Commons:Deletion requests/Algorithmically generated AI artwork in specific styles by User:Benlisquare

Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Algorithmically generated AI artwork in specific styles by User:Benlisquare|year=2025|month=January|day=09}} to the description page of each file. Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Algorithmically generated AI artwork in specific styles by User:Benlisquare|plural}} ~~~~ Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Algorithmically generated AI artwork in specific styles by User:Benlisquare}} at the end of today's log.

Algorithmically generated AI artwork in specific styles by User:Benlisquare

• File:Algorithmically-generated_AI_artwork_of_Hakurei_Reimu_(part_1_of_4).png
• File:Algorithmically-generated_AI_artwork_of_Hakurei_Reimu_(part_2_of_4).png
• File:Algorithmically-generated_AI_artwork_of_Hakurei_Reimu_(part_3_of_4).png
• File:Algorithmically-generated_AI_artwork_of_Hakurei_Reimu_(part_4_of_4).png

According to the creator's provided info on each, these images were generated through an AI using a prompt specifically asking to emulate the styles of specific artists (Hakurei Reimu, art style of Sophie Anderson, and greg rutkowski, and albert lynch. illustration of attractive girl, cleavage, wide hips, thick thighs, full body shot, dynamic posing, soft skin, beautiful, detailed, emphasis mine). It is not yet legally established that doing so respects the artists' copyright, and there is no way to verify that all of these hundred images are sufficiently distinct from existing works to receive independent copyright protection. Further, it presents an ethical nightmare of the wholesale copying of specific artists' styles, a practice which Commons should not endorse. Edit: The first and last artists are long dead. But the second is very much alive, and has protested the use of his name in AI-generated works: [1].

--Ovinus (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• Keep: An artist cannot copyright a brushstroke style, and there has been no legal precedent where mere motifs can be protected under copyright. Furthermore, using the example provided in the deletion nomination, a hybrid of Sophie Anderson's brushstroke style, Albert Lynch's brushstroke style, and Greg Rutkowski's brushstroke style would be an amalgamation of the three, which ultimately would resemble nothing of any of the three original styles. If nebulous visual ideas such as motifs can be copyrighted, then no artist on the planet would be able to create art any more, since anything that is made today would inevitably slightly resemble something else made 20 years ago, 40 years ago, or 60 years ago, by any one of thousands of artists. Works can be copyrighted: if they were alive today, the author of the Mona Lisa can copyright the Mona Lisa, but they cannot copyright the appearance of brushstroke patterns that resemble what is seen on the Mona Lisa. --benlisquare_{Talk•Contribs} 02:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
• Delete: This is outside of the scope of Wikimedia Commons as this user-generated 90+ image collection of "Prompt: busty young girl ..." images is "Self-created artwork without obvious educational use." These images are also outside the scope of Wikimedia Commons because they were posted here for self-promotional purposes, created and uploaded here so that the editor who created these 90+ images could spam their user-generated "busty young girl" images into Wikipedia. That this is also a likely copyright violation is clearly explained by Ovinus above with their citation to MIT Technology Review. As the MIT Technology Review article says, "Some artists may have been harmed in the process" of creating images such as this. We should not be hosting potentially harmful images. Elspea756 (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)