who really tried it. Know your enemy. And i have no problem that you then still disklike AI. But then i wonder how you still didn’t notice its biggest limit. It’s throwing a dice. You can come close, but there is nearly no way to satisfy a client with the desired result then. He wants 100%, not 80-90%.
Sure is there a danger. Every new tech brings it. But also a big chance. New tech has always brought new jobs, not just removed old ones.
You shouldn’t post about legal matters you know nothing about sir/madam
Ah yes because clients never go for the cheaper option and always want the best possible result and won’t shy away from paying artist what they’re worth.
And for the record the protest is not about getting rid of AI it’s about making sure artists work is not being scraped without their consent especially for models that make money of it.
Secondly AI generated images have no place on ArtStation.
It’s a portfolio website for people who look for work and recruiters who look for talent.
AI images muddle the whole thing.
We know AI is not gonna go away but we need to put guidelines and rules in place that protect Artists and their work.
It’s already being done for the music industry so why not visual arts?
Of course is AI a competitor. It is a tool that speeds up the workflow dramatically. Minutes instead of weeks and month in best case. But it will and cannot not replace everything. Because of its technical limits that does not allow further refinement after a certain point. You cannot rotate the camera, there is none.
Just curious, based at what law do you want to forbid AI to look at images and to learn from it while humans are still allowed to do so? This point is still not clear to me. What i notice is the ongoing witchhunt, while i am still stuck in the question where the witch is …
i agree
Finally somebody with common sense. Friends, it is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. One more tool in the belt. I don’t want to miss it anymore.
Waiting for the next more interesting article:
“AI responds to protests about AI”…
Hi – yes it’s just a tool… but since you asked for balanced reporting from AI, I went to ChatGPT and asked it to write a Buzzfeed article pro-generated images. Here is the AI response that I’m sure lots of non-artists buy into.
“You won’t believe the amazing benefits AI-generated art is bringing to the Art Station community!”
“From boosting creativity to increasing accessibility, AI-generated art is changing the game for artists and art lovers alike. From mesmerizing digital paintings to thought-provoking installations, the possibilities for AI-generated art are endless.
“Not only is AI-generated art pushing the boundaries of traditional art forms, but it’s also making art more accessible to people from all walks of life. By democratizing the art-making process, AI is giving more people the opportunity to experience the joy and creativity of creating art.
“So don’t believe the naysayers – AI-generated art is here to stay, and it’s bringing nothing but positive changes to the Art Station community. Get ready to be blown away by the incredible works of art being created by AI artists – you won’t be disappointed!”
Once the novelty of ‘hey that’s clever’ wears off AI art tends to look unrefined and bland. A bit like IKEA furniture, Costa coffee, and that AI marketing soundbite. ‘Wow!’ to ‘meh…’ in a few months, guaranteed.
In its current state it is not stealing your job more than a pinterest board steals your job.
AI will never take you the pleasure to create.
Who are you to tell artists if their images should be used or not ??? An what is this great purpose of this technology Income of big tech??? You’re pathetic big tech cultists
Give it two more years and probably will be able to adjust itself.
The comments here are just extraordinarily naive. This is beyond burying your head in the sands.
Ai WILL replace the vast majority of visual artists. It will be able, very soon, to generate 3D as well, adjust all sorts of details ( from the choice of angles to the subtleties of color) to the slightest whims of the “client”. And it will happen in our lifetime. It is evolving with exponential speed, not linear.
The same thing happened for musicians ( in a different way) in less than few decades, where an entire middle-class of musicians ( not rich, but generating enough to be able to sustain their livelihood) has been eradicated by piracy tools ( enabled by people like Daniel Ek, later founder of Spotify), then streaming services ( like ..surprise ! Spotify). Today, it’s “winner takes all”, or poverty, you choose. Very little in between.
Now Spotify has been filling their playlists with artificially created “artists” to keep as much revenue as possible to themselves ( there are numerous articles about it if you haven’t heard of it).
The technocrat overlords of Silicon Valley have always considered artists as serfs at best, or a nuisance most of the time. Digital Serfdom is here. It won’t be long before OpenAI or other rich AI startups buys Artstation or any other similar market , solving the “complaining serfs” issue.
Artists will be allowed to entertain themsleves in believing they can make a living from their art, while most of the market will be flooded by the company owner’s own AI generated material ( including art tailored to the specific needs of clients).
It is going to happen with absolute certainty, for a simple reason : people will allow it to happen. One only needs to look at the naive reactions here , the complete denying of the reality that is taking shape in front of them.
I definitely don’t burry my head in the sand. I simply have another take at it, and see the chance.
And as one being affected, the musicians are not killed by AI, but by streaming. Nobody buys cd’s or records anymore. And streaming pays the artists lousy to say the least. But that’s what people demands nowadays. They don’t want to pay for every little song anymore. I’m not different. So what right do i have to moan?
The only constant in life is the permanent change. So you either you dance with the devil and adopt. Or you simply die out like a dodo bird. Fittest survives. Find your niche 🙂
« So you either you dance with the devil and adopt. Or you simply die out like a dodo bird. Fittest survives. Find your niche »
There is no such thing as the Devil. Or superhuman forces from another world. I assure you that the people you call the Devil have absolutely no superhuman powers, don’t come from another planet, and are just like you and me. Their farts smell bad, and they make ridiculous noises and face expressions when they’re constipated and sitting alone on their « throne » in the toilet.
Things happen in the world simply because Person A says : ”I’m going to do this to you “, and Person B says “Ok”. If Person B replies “mmm…no”, then things don’t happen , unless Person A is holding a gun.
Pretty much the only reason you are living comfortably enough to make an answer such as yours is because plenty of people in the past said “mmm…no” to various other people whose farts smell just as bad as theirs. Not to the Devil or other make-believe superhuman creatures.
Indeed, AI is not evil as some claims. And the reason why i live this comfortable is that the right people said yes to new ideas 🙂