No. It's like microwaving a TV dinner and saying you cooked.

I generally consider "OC" to mean specifically that it's original - you didn't get it from someplace else, so broadly yes if you're the one who had it generated.

But if it's a community for art or photography generally, I don't think AI art belongs there - the skills and talent required are just too different. I love AI art communities, I just think it's a separate thing.

It depends on the context for me. As a meme base or to make a joke and you don't have the skills? Sure. In an art community? No.

"Original Content".

Is it content? Yes.

Is it original? That depends on the context. What do you ask about, in what context? Where is it placed? Which AI? How was it trained? How does it replicate?

If someone generates an image, it is original in that narrow context - between them and the AI.

Is the AI producing originals, original interpretations, original replications, or only transforming other content? I don't think you can make a general statement on that. It's too broad, unspecific of a question.

No

No.

Nothing is oc.

There is a book "steal like an artist" by Austin Kleon that addresses this idea. Real short read and interesting visuals.

As for AI specifically. Ai image generation tools are just that, a tool. Using them doesn't immediately discredit your work. There is a skillset in getting them to produce your vision. And that vision is the human element not present in the tool alone.

I personally don't think terribly highly of ai art, but the idea that it's "just stealing real artists hard work" is absurd. It makes art accessable to people intimidated by other mediums, chill out and let people make shit.

The way you put original content in quotes is weird.

OC as an acronym typically just means something that someone made. In this sense, yeah, if you make something with AI then it's "your OC'.

Original content used as the words generally means something slightly different and it's more debatable.

Having used AI art tools there is more creativity involved than people think. When you're just generating them, sure, there's less creativity than traditional digital art, of course, but it is not a wholly uncreative process. Take in-painting, you can selectively generate in just some portions of the image. Or sketch and then generate based off of that.

All that said though I don't think "creativity" is necessary for something to be considered OC. It just needs to have been made by them.

Would you call fan art of well known characters OC? I would.

Steam bans games that contain such AI content because they are not near OC. Except you train the AI on only your own Copyrighted Images, which mid journey and various other AI aren't. They are all trained on copyrighted images without asking.

It's an interesting thing to ponder and my opinion is that like many other things in life something being 'OC' is a spectrum rather than a binary thing.

If I apply a B&W filter on an image is that OC? Obviously not

But what if I make an artwork that's formed by hundreds of smaller artworks, like this example? This definitely deserves the OC tag

AI art is also somewhere in that spectrum and even then it changes depending on how AI was used to make the art. Each person has a different line on the spectrum where things transition from non OC to OC, so the answer to this would be different for everyone.

Yeah, I do. I play with AI from time to time and people don't realize creating the correct prompts is a skill in itself, it's not just some magical doodad that does what you want out of the box. AI generated stuff is OC if you're the one who made it.

That's an interesting question. I haven't spent very much time thinking about how to define AI art. My immediate thought is that AI art can be OC, but it should also be labeled as such. It's important to know if a person created the content vs prompting an AI to generate the content. The closest example I can think of is asking someone to paint something for you instead of painting it yourself.

As someone who has been trying to get my vision for a piece to fruition using AI for months…I absolutely think AI is OC. The argument that it references existing work cracks me up because all of art history is derivatives of what has come before. I do think there is “low effort” pieces, but you get that in other mediums as well such as photography. Also…need I mention Duchamp and the urinal?

Absolutely not

Yeah in the same remixing a song is considered original

I do, yes.

Yes

Yea, the AI is a tool used by humans to make art. Like other artistic tools, you can use it in a low effort way to make stuff (like the abstract and ultra random modern art). Similarly, people can use it in a much more directed and creative way, such as by using ControlNet to determine the content of the art manually, then have the AI follow whatever style directed.

There are many ways to use AI art in a more involved way than just prompting and hoping for the best. Still, like the other artistic tools that have been invented, people want to gatekeep and call it not art. Don't listen to them, art is art regardless of how you perceive it. You may not think it as worthwhile, but it is still created only for aesthetic value and is thus art

Not when it copies the art style from real artists