05/06/2024
I'm going to open a sensitive topic: AI generated works/art/films, and specifically, not just making them, but then submitting them to festivals as the prompter's artworks.
As someone who runs a film festival, I have been asked multiple times to add a category for AI-generated art, and have not done so. Our stance is that anything AI-generated is disqualified from awards consideration, where we will recognise the human-created elements only.
People have also said many things to me, like, "What's the difference between a director working with actors and someone prompting for art from AI?"
I think that's a worthy question to answer. Directors are a creative force through the entire pre, production, and post process, work as a team with actors, crew, and every single element of the process and create everything together and new art is created.
Prompters write a lot of text and wait for a result to be made, then iterate that text, which again goes to the machine to make the work for them.
I'll explain where there IS a connection between someone being a client of AI and sprouting text prompts to get art made for them.
The client would essentially be the executive producer.
In THAT degree.. no executive producer presents themselves as the artist of a film, or claims the artist's works as their own, even if they are commissioning, funding, or having work created for them, which they plan to on-sell, then goes to seek formal recognition as if they created it all themselves.
As a client of AI software, using it for pre-vis makes sense, bouncing ideas, quick poster mock ups early in production phase before official one are made, even for personal fun, sure, and I can understand VFX artists utilising it to shortcut long processes.
For fully generated AI vision, sound, music, that artwork boils down to a machine crafting plagiarised art based on its training of human created content, to create something that according to recent legal cases, cannot actually be copyrighted as new.