This is my understanding of how imagery works when it comes to celebrities and images. If you use a photo of them for marketing purposes permission from that person is required. But, if you create your own artistic image of that person say a painting or graphic art..... it’s legal to use your rendition of the celebrity for your purposes.
Thanks so much, Charlotte - always good to an "insider's perspective." <3 So the question then becomes, is AI imagery art... 'art,' and does it fall into the same category as paintings or graphic renderings?
I think you have to be careful though with your painting or graphic art if you are making money off of it. It is my understanding is that you need permission from the person in that case. I am not super expert in this area, but as an artist who designed some coloring books, I had to be careful - even Mickey Mouse interpretations are off limits!
I wanted to get back to you and show you this image of Bridget Bardot by Sol Luckman. The original sales for just under $2000 and he sells prints. This is legal Because the image of her is his own interpretation. He might be somebody to contact for further information concerning your own questions about celebrity portraits and images. https://www.saatchiart.com/art/Painting-Brigitte-Bardot/2345219/11236277/view
Charlotte, thank you so much! Also I finally had time last night to read more of your stunt illusion posts…so fun because it takes me back. I love hearing your insider stories. Looking forward to reading more. 🥰
A friend of mine who is an artist but he passed away a few years ago published and sold many images of celebrities. But he did not put them on T-shirts and keychains and make mass production from them. Here’s another case from the link I posted.
“A major example of a court ruling against an artist came in April 2001, when California’s Supreme Court ruled against artist Gary Saderup, who sold his drawing of the Three Stooges on t-shirts and as lithograph prints. His depiction of Larry, Curly, and Moe violated their rights of publicity—held by a corporate entity even after the Stooges died—not because it appeared on a t-shirt rather than a canvas, but because it was a “a literal, conventional” image that commercially exploited the likeness of the comedians without any creative additions, the Los Angeles Times reported. “
Yes, especially if you are an artist. This article has quite of good information for you as a place to start! I’m sure more laws will soon be written to govern this new AI concern. Have a beautiful day! 💫💖
Actually that isn’t true. As proven from the case of Tiger Woods.
“In the case of Tiger Woods, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Rush, finding that his work depicted a historic event of cultural value (Woods winning the Masters) and did not “propose a commercial transaction.” Moreover, Rush had significantly transformed Woods’s likeness for his work, with the painting constituting “expression which is entitled to the full protection of the First Amendment.” Today, you can still buy a print online.”
It will only be a matter of time until AI is looked upon as totally normal with no issues whatsoever, potentially making it impossible to differentiate between real-life and AI. That's deeply concerning as people can fabricate their own "legitimate" images and content to influence others and cause great damage. Scary times we live in.
That has been a concern of mine as well, and at-the-moment I honestly do not see any solutions. We are all going to stuck in a 'in whom can we really trust, 'mode, and that list (for those who are 'aware') will be very thin indeed.
Didn't what's her face hold up a severed Donald Trump head when he was first elected?? Not sure what that means exactly pertaining to your article.......just saying though.
Kathy Griffin, and it very much relates. She was protected by first-amendment statutes of 'free speech,' vile though her 'statement' was. Excellent example!
I was thinking about your article again this morning, how about in music when it comes to remixes? How does that work? That's kinda along the same lines. A musician puts out a tune (an OF model puts out a naked photo) another musician remixes tune( another person edits naked photo.) Reilly when it comes to this photo stuff going on now with AI I think the only thing you can do is come out with a statement saying "yeahhhh, I didn't make that/that's not me" and move on. There's no stopping it now. Kinda like what happened with Napster and the music industry in general. Technology changed everything. Adapt or die.
First just the ai thing in general: there is a lot to think about. I don't want to reinforce a negative thought that I keep having but I will say it with no power so it fizzles out past this moment. Adobe Illustrator sends me stuff to look at, I have to sign in. I go to make Ai images, I have to sign in. People are using Chatgpt for many things, they have to sign in. And on and on it goes. Now, suddenly there is this explosion of stuff available to us right when there is talk of social credit scores. So I keep saying to myself, no matter what happens I have to be willing to throw it all away and stand on the outside of it. That would be if some peoples theories of the worst case scenario comes to pass for people who don't take orders well. Meanwhile, I wouldn't be surprised if it were the government itself putting those images out there just so they can ramp up that conversation. I don't know what's going to happen with anything except for with me. And that is that I will use the tools of my day. If I suddenly don't have those, I will find new tools. No one can take away creativity. Not unless I load up on medications.
As for what they should do, I think there are many layers to that. I can't speak to it. Like you said, they didn't seem so worried when it was happening to regular people. IN a functioning world there would be a way to determine if a video was fake and there wouldn't be any fake one's being braodcasted from any major news sources. The media hasn't been beholden to truth for a very long time, so we see how well that is going.
It's a difficult subject in MY mind because the last thing I would want to do is give the government the ability to decide anything regarding it. It MY mind they are the most likely culprits in the first place, and any moves that are made for the "benefit of society" usually come with a larger price than we paid to solve the smaller problem. Tough one. There have to be repercussions in society for causing someone else harm like that though. That is creating harm, we just don't have a functioning system in place. That's why we have to ask. I think we have to let the lay people deal with it one on one for a bit while we clean up a much larger mess. *gets out a broom big enough to sweep up the corporation of America. Also, I know nothing and I have no idea. Good question.
I share you apprehension about AI in general; I have never used any of the 'text' programs [ChatGPT, Bing, etc] and have never 'signed in' to any AI program (probably why I have not been able to use one of the fancier ones - they all require sign-ins LOL). The images I use here are generated using Substack's own tool, and while it is limited compared to what others are able to create I am learning how to expand its capabilities a bit. Perhaps the problem is not the program here, but me ;-)
And no, I would not be surprised if we were to discover that the government was behind the recently faked images either. Since I know there ARE bottom-feeders on the Internet, however, I am leaning in that direction until more evidence comes forth.
I am also leery of any actions taken by D.C. types, but... well, I have nothing to add. I am leery LOL
Again, many thanks - I appreciate comments such as this <3
Totally had that exact same thought - that the PTB are putting this crap out there to stir the pot. They create the "problem/crisis" and then provide an over-reaction solution. I'm right there with you..."they" can take my digital tools - and even my crayons - and I'll still be able to make art.
Here’s one thing that should come from the Swift AI porn scandal but likely will not: why are the images so disgusting? They lack her consent, sure, but so would an AI image her fully dressed as an elf. But few would be offended by the latter. Could it be, oh I don’t know, all pornographic images are disgusting? Bad for society?
Thanks. I just think it’s interesting that MSM and liberals have no problem with porn—they even see it as empowering—but find these images patently disgusting. Why? The only thing they can point to is lack of consent, which is valid, but it doesn’t show the whole picture. I think the Left is showing it can’t fully shake the law God has written on our hearts, as much as they’d love to.
The fact that someone would do that to children is indeed rage inducing. Woodchipper for sure. What Heffner did to say Monroe or Vanna White or even a 10 yr old Brooke Shields or the Italian playboy with an 11 yr old model is rage inducing. I mean I'm pretty sure he was the first Epstein. Having that said if Warhol had taken the nudes of Monroe and made pop art from that it's somewhat the same application as a can of Campbell's soup. If modeling is art( it is in high fashion but so were fleshy women posing for paintings) and these get recreated then ehhh...what bothers me is what you said about kids. Who in the actual world would do that and why can't the AI have safeguards programmed in to prevent our kids from falling prey to this new danger? It's horrifying for parents.
Certainly every problem is used to restrict our liberties further. This is indeed a real problem, but beware of the solutions. Particularly such proposals as C2PA which is a method verify origin of content but can easily be used as a system of censorship and control.
great article: "We have seemingly two motivations coming from distinctly different places pushing society into the despair of fiction replacing reality. Those who seek fame and those who wish to control others."
While all of this is quite fascinating (as Mr Spock frequently said), it's also highly distracting from what really matters in this life. However, I do enjoy good writing, so carry on.
The OF thing is interesting because that website has a policy that pay wall content can’t be shared on other platforms. It doesn’t stop leaks but a lot of creators take steps to get them taken down by law. And then of course I ask why are those who want to “dignify” others paying for the pics in the first place 😅
Excellent point. To be fair to the users, however, the examples I saw were of photos which were posted directly on X, those 'teaser' pics which OnlyFans hosts use to entice people to join their sites. Not sure if any of those users actually subscribe to the models they are 'clothing,' though it would not at all surprise me if they did! LOL
Excellent questions and discussion in this piece 🙏🏻 I usually have some semblance of an opinion about stuff like this but while reading you all I could think was “wow, I really have no idea” - which usually tells me we need to look deeper. Loving the comments which have started pointing us in that direction (focus on consent, reflecting on what triggers us and why etc)
Thanks, Anaïs - if I can get folks talking, and maybe spur an extra thought or two, I am happy with that ☺️ Especially since my subscribers are some of the sharpest folks I have seen - definitely blessed in that regard 🫡
Danged, Vulcan - that is an outstanding point! I think you're right, it will undoubtedly been seen as such in the future... of course, until it is, how many liberties will be stripped from us under the guise of 'protection?'
That's quite alright. It's a point that was raised on a podcast when AI was getting released in the last few years.
It's scary what people can do now. Have you seen the voice ones like Eleven Labs? Record say Joe Rogan talking for a minute and then get it to say anything.
Imagine being able to change something a politician has said. Nothing major. Just one word in a speech and that could completely change a a speech.
There is funny sides to it though. Go on YouTube and look up Trump, Obama and Biden playing Call of Duty. It's hilarious.
Good read, Stone! Yea, scammers could have a field day with AI. I hope we implement the necessary safeguards and tech to counter it. Also, I find it interesting that most AI programs still only know how to render very famous people. B list celebrities get no love 😂
Thanks Kyle, appreciate that. And I had not considered that about the B-list celebs LOL Although since average folks have been dealing with AI fakes for a while now, there must be programs out there which are able to render anyone's image. Although from what I have read you're right about the 'big name' image generators - only the super-SUPER-star celebs are available ;-)
Back in high school when I was assigned to write about challenges to bill of rights, I wrote extensively abt free speech in media. Teacher said, "This is an excellent paper but you're writing about porn." well duh, my point exactly, teach.
This is my understanding of how imagery works when it comes to celebrities and images. If you use a photo of them for marketing purposes permission from that person is required. But, if you create your own artistic image of that person say a painting or graphic art..... it’s legal to use your rendition of the celebrity for your purposes.
Thanks so much, Charlotte - always good to an "insider's perspective." <3 So the question then becomes, is AI imagery art... 'art,' and does it fall into the same category as paintings or graphic renderings?
Will be very interesting to watch unfold... ;-)
That’s for the first lawsuit to decide.
I think you have to be careful though with your painting or graphic art if you are making money off of it. It is my understanding is that you need permission from the person in that case. I am not super expert in this area, but as an artist who designed some coloring books, I had to be careful - even Mickey Mouse interpretations are off limits!
I wanted to get back to you and show you this image of Bridget Bardot by Sol Luckman. The original sales for just under $2000 and he sells prints. This is legal Because the image of her is his own interpretation. He might be somebody to contact for further information concerning your own questions about celebrity portraits and images. https://www.saatchiart.com/art/Painting-Brigitte-Bardot/2345219/11236277/view
Charlotte, thank you so much! Also I finally had time last night to read more of your stunt illusion posts…so fun because it takes me back. I love hearing your insider stories. Looking forward to reading more. 🥰
A friend of mine who is an artist but he passed away a few years ago published and sold many images of celebrities. But he did not put them on T-shirts and keychains and make mass production from them. Here’s another case from the link I posted.
“A major example of a court ruling against an artist came in April 2001, when California’s Supreme Court ruled against artist Gary Saderup, who sold his drawing of the Three Stooges on t-shirts and as lithograph prints. His depiction of Larry, Curly, and Moe violated their rights of publicity—held by a corporate entity even after the Stooges died—not because it appeared on a t-shirt rather than a canvas, but because it was a “a literal, conventional” image that commercially exploited the likeness of the comedians without any creative additions, the Los Angeles Times reported. “
Thanks Charlotte, appreciate the info 🙏🏽
Mickey Mouse is not a person. In that case Mickey Mouse is a copy righted piece of artwork. So of course you have to be careful.
I’ll have to look into that, thanks!
Yes, especially if you are an artist. This article has quite of good information for you as a place to start! I’m sure more laws will soon be written to govern this new AI concern. Have a beautiful day! 💫💖
Actually that isn’t true. As proven from the case of Tiger Woods.
“In the case of Tiger Woods, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Rush, finding that his work depicted a historic event of cultural value (Woods winning the Masters) and did not “propose a commercial transaction.” Moreover, Rush had significantly transformed Woods’s likeness for his work, with the painting constituting “expression which is entitled to the full protection of the First Amendment.” Today, you can still buy a print online.”
https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-painting-portrait-violate-subjects-rights
It will only be a matter of time until AI is looked upon as totally normal with no issues whatsoever, potentially making it impossible to differentiate between real-life and AI. That's deeply concerning as people can fabricate their own "legitimate" images and content to influence others and cause great damage. Scary times we live in.
That has been a concern of mine as well, and at-the-moment I honestly do not see any solutions. We are all going to stuck in a 'in whom can we really trust, 'mode, and that list (for those who are 'aware') will be very thin indeed.
Appreciate you chiming in, great comment!
Good read. These are important issues that are going to require more than kneejerk reactions from internet dwellers.
Thanks David. And I agree - unfortunately, 'kneejerk' seems to be the go-to for many these days, especially on the Internets.
Didn't what's her face hold up a severed Donald Trump head when he was first elected?? Not sure what that means exactly pertaining to your article.......just saying though.
Kathy Griffin, and it very much relates. She was protected by first-amendment statutes of 'free speech,' vile though her 'statement' was. Excellent example!
I was thinking about your article again this morning, how about in music when it comes to remixes? How does that work? That's kinda along the same lines. A musician puts out a tune (an OF model puts out a naked photo) another musician remixes tune( another person edits naked photo.) Reilly when it comes to this photo stuff going on now with AI I think the only thing you can do is come out with a statement saying "yeahhhh, I didn't make that/that's not me" and move on. There's no stopping it now. Kinda like what happened with Napster and the music industry in general. Technology changed everything. Adapt or die.
First just the ai thing in general: there is a lot to think about. I don't want to reinforce a negative thought that I keep having but I will say it with no power so it fizzles out past this moment. Adobe Illustrator sends me stuff to look at, I have to sign in. I go to make Ai images, I have to sign in. People are using Chatgpt for many things, they have to sign in. And on and on it goes. Now, suddenly there is this explosion of stuff available to us right when there is talk of social credit scores. So I keep saying to myself, no matter what happens I have to be willing to throw it all away and stand on the outside of it. That would be if some peoples theories of the worst case scenario comes to pass for people who don't take orders well. Meanwhile, I wouldn't be surprised if it were the government itself putting those images out there just so they can ramp up that conversation. I don't know what's going to happen with anything except for with me. And that is that I will use the tools of my day. If I suddenly don't have those, I will find new tools. No one can take away creativity. Not unless I load up on medications.
As for what they should do, I think there are many layers to that. I can't speak to it. Like you said, they didn't seem so worried when it was happening to regular people. IN a functioning world there would be a way to determine if a video was fake and there wouldn't be any fake one's being braodcasted from any major news sources. The media hasn't been beholden to truth for a very long time, so we see how well that is going.
It's a difficult subject in MY mind because the last thing I would want to do is give the government the ability to decide anything regarding it. It MY mind they are the most likely culprits in the first place, and any moves that are made for the "benefit of society" usually come with a larger price than we paid to solve the smaller problem. Tough one. There have to be repercussions in society for causing someone else harm like that though. That is creating harm, we just don't have a functioning system in place. That's why we have to ask. I think we have to let the lay people deal with it one on one for a bit while we clean up a much larger mess. *gets out a broom big enough to sweep up the corporation of America. Also, I know nothing and I have no idea. Good question.
Thank you so much for the thoughtful comment!
I share you apprehension about AI in general; I have never used any of the 'text' programs [ChatGPT, Bing, etc] and have never 'signed in' to any AI program (probably why I have not been able to use one of the fancier ones - they all require sign-ins LOL). The images I use here are generated using Substack's own tool, and while it is limited compared to what others are able to create I am learning how to expand its capabilities a bit. Perhaps the problem is not the program here, but me ;-)
And no, I would not be surprised if we were to discover that the government was behind the recently faked images either. Since I know there ARE bottom-feeders on the Internet, however, I am leaning in that direction until more evidence comes forth.
I am also leery of any actions taken by D.C. types, but... well, I have nothing to add. I am leery LOL
Again, many thanks - I appreciate comments such as this <3
Totally had that exact same thought - that the PTB are putting this crap out there to stir the pot. They create the "problem/crisis" and then provide an over-reaction solution. I'm right there with you..."they" can take my digital tools - and even my crayons - and I'll still be able to make art.
Here’s one thing that should come from the Swift AI porn scandal but likely will not: why are the images so disgusting? They lack her consent, sure, but so would an AI image her fully dressed as an elf. But few would be offended by the latter. Could it be, oh I don’t know, all pornographic images are disgusting? Bad for society?
You raise a lot great questions.
That... is a fascinating consideration 🤔 Thanks, brother, for the insightful comment 🫡
Thanks. I just think it’s interesting that MSM and liberals have no problem with porn—they even see it as empowering—but find these images patently disgusting. Why? The only thing they can point to is lack of consent, which is valid, but it doesn’t show the whole picture. I think the Left is showing it can’t fully shake the law God has written on our hearts, as much as they’d love to.
There's much to be learned about issues of free speech from the history of court cases involving porn magazines.
But even "porn" is subjective with some religious zealots objecting to ancient classic works of art. Porno in the eye of the beholder?
methinks I tend towards "bad for society" if it depicts pain and abuse? Ah, such a slippery slope!
PS I'm just sick of TaySwif and don't wanna see anymore of her via AI or polaroid.
The fact that someone would do that to children is indeed rage inducing. Woodchipper for sure. What Heffner did to say Monroe or Vanna White or even a 10 yr old Brooke Shields or the Italian playboy with an 11 yr old model is rage inducing. I mean I'm pretty sure he was the first Epstein. Having that said if Warhol had taken the nudes of Monroe and made pop art from that it's somewhat the same application as a can of Campbell's soup. If modeling is art( it is in high fashion but so were fleshy women posing for paintings) and these get recreated then ehhh...what bothers me is what you said about kids. Who in the actual world would do that and why can't the AI have safeguards programmed in to prevent our kids from falling prey to this new danger? It's horrifying for parents.
I understand; it sickens me beyond words 😐
"he was the first Epstein" excellent observation.
Guccione too.
Certainly every problem is used to restrict our liberties further. This is indeed a real problem, but beware of the solutions. Particularly such proposals as C2PA which is a method verify origin of content but can easily be used as a system of censorship and control.
It is the coming post-truth society.
I discuss some of the other proposed solutions here - https://www.mindprison.cc/p/ai-accelerates-post-truth-civilization
great article: "We have seemingly two motivations coming from distinctly different places pushing society into the despair of fiction replacing reality. Those who seek fame and those who wish to control others."
Truth.
I think I will go hug a tree.
Best idea I have heard today ;-)
While all of this is quite fascinating (as Mr Spock frequently said), it's also highly distracting from what really matters in this life. However, I do enjoy good writing, so carry on.
The OF thing is interesting because that website has a policy that pay wall content can’t be shared on other platforms. It doesn’t stop leaks but a lot of creators take steps to get them taken down by law. And then of course I ask why are those who want to “dignify” others paying for the pics in the first place 😅
Excellent point. To be fair to the users, however, the examples I saw were of photos which were posted directly on X, those 'teaser' pics which OnlyFans hosts use to entice people to join their sites. Not sure if any of those users actually subscribe to the models they are 'clothing,' though it would not at all surprise me if they did! LOL
Ahh that makes more sense.
Just give them one drop of power, and they reveal who they truly are.
Exactly - one drop... is all it takes...
Excellent questions and discussion in this piece 🙏🏻 I usually have some semblance of an opinion about stuff like this but while reading you all I could think was “wow, I really have no idea” - which usually tells me we need to look deeper. Loving the comments which have started pointing us in that direction (focus on consent, reflecting on what triggers us and why etc)
Thanks, Anaïs - if I can get folks talking, and maybe spur an extra thought or two, I am happy with that ☺️ Especially since my subscribers are some of the sharpest folks I have seen - definitely blessed in that regard 🫡
When you mention "is AI art actually art?"
Well back in the day, when cameras were first being introduced.
The painters of the world asked "are photographs actually art?"
It won't be too long before "AI art" is normalised by future generations.
Danged, Vulcan - that is an outstanding point! I think you're right, it will undoubtedly been seen as such in the future... of course, until it is, how many liberties will be stripped from us under the guise of 'protection?'
Thanks so much for this!
That's quite alright. It's a point that was raised on a podcast when AI was getting released in the last few years.
It's scary what people can do now. Have you seen the voice ones like Eleven Labs? Record say Joe Rogan talking for a minute and then get it to say anything.
Imagine being able to change something a politician has said. Nothing major. Just one word in a speech and that could completely change a a speech.
There is funny sides to it though. Go on YouTube and look up Trump, Obama and Biden playing Call of Duty. It's hilarious.
I've seen those before - they are hilarious LOL
And you're right about the voice fakes, disturbing if used judiciously...
Good read, Stone! Yea, scammers could have a field day with AI. I hope we implement the necessary safeguards and tech to counter it. Also, I find it interesting that most AI programs still only know how to render very famous people. B list celebrities get no love 😂
Thanks Kyle, appreciate that. And I had not considered that about the B-list celebs LOL Although since average folks have been dealing with AI fakes for a while now, there must be programs out there which are able to render anyone's image. Although from what I have read you're right about the 'big name' image generators - only the super-SUPER-star celebs are available ;-)
And that's really because celebrity images are everywhere for the AI to draw from (no pun intended!)
One of my favorite discussions. Thanks Stone.
Back in high school when I was assigned to write about challenges to bill of rights, I wrote extensively abt free speech in media. Teacher said, "This is an excellent paper but you're writing about porn." well duh, my point exactly, teach.