I've been a member of 1X since may be July 2022, I saw different types of photography including creative edits.

Lately, most of us started using AI to express an idea in the form of art pieces or scene.

I thought in the beginning, AI photos/designs are allowed to have on 1X as I saw some of these photos published already on 1X social media platforms and (I can show you some of them), but just yesterday I got a message from Ralf confirming it's not allowed.

While the world around us is so dynamic, why we can't get use of selling these CGIs or AI generated photos through 1X if we put them under a new category of their own called CGI/AI, so buyers or customers know exactly what are they buying .

I believe sales benefit the website as well as the photographers/creators/designers.

What do you think?

Is it worth discussing?

https://twitter.com/1x_com/status/1610219098574819328?t=owA4vjG37qNzylwAVkG3uw&s=1types

one example of AI photos on 1X social media platforms 

Asmaa I think they have a place maybe a whole web site of their very own. But it's not photography - I don't want to see them side by side with real images.

Ralf is right this is a photography Web site for photographers to show what they can do with a camera - Not computer generated images cut and pasted from the web....

Hello Asmaa,

The picture you found on twitter was removed on 1x for the same reason, it's not photography but CGI. 

It was part of Klaus Tesching's portfoiio, who still has some CGI pictures online, next to photography from a Munich studio / communicity aroung Stefan Gesell: 

https://1x.com/KoreaSaii

Using light is simply another way to get to a ppicture than using keywords, and 1x members are passionate about artistic photography. Because it's so difficult to learn, it gives you so many chances to develop and be creative, there is luck involved sometimes, it's paired with travelling, hiking, shots can be a result of cooperating with models, assistants, other photographers, MUAs.  Nothing of that is required or can be enjoyed when typing a few words in Midjourney.

See it as two different sports, which in my, Daniel's and Ralf's opinion should not be played on the same field.

Not to forget 1x has a customer base to sell prints, who expect a level of quality and photography. Your "Marble Stairs" were published despite the low image quality. So they are now offered on fineartamerica, for example. Imagine a customer of fineartamerica buys a large dibond print of it. Later he will most probably complain about the quality,  migh even return it. This then falls back to 1x, since it was curated here.  It may harm relationship and our ability to sell our high quality work there.

The customer could have used the magnifying option on fineartamerica before, but he'sprobably not a photographer when buying photos of other people.

There it's obvious it's computer rendering from, the blurred appearance while still having fringed edges: 

Please place digitally generated pictures where people enjoy the outcome of AI services. 

Best regards,
MIke

Mike Kreiten CREW 

Asmaa ElTouny PRO

https://twitter.com/1x_com/status/1610219098574819328?t=owA4vjG37qNzylwAVkG3uw&s=1types

 

one example of AI photos on 1X social media platforms 

 

Hello Asmaa,

The picture you found on twitter was removed on 1x for the same reason, it's not photography but CGI. 

It was part of Klaus Tesching's portfoiio, who still has some CGI pictures online, next to photography from a Munich studio / communicity aroung Stefan Gesell: 

https://1x.com/KoreaSaii

 

Using light is simply another way to get to a ppicture than using keywords, and 1x members are passionate about artistic photography. Because it's so difficult to learn, it gives you so many chances to develop and be creative, there is luck involved sometimes, it's paired with travelling, hiking, shots can be a result of cooperating with models, assistants, other photographers, MUAs.  Nothing of that is required or can be enjoyed when typing a few words in Midjourney.

 

See it as two different sports, which in my, Daniel's and Ralf's opinion should not be played on the same field.

 

Not to forget 1x has a customer base to sell prints, who expect a level of quality and photography. Your "Marble Stairs" were published despite the low image quality. So they are now offered on fineartamerica, for example. Imagine a customer of fineartamerica buys a large dibond print of it. Later he will most probably complain about the quality,  migh even return it. This then falls back to 1x, since it was curated here.  It may harm relationship and our ability to sell our high quality work there.

 

The customer could have used the magnifying option on fineartamerica before, but he'sprobably not a photographer when buying photos of other people.

There it's obvious it's computer rendering from, the blurred appearance while still having fringed edges: 

 

 

Please place digitally generated pictures where people enjoy the outcome of AI services. 

Best regards,
MIke

Hello Mike,

There is no doubt that our passion to photography is what gathers us all here in 1X.

Thank you for drawing my attention to photo quality, I will not accept earning money for low quality images so this is a valid point yet some pixelation websites are in service now to produce higher resolution images and photography print sales will be affected in the near future, it's a matter of time.

I think we are having the same old discussion people used to have in the past when photography appeared and threatened the future of drawings/paintings.

I usually used to discuss issues with open-mindedness, and I think what you and Daniel said are good description of the case here, "photography and CGIs or AI generated photos are just like different sports and can't be played on the same field". 

N.B. the photo I referred to on 1X social media platforms wasn't for the photographer you mentioned.

Hello Asmaa,

Thanks for  your understanding. I have a photo in mind, too hard to make it really happen...

Two kids play Fifa on their PSP, sitting in the center of a crowded football stadion, telling the soccer players there is no need to run around and kick the ball. They already played the game and the result is 2:1. The title is "AI sports" :-)

You're right, the photo I meant was only very similar, most probably the same AI system generated it. 

Best regards,
Mike

Asmaa can I share something with you if i may. I feel so strongly that CGI and Computer Generated should never even be allowed on Real Photiographuc sites like this on. -

Let me tell you why I think that way. I have made two mistakes over the last few weeks leaving comments and my vote on images that I thought were real camera produced images. I was taken in and I feel so sick to the stomach when I think about it. - As a result I find myself not wanting to vote or make comments in selection  I don't trust my eyes any more and that can't be right can it. - If the door is opened up to allow a flood of these cut and paste make-up from other peoples images on the web - Photography would be finished.....

It's a can of worms, once they've escaped, trying getting them back in the can. The really sad thing I see is CGI images being shown as photography, and then members post comments exclaiming how technically perfect the photography is. When of course, it isn't photography at all. This is fraud, clear and simple. CGI artists must make it clear thier work is NOT photography.

The most despairing thing is that AI (like MJ) is farming ALL our images from the web, any image we have posted on-line anywhere, to use for their AI and user creations. To hell with copyright. AI has a morality problem. The music industry got its act together over music sampling. AI is nothing more than visual sampling. The only thing for photographers to do in order to protect themselves against AI sampling is to never publish an image on-line. But, the worms are out of the can I'm afraid...

Dear Daniel:

We are HUMANS and not AI, that is the key and as such we make mistakes, we suffer, we learn and we also have fun with photography.

Do not allow a "mistake" to take away your most precious asset: the FREEDOM to express your opinion. We know your judgment and if you stop doing it it will be to the detriment of all of us, so please don't let AI take it away from you.

It is very easy for me to identify the Architecture created by these programs, but I certainly would not be able to do it with a landscape (for example) and I would also be wrong.

Best regards,

Mabel

I am passionate about photography even though I am a simple amateur, I enjoy infinitely just thinking about where to go, planning my outings or trips, documenting myself, learning new techniques, sharing days of shooting with friends..... I feel satisfied when I see the result ( although it is not always as expected, it helps me grow as a person and as a photographer) and of course AI cannot offer that to me.

One of my passions is spiral staircases, there is an arduous task behind each one of them (research, location, documentation, visits at different times... etc) and when I see those created by AI published I admit that I feel sad , I'm not against technological advances, but I sincerely believe that here at 1X they should have no place.

Thanks to the entire 1X TEAM for upholding the philosophy that made me join you.

All the best,

Mabel

Dear Daniel,

We have to accept that we do mistakes but we never stop learning.

I agreed with you previously on not having CGI or AI on the same ground side by side and I did agree with Mike on what gathers us here is that we do love taking photos wether they are accepted as strong images and be published on 1X or they are just Ok.

My point was completely different,  but people rush to attack and criticise rather be understanding, encouraging exclusion while I'm thinking of possible ways of inclusion or trying to find a common points to agree on , not for myself ,but for an idea that did exist already and we can't bring the clock back. 

New eras in image production has appeared and it's a fact. It won't affect our passion to photography, it won't stop us from taking photos .But it's a new area for exploration.

I  agree that going into curation blindly will of course lead to more CGIs or AI photos published whatever our experience is. What I'm saying now is why we don't have a new branch of 1X so all that kind of photos gather there. Mike yesterday commented on the quality of photos and their resolution but I can confirm that new pixelation applications and sites started to appear and soon we will find these photos everywhere and it will be head to head with the photos taken by the best photographers in the world with less cost of production.

For myself I understood that this is not the philosophy now for 1X and photographers refuse or fight the idea,bI'm not here to convince any body with the idea but I do believe that the world way of thinking will soon be forced to change.

I found this article yesterday, it's not related to photography but it's one side of an existing fact that we are all trying to fight in different fields.👇

Sit Tight. ChatGPT is About to Change Everything in Your Classroom

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sit-tight-chatgpt-change-everything-your-classroom-teachergoals

Respectfully 🙏

By now people should already have understood that AI image generators do not create images out of nothing. They use imagery from all over the internet to generate this images. So when you post (or worst, 1X awards it), you are ripping other people's work, without any creative effort.

In general AI generated images are pretty easy to spot, 1X has been quite slowly to react to this trend, if curators have doubts about what is "creative edit" or not, then they should either not award it or then question the artist. 

Carlos_Grury_Santos First I think many AI Generated are getting better and better and not easy to spot. - Second I think 1x.com has been very quick to respond to the onslaught of AI image - In fact one of the front runners. I know of two other Main Steam Photographic web sites that to date have no policy whatsoever to deal with this problem. And I see AI images along side real Photography on the Glory Pages.

Several weeks ago it took 4 days to get a clear reaction from 1x after I reported an image which was so obviously AI generated, not only had been awarded but it was posted on social media. I imagine it was this discussion which initiated after that post that eventually lead to Ralf announce that AI is not accepted in 1X.
I imagine it is pretty tough to spot some AI generated images, but like I said above, when in doubt don't award it. 

Just today I noticed another image which appears to be AI generated had been awarded. At least the owner ignored my comment regarding the issue, which leads me to belive it could be in fact AI.

Carlos_Grury_Santos I know this may surprise you but there is a lot of work going on behind the scenes that we all don't see. Mike Kreiten for one has done amazing work of safeguarding the art of photography. As for " When in doubt don't award it " Wow Carlos I hope you never end up on a jury,  

By the way, after all this weeks, the image is still on 1x Facebook page. So fair to say that it's been a rather slow reaction.

Yes, Mike was indeed the one to react. 
And yes, when in doubt dont award it, as we are talking about possible copyright infringements. 

"Wine come in at the mouth and love comes in at the eye" WB Yeats.

Photography is a strange art. It started as a technology and continues as a technology and yet it has invaded the "Art" world as well. I assume we are talking about the artistic side of photography. If we were talking about product photography or real estate photography or maybe even Architecture photography, then AI would be hailed as an efficiency. From "straight" photography we have moved from film to digital and away from dark room work to post processing and all manner of manipulaiton. I do a lot of that to my images but start with a real image.

AI lets you start with an imaginary (number, oops,) image.

"I want a picture of a flower, a red one, a long stem, a blurred yellow background; no a brown background" and voila, you get the image. This has the advantage of mimicking an arist process "Additive".

The photographer either searches for a "subject", lucks into a subject or plans for a subject (and then lucks into it). Then crops, clones, adjusts, composites, lightroos, photoshops, etc.

Unfortunately, for the Pure photographer, digital has stolen the magic of the camera (IPhones are pretty good and you can fix it afterwards).

What is actually going on is that the "image", whatever that is for the artist, is formed from all that stuff. The photograph (from the cameral) has become only the rough draft or the outline of the final image. That is not always true for all the "documenting" photographers who concentrate on wildlife, landscapes etc. Maybe even portraitists. Whatever is happening seems to be a bifurcation of the vision of the art of photography. Realism vs Image generation.

I might disagree. This technology is new and we need to negotiate how we deal with it. Here's my thought about AI-Art: If my camera is only a tool to create my vision, what is the difference in using a text prompt to command an AI to create the same vision? Both the camera and the AI are only tools after all. What comes out ouf it makes the difference in the end. 

You're obviously capturing scenes and geometry, Adam. Don't you enjoy to find these places and make use of light to capture what you're after? What's the joy of entering keywords compared to that? It might be fascinating an unknown engine produces visuals for you. But that fascination will fade, while the discoveries we have when trying to get an impressive photograph obviously does not fade over years. Maybe because it's more difficult.

Adam Dauria ☂ 

I think the main point is that 1X is a photography site. While AI may or may not be art it isn't photography. Likewise painting is art but isn't photography and therefore also doesn't belong on 1X. All can be valid mediums but they are different mediums.

Not being allowed on 1X since it isn't photography doesn't mean it is bad or not art. It's just a recognition that it isn't photography. That is important since it can appear to be photography and some even present it as such which I feel is misrepresentation.

It can be argued that 1X shouldn't limit themselves to just one medium but that's not our call to make.

Mike

I wont stop posting this here until it really sinks into people's minds.
AI DOES NOT generate imagery from nothing, it searches the web for images which then uses to generate you prompt.
As a result most likely your amazing piece of art is ripping several other people's work some of which maybe copyrighted...
This should be the topic of discussion and not if AI is art or not. 
Do you get it? Or shall I write it all in capitals? 

I am a CGI artsist and I use AI as a research and concepting tool, never as a end result and definetly not coming here and try to pass it as a Creative Edit, like some people do. 

I fell sorry for the young kids out there trying to learn the rope. It's not easy to create a "good" photo. It's even harder to create an artistic photo. You have to go through tons of photos that are just either bad or just OK... and hope that one day (years form now) you will be awarded on 1X. Then all the sudden, you have your buddy next door sits for 10 mins on the computer and generate a "wow" image. How discouraging is that. (same comment apply to chatGPT3 and writing)

So I asked the AI...

Q: Do you agree AI is bad for original art creation?

I am a machine and do not have the ability to hold opinions. However, AI can be used to generate original artwork, such as digital paintings and music compositions. It can also assist human artists in their work by providing new inspiration or helping with technical tasks. Whether AI is "good" or "bad" for original art creation likely depends on one's perspective and the specific application.

Q: Would AI art gernerated from others artwork still be considered original work?

Ans: Whether AI-generated art is considered "original" likely depends on the specific context and how it was created. If the AI is trained on a dataset of existing artwork and generates new pieces based on that data, it could be argued that the resulting images are not truly original. However, if the AI is programmed to generate new and unique images without reference to existing artwork, it could be considered original.

It's important to note that the question of originality in AI-generated art is a complex one, and there is ongoing debate in the art world about how to define and value such work. Some people argue that AI-generated art has the potential to push the boundaries of what is considered "art" and should be considered as its own form, while others believe that it is fundamentally different from art created by humans and should not be considered in the same way.

AI swerving the question huh?

Adam Dauria, how would you feel if one day you  open 1X and on the front page you would find this image awarded, under the Creative Edit section.
My guess is that you wouldnt be too pleased.

It took me less than 10 minutes to rip one of your photos, open it in photoshop, slap a couple of Neural Filters on it and voilá..I have just created my own unique image. Easy isnt it?

@ Carlos

I actually like what you did with my work! :)

But this is not how the AI works, at least not in my understanding. You just did a filter over my image without altering the whole motif. AI takes single elements of different styles, ideas or moods and puts them into a whole new image. It's like sampling in classic hiphop: you take short fragments of different pieces of music and mix them into a completely new track.

How does inspiration work? My photos are hugely inspired by artists like Rodney Smith, Cartier-Bresson, even Tarkovskij or Kurosawa. When I try to create a photo that is inspired by a partictual work or a scene from a movie, and you find elements of this work in my final result, is that theft or inspiration? I believe that AI does the same. It takes great ideas and creates something new out of them. Is it inspiration, when it's done by a human, and is it theft, when it's done by an AI?

I understand that this new technology evokes a lot of questions, a lot of discussion has to be made, decisions have to be made. One thing's for sure though: it's here to stay. Whether we like it or not. 

In the US, creatives have filed a lawsuit against Stable Diffusion because the AI tool infringes the rights of artists.

Stable diffusion is known to belong to a new category of AI systems called generative AI. These systems are trained on the basis of existing works - for example photographs - and then remix these works in order to derive or "generate" works of the same kind.

Writer, designer, programmer and attorney Matthew Butterick has been working with class action attorneys at the law firm Joseph Saveri since November 2022.

Matthew Butterick: "Since then, we've heard from creatives around the world who are concerned about AI systems being trained on vast amounts of copyrighted work without consent, attribution, or compensation." His goal: Making AI fair and ethical for everyone.

On behalf of three artists, Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan and Karla Ortiz, attorneys have filed a class action lawsuit against Stability AI, DeviantArt and Midjourney for using Stable Diffusion, a tool that uses the copyrighted works of millions of artists as training data for AI systems used.

"Stable Diffusion is artificial intelligence (AI) software released in August 2022 by the company Stability AI that exploits unauthorized copies of millions - possibly billions - of copyrighted images," said Matthew Butterick. “These copies were made without the knowledge or consent of the artists. Even assuming nominal damages of $1 per image, the value of this misappropriation would be approximately $5 billion. For comparison, the largest art theft of all time was the theft of 13 works of art from the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in 1990, valued at an estimated $500 million.

“Stable Diffusion relies on a mathematical process called diffusion to store compressed copies of the training images, which are in turn recombined to derive other images. In short, it's a 21st-century collage tool. The resulting images can be externally similar to the training images, but they don't have to be. Nevertheless, they are derived from copies of the training images and compete with them on the market. At the very least, Stable Diffusion's ability to flood the market with a virtually unlimited number of infringing images will cause lasting damage to the art and artist market," the lawsuit explains.

Matthew Butterick: “Even Stability AI CEO Emad Mostaque has predicted that “future AI models will be fully licensed”. But Stable Diffusion is not. It's a parasite that, if allowed to continue to proliferate, will do irreparable harm to artists now and in the future.”

Cheers, Hans-Martin

Hello Hans-Martin, 

isn't that just half of the story? If I read https://www.photoeditionberlin.com/boriseldagsensonyprice2023/

it looks less like getting away with AI in a photography contest:

We are thrilled to announce that Boris Eldagsen has won the creative category of Sony World Photography Awards 2023 / Open Competition / Single Image!

As a photomedia artist since 2022, Eldagsen has been exploring the creative possibilities of AI generators and the winning image, "The Electrician," is part of his "Pseudomnesia" series. This series explores the relationship between photography, memory, and imagination, and uses AI generators to create synthetic images that challenge our perceptions of what photography can be.

"The Electrician" is a visually stunning example of Eldagsen's innovative approach to art, and we are proud to offer it as an edition through our gallery, Photo Edition Berlin. The image was synthetically produced, using "the photographic" as a visual language, and is not a traditional photograph.

We are excited to see Eldagsen pushing the boundaries of photography and embracing the use of disruptive technology. Congratulations on this well-deserved win!

Regards,

Mike

Hello Mike,

yes, this statement of PHOTO EDITION BERLIN sounds indeed a little bit different from yesterday's statement of Boris Eldagsen. PHOTO EDITION BERLIN describes themselves as follows:

PHOTO EDITION BERLIN is an international platform and online shop for photography in Berlin. Since its opening in 2008, its profile has steadily developed and today it is one of the most renowned addresses for artistic photography in Germany. We present positions of contemporary international photography from the 1950s onwards.  A special focus is on "Concrete and Generative Photography", positions from Germany, China, Ibero-America and the Czech avant-garde from the 1920s onwards. 

Books and catalogues published by us are accompanying publications to exhibitions. We are active as international curators and have constantly expanded our own collection of photography in recent years. We advise museums, private and public institutions and collections with our expertise. Member of the German Society for Photography (DGPh). 

Boris is one of currently 50 artists whose works are offered for sale on the platform. An edition of 7 works, described as "photographs", are currently availble.

Maybe Boris will leave the platform after the statement he gave yesterday.

Who knows?

Cheers, Hans-Martin

In addition to my statements above an interview with Boris Eldagsen:

https://talking-pictures.net.au/2023/04/01/boris-eldagsen-the-woman-who-never-was/?

For a better understanding.

Cheers, Hans-Martin