![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
I think those birds listed as evidence in this album are actually from a brush, which is why they’re repeated so often. It looks a lot like one I’ve used before (came in a brush pack, I’ll try and see if I can track it down)
I haven’t done a deep dive into their old work and ai, so please forgive me if I’m being obtuse. But looking at this album, I can’t help but think that this artist might just not be very good at backgrounds? Things like lighting inconsistency and things being placed awkwardly/poorly rendered could be laziness or inexperience.
I don’t want to discount the possibility of it being ai, but I thought it might be worth considering the alternative as well.
I haven’t done a deep dive into their old work and ai, so please forgive me if I’m being obtuse. But looking at this album, I can’t help but think that this artist might just not be very good at backgrounds? Things like lighting inconsistency and things being placed awkwardly/poorly rendered could be laziness or inexperience.
I don’t want to discount the possibility of it being ai, but I thought it might be worth considering the alternative as well.
Here we go, dunno if it's the exact brush, but it's fairly close. I pulled up the album on the computer while trying to brush match, and there is a lot of things that look like concept art brushwork and drawing techniques I recognize which inclines me to think their art is not ai generated.
I also took a look at their DA, and the ice dragon cave and the snowy view pieces were published in 2021. Way before ai was competent enough to do this kind've thing. And they've got other environmental art pieces which are from 2020 which are about as competent/stylistically consistent with the art currently being posted in the album. If those are supposed to be presented as evidence of ai, then the timeline just doesn't match up.
Screenshot and dates of the pieces that are supposedly generated by ai, being posted in 2021 on DA:
Screenshot of dates of some of their other bg pieces from pre 2023.
Back to the bird brush, and a little explanation of how I've used it in the past (and probably how they used it as well). The repeats and the birds not being perfectly repeated every time is probably just manual editing and turning up the jitter settings for the brush. There's also another bird brush in the vulture piece that I don't have a match for (you can tell it was drawn in the bg with lowered opacity because the stars show through the birds.)
another brush I recognized, it shows up in multiple pieces (including the dinosaur one)
and how i think they did the tree. I feel like ai tends to try and blend/smooth things together, while these sharp and hard artifacts look like lasoo tool and hard geometric brushes with leaf brushes on top. Also the plants in this piece (and on a lot of other pieces actually) use a lot of foliage brushes for the grass and detailing.
With all this in mind, I really don't think this is ai, I don't even think it's that uncommon for people who are more experienced drawing characters to not be equally as good at doing backgrounds/have a different style. And with the other evidence (the dates on their art), I really think this is a case of art and rendering mistakes being mistaken for ai.
I also took a look at their DA, and the ice dragon cave and the snowy view pieces were published in 2021. Way before ai was competent enough to do this kind've thing. And they've got other environmental art pieces which are from 2020 which are about as competent/stylistically consistent with the art currently being posted in the album. If those are supposed to be presented as evidence of ai, then the timeline just doesn't match up.
Screenshot and dates of the pieces that are supposedly generated by ai, being posted in 2021 on DA:
Screenshot of dates of some of their other bg pieces from pre 2023.
Back to the bird brush, and a little explanation of how I've used it in the past (and probably how they used it as well). The repeats and the birds not being perfectly repeated every time is probably just manual editing and turning up the jitter settings for the brush. There's also another bird brush in the vulture piece that I don't have a match for (you can tell it was drawn in the bg with lowered opacity because the stars show through the birds.)
another brush I recognized, it shows up in multiple pieces (including the dinosaur one)
and how i think they did the tree. I feel like ai tends to try and blend/smooth things together, while these sharp and hard artifacts look like lasoo tool and hard geometric brushes with leaf brushes on top. Also the plants in this piece (and on a lot of other pieces actually) use a lot of foliage brushes for the grass and detailing.
With all this in mind, I really don't think this is ai, I don't even think it's that uncommon for people who are more experienced drawing characters to not be equally as good at doing backgrounds/have a different style. And with the other evidence (the dates on their art), I really think this is a case of art and rendering mistakes being mistaken for ai.
I don't understand how the fire's reflection in the first background being inconsistent could be chalked up to them not being good at backgrounds. The fire is literally above the water, you don't have to look too far to compare the two when you're drawing the reflection. Hell, just take the fire layer and copy it, move it, and you have your reflection?
I've considered the alternative plenty, and looking at that tree in the last background, it's definitely AI. No artist would draw that blocky and cut off branch and think it looks fine, hell, no artist would draw it that way at all, no matter how inexperienced they may be with backgrounds.
Rai has already proven to be scummy with their art by stealing designs, it adds up that they'd also stoop as low as to use AI as well.
I've considered the alternative plenty, and looking at that tree in the last background, it's definitely AI. No artist would draw that blocky and cut off branch and think it looks fine, hell, no artist would draw it that way at all, no matter how inexperienced they may be with backgrounds.
Rai has already proven to be scummy with their art by stealing designs, it adds up that they'd also stoop as low as to use AI as well.
glad to know there actually isn't one and i'm not just blind though rofl
something something occam's razor. considering how old a lot of these pieces are, its definitely more likely that this person just isn't as good as painting backgrounds compared to other stuff. still very wary of this artist for numerous other reasons, but it does leave a little sour taste in my mouth to attribute errors in art to solely ai generation.
+1
I also think there's a misunderstanding some comments around how people usually paint backgrounds. It's typical to use suggestive blobby/geometric shapes for your background and often midground objects. Lack of detail= object is far away and/or something you want the eye to pass over in the composition. Detail and accuracy are usually reserved for the focal parts of the picture, otherwise you're going to get something that looks like an Graeme Base illustration.
https://borgantiquarian.cdn.bibliopolis.com/pictures/3644_4.jpg?v=1543616072
(Nothing wrong with Graeme Base, it's just that most people aren't going for a trippy, eye-spy type of thing when they do a landscape painting.)
I also think there's a misunderstanding some comments around how people usually paint backgrounds. It's typical to use suggestive blobby/geometric shapes for your background and often midground objects. Lack of detail= object is far away and/or something you want the eye to pass over in the composition. Detail and accuracy are usually reserved for the focal parts of the picture, otherwise you're going to get something that looks like an Graeme Base illustration.
https://borgantiquarian.cdn.bibliopolis.com/pictures/3644_4.jpg?v=1543616072
(Nothing wrong with Graeme Base, it's just that most people aren't going for a trippy, eye-spy type of thing when they do a landscape painting.)
I can't speak for the artist, and I really can't guess whether they used AI or not, but I could absolutely see myself drawing both fire/reflections and tree branches that way.
The reflected fire, to me, looks like an attempt at showing the ripple distortion in the water that maybe didn't 100% work out, and as for the tree branches... frankly, foliage is hard, and as other people have said in this thread, it's often both quicker and sometimes even aesthetically better to be very loose and sketchy and inaccurate with parts of the background that aren't meant to be a main focus.
A lot of the examples here look to me more like an overuse of custom brushes than they do like AI.
I would not stake my reputation on this definitely NOT being AI, but I'm not convinced by this evidence. (That earlier-posted stolen CA design is much more provable, and damning enough on its own.)
As an artist who intends NEVER to use AI, it makes me nervous both how common AI art theft is becoming, but also how common false accusations of AI art theft are becoming, at the same time. I could easily see myself making similar mistakes or taking similar shortcuts in terms of lighting direction and inaccurate reflections and messy background details, I worry someday I'm going to get accused of using AI, too :(
The reflected fire, to me, looks like an attempt at showing the ripple distortion in the water that maybe didn't 100% work out, and as for the tree branches... frankly, foliage is hard, and as other people have said in this thread, it's often both quicker and sometimes even aesthetically better to be very loose and sketchy and inaccurate with parts of the background that aren't meant to be a main focus.
A lot of the examples here look to me more like an overuse of custom brushes than they do like AI.
I would not stake my reputation on this definitely NOT being AI, but I'm not convinced by this evidence. (That earlier-posted stolen CA design is much more provable, and damning enough on its own.)
As an artist who intends NEVER to use AI, it makes me nervous both how common AI art theft is becoming, but also how common false accusations of AI art theft are becoming, at the same time. I could easily see myself making similar mistakes or taking similar shortcuts in terms of lighting direction and inaccurate reflections and messy background details, I worry someday I'm going to get accused of using AI, too :(
Honestly, as a non-artist, this is sort of what I was thinking.
A lot of the things in that one album seemed rather nitpicky, such as trees growing from rocks (they do! and since this is a fantasyish image, maybe the person just wanted a tree there) and the little stubby branch at the base of the tree etc...
The only thing I could see would be the reflections and why they are different. However, that could be something that maybe they took an old picture they did and repurposed it, and took out a couple of fires but forgot the reflections?
*shrugs* again, I have no horse in this race, have no clue who rai is, and while I think the backgrounds are gorgeous, probably will never be able to afford any on LW.
A lot of the things in that one album seemed rather nitpicky, such as trees growing from rocks (they do! and since this is a fantasyish image, maybe the person just wanted a tree there) and the little stubby branch at the base of the tree etc...
The only thing I could see would be the reflections and why they are different. However, that could be something that maybe they took an old picture they did and repurposed it, and took out a couple of fires but forgot the reflections?
*shrugs* again, I have no horse in this race, have no clue who rai is, and while I think the backgrounds are gorgeous, probably will never be able to afford any on LW.
I agree with you hard on that last paragraph. I feel like it must be hell to be a learning/young artist online right now.
LOL yes. LvP took it down at least once.
+1
I couldn't say for sure that this artist has never used AI, but I'm also not convinced when it comes to these paintings specifically.
"As an artist who intends NEVER to use AI, it makes me nervous both how common AI art theft is becoming, but also how common false accusations of AI art theft are becoming, at the same time. I could easily see myself making similar mistakes or taking similar shortcuts in terms of lighting direction and inaccurate reflections and messy background details, I worry someday I'm going to get accused of using AI, too :("
I suspect that these kinds of accusations are only going to get messier as AI gets better at emulating artists, and as the usage of it becomes more and more mainstream for commercial and private works. There's already plenty of people that I see using AI in a way that feels arguably similar to a brush stamp, like the above example with the birds: stuff like using AI to generate images of clouds or mountains for your background and then editing in the generated asset or painting directly on top of it to better blend it in. I have mixed feelings about all this. Also dread. There's a lot about AI and the use of it that sits very badly with me.
AI automation hasn't caught up to my job skill set yet, but at some point I bet it will, and I will no longer be hired to do this type of work. This has already happened to some of my peers. The two big problems here: first, the theft of people's work without their consent to build the AI models themselves, and then secondly, the social consequences of automation, seem to be so tangled up together in this issue that it can be hard to tell which people are more angry and afraid about, and the arguments get blurry around these two points real quick.
There was a comic I really enjoyed by David Blumenstein on AI, he gets into the wider conversation and concerns around AI in the art community and seems to have a lot of insight:
https://www.fwb.help/editorial/octane-render-comic-artists-ai-art-david-blumenstein
I couldn't say for sure that this artist has never used AI, but I'm also not convinced when it comes to these paintings specifically.
"As an artist who intends NEVER to use AI, it makes me nervous both how common AI art theft is becoming, but also how common false accusations of AI art theft are becoming, at the same time. I could easily see myself making similar mistakes or taking similar shortcuts in terms of lighting direction and inaccurate reflections and messy background details, I worry someday I'm going to get accused of using AI, too :("
I suspect that these kinds of accusations are only going to get messier as AI gets better at emulating artists, and as the usage of it becomes more and more mainstream for commercial and private works. There's already plenty of people that I see using AI in a way that feels arguably similar to a brush stamp, like the above example with the birds: stuff like using AI to generate images of clouds or mountains for your background and then editing in the generated asset or painting directly on top of it to better blend it in. I have mixed feelings about all this. Also dread. There's a lot about AI and the use of it that sits very badly with me.
AI automation hasn't caught up to my job skill set yet, but at some point I bet it will, and I will no longer be hired to do this type of work. This has already happened to some of my peers. The two big problems here: first, the theft of people's work without their consent to build the AI models themselves, and then secondly, the social consequences of automation, seem to be so tangled up together in this issue that it can be hard to tell which people are more angry and afraid about, and the arguments get blurry around these two points real quick.
There was a comic I really enjoyed by David Blumenstein on AI, he gets into the wider conversation and concerns around AI in the art community and seems to have a lot of insight:
https://www.fwb.help/editorial/octane-render-comic-artists-ai-art-david-blumenstein
idk
when rai is already proven and shown to have stolen from other artists - see the herbalists mantle
i am more willing to believe that these backgrounds are either ai and retouched, or somehow suspiciously sourced
there are a lot of other examples on lw of rai copying other artist's work. not really sure why everyone is acting like this is such a stretch
when rai is already proven and shown to have stolen from other artists - see the herbalists mantle
i am more willing to believe that these backgrounds are either ai and retouched, or somehow suspiciously sourced
there are a lot of other examples on lw of rai copying other artist's work. not really sure why everyone is acting like this is such a stretch
-1
I don't think you have much of a place to say anything when you think that AIs were not skilled enough to create backgrounds like this in 2020/2021.
The proof of some of this being brushes is interesting, though. Especially when I know that LW moderators have accused other artists of using "copyrighted" brushes, but somehow Rai's multiple instances of rule breaking CAs are okay? It's funky that LW appears to protect artists like Rai and are causing legitimate artists who aren't stealing anything anytime are leaving to go back to FR.
It's not at all suspicious to anyone here that a lot of people are talking about how they reported Rai's very clear examples of stolen art, and how the staff haven't done anything in almost a month?
I don't think you have much of a place to say anything when you think that AIs were not skilled enough to create backgrounds like this in 2020/2021.
The proof of some of this being brushes is interesting, though. Especially when I know that LW moderators have accused other artists of using "copyrighted" brushes, but somehow Rai's multiple instances of rule breaking CAs are okay? It's funky that LW appears to protect artists like Rai and are causing legitimate artists who aren't stealing anything anytime are leaving to go back to FR.
It's not at all suspicious to anyone here that a lot of people are talking about how they reported Rai's very clear examples of stolen art, and how the staff haven't done anything in almost a month?
I heard (secondhand, take this with a grain of salt) that the sketch for the Herbalist's Mantle was provided by a commissioner and Rai didn't know it was so similar to another artist's work.
That would explain why it was conceptually identical but didn't appear to actually be traced... I don't think most artists would intentionally steal directly, something that risks so much reputation, but not actually bother tracing, the thing that makes stealing easier than originality. That would be a stupid move. A commissioner, though, I can see taking a concept they liked and providing it as a sketch, because it's not their reputation on the line.
That would explain why it was conceptually identical but didn't appear to actually be traced... I don't think most artists would intentionally steal directly, something that risks so much reputation, but not actually bother tracing, the thing that makes stealing easier than originality. That would be a stupid move. A commissioner, though, I can see taking a concept they liked and providing it as a sketch, because it's not their reputation on the line.
>I don't think most artists would intentionally steal directly
is this your first time online? in the online art community? hello? where art theft is extremely common? where this very blog talks about another FR user stealing art and lying about it?
your secondhand info sounds out of nowhere tbh
is this your first time online? in the online art community? hello? where art theft is extremely common? where this very blog talks about another FR user stealing art and lying about it?
your secondhand info sounds out of nowhere tbh
This just got mentioned in the LW discord and I OOP!
Considering they have a history of tracing other art, I’m not exactly inclined to believe them. That aside, still looks AI to me.
Just saying - a huge reason AI art is so successful despite its mistakes is because they’re easy to overlook if you don’t pay too much attention. When you generate AI art, you’re gonna look at it and think, “well, good enough.” Because you’re not going to be able to go and change specific parts once the image is generated (besides doing it yourself) and the prompt can be interpreted in many different ways. No matter how well you describe it, no AI can generate exactly what you pictured, so at its very core it’s a “close enough” thing. If I typed in “forest background” and I get a decent-looking forest background, that’s probably good enough for whatever I would possibly use AI art for (which I wouldn’t, fuck that shit).
My point is, using the reflections as an example, they’re not perfect. They don’t match very well. It could be a stylistic choice, but it could also be “close enough”. (Worth noting that despite LW’s massive file sizes, most of the time players are going to see the smaller version, and won’t be able to see the closer details that might tip it off to being AI). And to me, Occam’s razor style, the latter seems more likely - not to say someone couldn’t draw a reflection like that, but gut instinct tells me that a reflection should be somewhat more of a… reflection of the original. This obviously isn’t going to change your minds because I don’t and can’t have any supporting evidence, but neither side has any solid proof, so I’d like to see it from Rai themself. Timelapse, sketch, something. I’m on the same boat with you that I fear for the future where innocent artists are getting accused of using AI, but seeing the images and reputation of this artist, I think there’s pretty justifiable concern. Especially if this means we’re going to see more AI on LW, from even more players, because they’ve learned they can get away with it.
Just saying - a huge reason AI art is so successful despite its mistakes is because they’re easy to overlook if you don’t pay too much attention. When you generate AI art, you’re gonna look at it and think, “well, good enough.” Because you’re not going to be able to go and change specific parts once the image is generated (besides doing it yourself) and the prompt can be interpreted in many different ways. No matter how well you describe it, no AI can generate exactly what you pictured, so at its very core it’s a “close enough” thing. If I typed in “forest background” and I get a decent-looking forest background, that’s probably good enough for whatever I would possibly use AI art for (which I wouldn’t, fuck that shit).
My point is, using the reflections as an example, they’re not perfect. They don’t match very well. It could be a stylistic choice, but it could also be “close enough”. (Worth noting that despite LW’s massive file sizes, most of the time players are going to see the smaller version, and won’t be able to see the closer details that might tip it off to being AI). And to me, Occam’s razor style, the latter seems more likely - not to say someone couldn’t draw a reflection like that, but gut instinct tells me that a reflection should be somewhat more of a… reflection of the original. This obviously isn’t going to change your minds because I don’t and can’t have any supporting evidence, but neither side has any solid proof, so I’d like to see it from Rai themself. Timelapse, sketch, something. I’m on the same boat with you that I fear for the future where innocent artists are getting accused of using AI, but seeing the images and reputation of this artist, I think there’s pretty justifiable concern. Especially if this means we’re going to see more AI on LW, from even more players, because they’ve learned they can get away with it.
I cannot believe we are at the point where people are defending the practice of art tracing and basically art theft. Forget the AI issue, this art theft is much more serious and they should not be allowed to indefinitely profit from it assuming it's someone else's issue with them doing it.
As someone who’s had some stuff blatantly copied, to the point that I could tell where exactly in the WIP process someone decided to steal from me, the amount of people that immediately jump to “well you don’t own this specific thing” / “it’s just a coincidence” / “well it’s not EXACT so it doesn’t count” / etc was shocking. I was literally traced and that wasn’t enough proof for people! This always happens every time someone is caught stealing, where everyone bends over backwards to defend the accused. I get that false accusations are horrible and should be avoided at all costs, but I don’t think there is any evidence that would be able to convince these kinds of people otherwise. It’s so disturbing.
It is disturbing because in the real world violating copyright is literally against the law. Even if this work wasn't legally copyrighted, it's still morally wrong to profit off of someone else's hard work.
I agree that false accusations are also terrible, but in this case we have multiple examples of visual proof that tracing is occurring.
I agree that false accusations are also terrible, but in this case we have multiple examples of visual proof that tracing is occurring.
does anyone else wish fiona ONLY showed us familiars we dont own?
That's scary the mods are going after people using brushes. Can you cite the examples for this? Just for my own reference. I thought of starting up an art stop, I have some PS brushes, and don't want to deal with that especially if there are double standards.
Nope, because then I would just see the KS and Beta Bug every day forever other than when I fiona releases I haven't earned or brand new familiars are out.
I don't want that.
I don't want that.
The only one I can think of is someone had drawn leaves in such a way it looked like they just used a brush (they said they drew it all themselves but I could see how the staff may have thought it was a brush) and since the whole CA was the leaves that may be what they are trying to avoid, using *only* premade brushes in ca. which is understandable. On another site I'm on where users can do art things to submit, they want to avoid the use of premade brushes/sticker brushes cause it looks too flat, but I use a brush for like stars and speckles which is fine. I haven't seen any other issues, but I haven't been as active in the CA community the past few days due to irl stuff. So I don't think it's a case of "never ever ever use brushes" it may be a case of "don't make the thing entirely out of brushes" (someone correct me if there are other examples of this, I only know the one issue with stamp brushes)
Page 92 of 121
- «
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- 110
- 111
- 112
- 113
- 114
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 118
- 119
- 120
- 121
- »
Page 92 of 121