Furry art could be copied en masse if anyone had ever wanted to use them for trolls. It's no more difficult than, say, anime avatars. If Russian troll farms haven't been using furry avatars, that probably has more to do with the stigma against furries impeding their propaganda mission than about the difficulty of downloading images from e621.
They are creating art, just mostly not the sort that requires a ton of skill. Someone is making all the meme posts, taking cute cat photos, uploading amateur writing, and so on.
Not what I expected when I saw the title "Show HN: Fursona Editor". This is really cool. It kinda feels like sophisticated art theft in a way, but by that line of thinking you could argue that all creation of art is sophisticated art theft.
The artists are anonymous but according to the article, the author knows how to reach them. Perhaps someone should contact the publication. This is the only email address I see:
Yes. For example, arfa ran into this question when launching https://thisfursonadoesnotexist.com/. Lots of furry artists had exactly the same concerns with his work there, but that work is decisively transformative.
Copilot seems ... well, less transformative. I'm still not sure how to feel.
There are many ways an artist can compensate their influences. Some of them are monetary.
When discussing our work, we can name them.
When one of our influences comes out with a new body of work, we can gush about it to our own fans.
When we find ourselves in a position of authority, we can offer work to our influences. No animation studio is really complete without someone old enough to be a grandfather hanging out helping to teach the new kids the ropes in between doing an amazing job on their own scenes, and maybe putting together a few pitches, for instance.
We can draw fan art and send it to them.
None of these are mandatory, but artists tend to do this, because we are humans, and we recognize that we exist in a community of other artists, and these all just feel like normal human things to do for your community.
And if an artist suddenly starts wholesale swiping another artist's style without crediting them, their peers get angry. [1]
OpenAI isn't gonna tell you that it was going for a Cat & Girl kind of feel in this drawing. OpenAI isn't gonna offer Dorothy Gambrell a job. OpenAI isn't going to tell you that she just came out with a new collection and she's still at the top of her game, and that you should buy it. OpenAI's not going to send her a painting of Cat & Girl that it did for fun. OpenAI isn't going to do anything for her unless the courts force it to, because OpenAI is a corporation who has found a way to make money by strip-mining the stuff people post publicly on the Internet because they want other humans to be able to see it.
He doesn't draw any art. Most of it he buys from art repositories (because already existing generic art is cheaper), the art he can't find he commissions from freelancers. It's in the article.
I seem to remember some NY artist trying to sort of vaguely claim/intimate invention (falsely) by having an exhibition too. Ah yes, here https://art-qrcode.com/
Slightly OT: I wonder where they got the unicorn illustrations from. That's a neat way to pimp a blog post, but terribly expensive if you have to pay somebody to draw that.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/08/the-secret-furry-pat...
reply