campy wrote:
I remember when I first started coming here, I was amazed how good some of the photos that were posted were. Then I started to realize that most of what I saw that had amazed me were probably average photos but were improved by very talented people with post processing skills. I'm not trying to take away their skills as a pro photographer, but you have to admit learning photoshop and others has allowed the photos that would have been deleted because of poor technique can now be saved. As for me I never enjoyed the post processing part of photography so most of my photos are "oh that's a nice picture" kind of photo. I still like and use Picassa for jpg's. I also like to shoot b&w film and to me it takes much more talent to get great photos from that than it does using digital cameras and processing software. The old wedding photographers that shot film didn't have the luxury of taking a couple of thousand shots and picking 25 for a book. What digital did to film, AI will do to professional photographers. I am not the type of person that would take credit for a photo that AI corrected and made it into a stunning photo. To me it's like hitting a golf shot close to the pin and hitting a golf shot that was wide left but hit the mound perfectly and bounced right and put the ball 3 feet from pin. It's just not the same feeling....Show more →
Images have always been manipulated post-process. On of the most famous photographs by Ansel Adams, "Moon over New Mexico," looked very little like the original after he worked on it. He is famous for saying: The negative is the composer's score. The print is the performance.
I know a lot of folks think there's a virtue to pictures that are right out of the camera. But one reason post-processing is so important is that even sophisticated cameras cannot duplicate the dynamic range of the human eye. Post-processing helps the photo get a little closer.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Given that the documentary was set 250 years ago, the faces obviously weren't based on photography from that time. I assume the faces are from paintings that have long since been out of copyright and are in the public domain. In this case I don't think it is theft.
There is pretty much no chance they did it like that. For one thing they would have had to pay someone to go around photographing the paintings, which honestly doesn't make much sense. Probably just grabbed online photos to train AI, for the most part
So if you ever put any photos of faces, scenery, etc online, some of the pixels in the documentary might be yours. Good luck getting any royalties or remuneration fron this copyright violation, but Time might have deep enough pockets to make the lawyers take notice
His take on AI's impact to photography is not far off but he missed the mark on the details. This seems to be his style vs getting the facts correct
What's far more realistic is the impact AI will eventually have on high paying STEM jobs across the globe. They aren't putting up thousands of AI compute nodes and data centers so you can produce better pictures of your cat or learn how to make a better omelet via ChatGPT. AI will eventually replace the human capital needed in those fields (and many more)
149113 wrote:
This seems to be his style vs getting the facts correct
Just like he make assumptions as to how some company obtained their images for AI, when in fact he has no proof at all as to how they acquired those images.
149113 wrote:
His take on AI's impact to photography is not far off but he missed the mark on the details. This seems to be his style vs getting the facts correct
What's far more realistic is the impact AI will eventually have on high paying STEM jobs across the globe. They aren't putting up thousands of AI compute nodes and data centers so you can produce better pictures of your cat or learn how to make a better omelet via ChatGPT. AI will eventually replace the human capital needed in those fields (and many more)
Fine, where did they get the pixels for the Time AI documentary. How is it not outright theft?
Certainly you can enlighten us since you call my facts bad
Feb 11, 2026 at 02:05 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
AmbientMike wrote:
Fine, where did they get the pixels for the Time AI documentary. How is it not outright theft?
Certainly you can enlighten us since you call my facts bad
As I posted earlier the Time AI documentary is set 250 years ago (the US revolutionary war), so there were obviously no original photos from that time. There were paintings of course, but these paintings are no longer under copyright and are in the public domain. They could have simply taken pictures of these paintings and worked from them to create the AI of the faces. That would not be theft or copyright violation in any way. That is how it could be and likely isn't outright theft.
Steve Spencer wrote:
As I posted earlier the Time AI documentary is set 250 years ago (the US revolutionary war), so there were obviously no original photos from that time. There were paintings of course, but these paintings are no longer under copyright and are in the public domain. They could have simply taken pictures of these paintings and worked from them to create the AI of the faces. That would not be theft or copyright violation in any way. That is how it could be and likely isn't outright theft.
They also could have used copy written photos of the paintings found online without permission.
Feb 11, 2026 at 10:49 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Mike_5D wrote:
They also could have used copy written photos of the paintings found online without permission.
They could have, but that would make little sense. The paintings of the historical figures here are in museums so access to the paintings is easy and if I am making such a documentary I would want to go to the museums so I could take the pictures to make the AI work the best. No sense in going from copyrighted pictures when making such pictures is easy and relatively cheap. Remember TIME has many copyrighted pictures. They should be motivated to protect copyright not infringe on it. They could have stole the images, but I see zero evidence that they did and I am not going to assume they stole the images when they easily could have obtained them legally.
It is much the same as when I look at my neighbor's classic car. Yeah, he could have stole it, but he also could have bought it legally. I am not going to assume he stole it unless there is evidence he did. Likewise I am not going to assume TIME stole people's pictures of museum paintings when they could have obtained them legally unless there is evidence they did.
Steve Spencer wrote:
They could have, but that would make little sense. The paintings of the historical figures here are in museums so access to the paintings is easy and if I am making such a documentary I would want to go to the museums so I could take the pictures to make the AI work the best. No sense in going from copyrighted pictures when making such pictures is easy and relatively cheap. Remember TIME has many copyrighted pictures. They should be motivated to protect copyright not infringe on it. They could have stole the images, but I see zero evidence that they did and I am not going to assume they stole the images when they easily could have obtained them legally.
It is much the same as when I look at my neighbor's classic car. Yeah, he could have stole it, but he also could have bought it legally. I am not going to assume he stole it unless there is evidence he did. Likewise I am not going to assume TIME stole people's pictures of museum paintings when they could have obtained them legally unless there is evidence they did....Show more →
Scooping pictures off a Google Image search is a hell of a lot easier and cheaper than putting people on planes with expensive gear.
Feb 11, 2026 at 03:49 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Mike_5D wrote:
Scooping pictures off a Google Image search is a hell of a lot easier and cheaper than putting people on planes with expensive gear.
Nobody said it wasn't, but TIME is a pretty major organization with a decent budget that may not want to expose themselves to the risk involved in that strategy or expose themselves to the obvious claims of hypocrisy if they did that and tried to protect their own images. Further, I am not sure that such images scooped off a Google Image search would even work well for the type of AI they use in the documentary. Are you an expert on the use of such AI? If you are then tell us why you think TIME stole the images for their documentary. Perhaps I am missing something, but I see no evidence that TIME stole anything, but if you have any evidence they did I am happy to hear what you have to say.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Nobody said it wasn't, but TIME is a pretty major organization with a decent budget that may not want to expose themselves to the risk involved in that strategy or expose themselves to the obvious claims of hypocrisy if they did that and tried to protect their own images. Further, I am not sure that such images scooped off a Google Image search would even work well for the type of AI they use in the documentary. Are you an expert on the use of such AI? If you are then tell us why you think TIME stole the images for their documentary. Perhaps I am missing something, but I see no evidence that TIME stole anything, but if you have any evidence they did I am happy to hear what you have to say....Show more →
Honestly I've mostly managed to not say anything, but your theory that they used old paintings is completely ridiculous. Id like to see some evidence of that.
You think they're paying photographers for the images they use? I've never heard of anyone getting paid or seen any evidence. Probably cost too much so yes I think they are grabbing images offline hey i can't offer much evidence 2 vehicles meeting up in the dark aren't exchanging recipes either but probably exchanging other things.....
Feb 12, 2026 at 01:07 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
AmbientMike wrote:
Honestly I've mostly managed to not say anything, but your theory that they used old paintings is completely ridiculous. Id like to see some evidence of that.
You think they're paying photographers for the images they use? I've never heard of anyone getting paid or seen any evidence. Probably cost too much so yes I think they are grabbing images offline hey i can't offer much evidence 2 vehicles meeting up in the dark aren't exchanging recipes either but probably exchanging other things.....
What images exist from 250 years ago? Yeah, I assume those are paintings. Is there anything else? I can't think of any other image of people's faces that are that old. That is why I said paintings. Whatever images exist from that time, however, are obviously not still under copyright.
Given that images out of copyright (i.e., in the public domain) exist, I simply raised the possibility that they used those images and didn't steal images. You assume TIME stole the images without any evidence for the theft whatsoever. I think that is an unfair inference. Perhaps they stole the images. Perhaps they didn't, but neither of us can know. You certainly don't know. Until I see evidence, however, I won't claim someone committed a crime. It seems you a perfectly happy making accusations of criminal behavior without any evidence whatsoever that a crime has been committed. You do you. I will respectfully disagree.
Anybody using AI features in any program should be aware that AI adds or removes content from you image that does not exists (or exists).
I do not always agree with the author of this videos but he makes very important observations in my opinion:
Personally I see the advantage of AI support development of my raw files. Sometimes I may spend hours until I reach the same level of results. But finally I cannot accept that AI modifies my pictures by guessing of content that does not exist. So I may not reach the same level of corrections in my pictures but I find a balanced way without AI to ensure that no content is added.
Steve Spencer wrote:
What images exist from 250 years ago? Yeah, I assume those are paintings. Is there anything else? I can't think of any other image of people's faces that are that old. That is why I said paintings. Whatever images exist from that time, however, are obviously not still under copyright.
Given that images out of copyright (i.e., in the public domain) exist, I simply raised the possibility that they used those images and didn't steal images. You assume TIME stole the images without any evidence for the theft whatsoever. I think that is an unfair inference. Perhaps they stole the images. Perhaps they didn't, but neither of us can know. You certainly don't know. Until I see evidence, however, I won't claim someone committed a crime. It seems you a perfectly happy making accusations of criminal behavior without any evidence whatsoever that a crime has been committed. You do you. I will respectfully disagree....Show more →
Steve Spencer wrote:
What stuff? Let's just agree to disagree. OK?
Have faces changed over the last 250 years? do you think AI can't generate old military uniforms or battlefields? What you're saying makes no sense
They need images to train AI. Where do you suppose they got them? I haven't heard of anyone getting paid a dime by AI companies (which BTW they'd have to, to get someone to go around getting photos of old paintings)
I've photographed paintings in museums a fair amount, but just because they're old, I doubt i can just go sell posters of them. But hey I guess my photos are more valuable if I can. Doubt it, though.
Anyone can go and copy paintings that are no longer under copyright and sell them.
Those that claim certain companies have stolen copyright images are just spouting assumptions without any proof to back up their claims.
Copyright for paintings and photographs generally expires 70 years after the creator's death (life-plus-70), placing them in the public domain for free use.In the US, works published before 1929 are generally in the public domain, while 1929–1977 works may have longer protection.
.jpg)
