Artcow SamanthaPrater / EruzaArto / DefyingGravityAgain / Emily Nicole Cassidy / Willowtheway / Uniloax - Special Ed Art Thief and "Big Bonned" Attention Whore; Perpetual Liar; Cucumber Princess; Negligent Animal Abuser; Twice Investigated for Murder

Emily continues to be unoriginal || Archive
1745445563945.webp
Kiwifarms wins, Emily loses. And she's a pedophile.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neurotypical Mantis, Pedophobe and The Un-Clit
tomford said:
My understanding is that the AI will only do what you tell it. So if I said, for instance, "draw me a centaur" that you plagiarized from someone yes that would be infringement. If you ask it to draw a catgirl it will do it, but you're not allowed to copyright it as your own work.
Click to expand...
In order, yes but also no, potentially, and that's where we truly enter truly murky territory that our laws and societal views haven't quite caught up on yet.

If I give Stable Diffusion a prompt, it will run the prompt through its neural network and produce several images as outputs based on a provided or random seed number. How well it succeeds in doing so depends on both the prompt provided and what model I've chosen to run the prompt; results can vary wildly. If I tell the AI to do something that it doesn't understand (hasn't been trained on) it's going to do something else based on the neural network resulting from the data it was trained on, so potentially the AI can give outputs that would make one think it didn't do what it instructed to do. Case in point:
1745443619237.webp
In a batch of goth girls it produced that. How, why, I'm really not sure but it was a rather notable hiccup in the expected outputs.

So regarding using AI to plagiarize a specific centaur made by a specific artist that was part of the training data, we've got a problem. When AI systems drain on datasets they don't learn how to exactly recreate the input images; instead they learn how to make something very similar to it. So if we say Sailor Cat was part of a set of training data:
1745443883713.webp
Assuming the image was tagged and labled appropriately, any model training on it would be learn its general characters and recreate images with similar characters if given the appropriate name, but it would not be able to recreate this specific image. This is why AI systems are really good at making things that look very similar and a lot like the Mona Lisa, but they don't recreate the Mona Lisa. So in this example of using it to infringe on someone's specific centaur, it's going to drawn upon the network formed by all of the centaurs and whatever gender specified in creating its outputs. But if we go to img2img and give it the image we wish to infringe as an input, that's much more clear cut so long as you lack the explicit permission to do so.

And now is as good a time as any to touch on the legality of the model training. The computer basically does what people do when they look at an image and learn from it; it just does it on a much faster and larger scale. As far as I am aware there are no laws that criminalize AI training even on copyrighted materials (because it's what humans do too) and instead legal efforts have focused on making things like AI generated CSAM/deepfakes punishable and on the scraping often used in making the datasets, as that's almost always a violation of terms of service where the scraping is done.

Now, as for copyrighting your own outputs, generally that's a no but we have to ask a few questions. Did you make the model you're using yourself, or are you using someone else's model and what permissions did they grant? Generally any txt2img output will not be copyrightable as it's basically a mathematical process and anyone using the same software, settings and model can put in the same inputs and get the same image as output. But, if I were to take that output and do this:
cat2.webp
Now we have to decide where to draw the line of how much human authorship is required to make it my copyright. If I make changes to the image and run it through img2img several times, again, how much authorship is necessary to make it uniquely mine? Nobody else has and can easily recreate the series of input images I'm using and get the exact same outputs, so we've made something unique and impossible to reproduce using AI. This is the part that we haven't quite figured out yet and likely will not for some time, as it is similar to multiple people taking photographs of a sunset each with their unique copyright over very similar images.

Amusingly, if we say that any AI use whatsoever means that the image cannot be copyrighted, then that means that images resulting from services like Glaze that attempt to poison the well of images used in training data also are not valid copyrights as those systems also use AI in their process. Whoops!

As for the seething fatty, they can get fucked; I have paid absolutely nobody for the thousands of generations I've done and I'm not going to do a speedpaint at their demand that they can steal.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Cryptosporidium 136, Pedophobe and The Un-Clit

Another Traditional art medium to prove it is MY style and not Lamby's.

While I don't claim ownership of Disney, Winx, etc, I do claim ownership of mashing them together.

Sorry but Lambydance has NONE of these videos. I'm the original.

the paper is too thick to trace.

back off.

HeyRosalina said:
I don't see anybody drawing.
Click to expand...
I keep telling you I am not a professional and do not have a professional set up. it's either I show my computer screen or myself, which one? :|
 
  • Mad at the Internet
  • Autistic
Reactions: tomford and SneedSeer
Emily Cassidy said:

Another Traditional art medium to prove it is MY style and not Lamby's.

While I don't claim ownership of Disney, Winx, etc, I do claim ownership of mashing them together.

Sorry but Lambydance has NONE of these videos. I'm the original.

the paper is too thick to trace.

back off.
Click to expand...
It looks like your video violates YouTube copyright.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Un-Clit and Catgirls are Love

It's not the best view but the drawing is in it, again the Ohuhu pen blends in with the black I don't know why it does but it could be because the pale skin marker is light.

I am also in it, and providing proof THIS IS MY STYLE NOT LAMBYS.

Yes I draw Traditionally too. if you look at the paper it is TOO THICK to see through so no tracing, my PC is also in view as is my phone.

all in all, I am not referencing ANYONE's work to provide proof this is the way I draw.

back off.

you've lost.

NO CLAIMATE OF MINE HAS THESE.

I have proof.

they do not.

I'm the originator!

HeyRosalina said:
Why are you drawing a penis?
Click to expand...
Why are you failing at trolling when people can see that it's not a Penis but instead a person with braids? :|

Well, that video shut you all up. ^_^ and I know your still here because its only SIX PM my time.

Lamby should be forced into doing the same type of video as me. or forfit the right to call themselves an artist that doesn't use images for help.

traditional art video below.

shoo trolls, I've won. ^_^ I told the truth.


 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Dumb
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: The Un-Clit and SneedSeer
Cheesy Beavy said:
You’re a human? I thought you were man bear pig

so have some football? What sense does that make Emily? These football videos you keep posting make no sense
Click to expand...
That's the mod doing it, the recent videos of me drawing traditionally make more sense. :|

MODS STOP CHANGING MY VIDEOS , you could get me indirectly introuble with the site for derailing the conversation and I WILL blame you for it.
 
  • Mad at the Internet
  • Optimistic
  • Like
Reactions: Pedophobe, The Un-Clit, SneedSeer and 1 other person

Traditional drawing proof that the style Lambydance is trying to claim as original is not original to them.

in this video you can see my PC, phone, etc, and the paper is too thick to trace.

so no. I am not the thief.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: SneedSeer and Jarl Varg
Cheesy Beavy said:
Traditional football you mean? All I see is football plays. You should stick to “art” and leave the great sport of football alone.
Click to expand...
that's a lie because I see the regular videos. Your avoiding the fact that Lambydance refuses to put out a video similar to mine. WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN PUBLICLY RELEASED ON MY DA!

End it.

you've lost.

shoo.


Oh, by the way, the reason I am upside down is because I haven't figured out how to flip the camera properly in OBS. it does it backwards when I draw so the image I am drawing is mirrored. if you actually live-streamed on the program yourselves you'd know.

the Webcam or any video camera actually shows it mirrored backwards, so I had to rotate the video to be upside down. it's not me being a Dunce, it's me actually trying to figure out why my videos are mirrored.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Autistic
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: SneedSeer, tomford, EllenDrawsRapeOfHerHaters and 1 other person
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back