Businesses that rely on creatives should probably avoid angering them.

  • Dojan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Wow. Such a blatantly AI generated image as well. The nerve.

    Maybe the go-to way of avoiding this would be for companies to actually divulge who the artist is; credit them!

    Edit: Feels like “count the AI giveaways on this image” could become a good drinking game.

    • Bizarre teeth arrangement
    • Some teeth are gum coloured
    • There are spontaneous toes in arbitrary places
    • The spine tuft migrates to the shoulder
    • There’s some odd scaly and hairy shrimp-looking appendage next to the dragon
      • Suppose it’s the tail, but it’s not attached
      • Tail tuft is a different colour from the rest of the fur
    • Random third horn sprouting from the back of the neck
      • Dojan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        10 months ago

        Right? There’s so much talk about paying artists in exposure but how often do artists actually get exposed?

        Don’t think copyright should be an issue. We know for example that the soundtrack to the Disney film Encanto was composed by Lin Manuel Miranda, but Walt Disney still owns the copyright. Same could go for the rest of the entire film, they do give credits to people who contributed but Disney still owns the copyright.

        Having a signature somewhere on an advert shouldn’t be a big deal.