AmbientMike wrote:
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. ...Show more →
You obviously don't understand copyright law. An artist has a copyright until they die and then their estate can extend that copyright for 50 years. After that it is in the public domain and anyone can use it. Shakespeare's relatives get no royalties when his plays are sold. The same when Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven's music is sold. Van Gough's relatives don't get royalties when posters are made of his images.
A couple of months ago I was in Paris and took a photo of the Mona Lisa in the Louvre. I am free to make a poster from that and sell it if I want. So whether you can use your museum photographs to sell posters depends on their age and whether they are still under copyright. Nobody has copyright into perpetuity. You have copyright while you are alive and how long after your death it continues is decided by the courts. I believe that max extension in current law, however, is 50 years.
So, any paintings of revolutionary war participants would surely no longer be protected by copyright. Any existing uniforms from the Revolutionary War would surely no longer be protected by copyright. If Time could legally get images of the painting and uniforms then they could legally use AI to construct their documentary without having to pay anyone for anything.
The clip said the faces in the documentary were depictions of what the people actually looked like. AI generated these images but AI would have to start with something. What images of these people actually exist? Well there are paintings of almost all these figures, so I assumed they started with those paintings. Yes, AI would have to get photos of those paintings that aren't under copyright (note I have a copyright for the shot I took of the Mona Lisa, so it is protected and not in the public domain). I have no idea if any photos of revolutionary war figures are in the public domain and no longer protected by copyright. It is certainly possible that there are a fair number of such unprotected photos available, but maybe there isn't.
The larger point I was making is you assume a crime (theft) was committed in making this documentary. I see no evidence of a crime. It is possible that there was theft, but also very possible that there wasn't. If you allege a crime, then I think it is reasonable to ask you what is the evidence for that crime. You have produced exactly zero evidence that a crime was committed.
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
My response wasn't to you it was to Tony's video and his (and nearly everyone else's) focus on why so much money is being invested in the back end of AI. Sorry for any confusion that may have cause you
149113 wrote:
My response wasn't to you it was to Tony's video and his (and nearly everyone else's) focus on why so much money is being invested in the back end of AI. Sorry for any confusion that may have cause you
Oh,ok, so you were referring to Tony missing the mark and not getting his facts straight. Your post right after mine thought you meant me. Yes Sorry for the confusion
Steve Spencer wrote:
You obviously don't understand copyright law. An artist has a copyright until they die and then their estate can extend that copyright for 50 years. After that it is in the public domain and anyone can use it. Shakespeare's relatives get no royalties when his plays are sold. The same when Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven's music is sold. Van Gough's relatives don't get royalties when posters are made of his images.
A couple of months ago I was in Paris and took a photo of the Mona Lisa in the Louvre. I am free to make a poster from that and sell it if I want. So whether you can use your museum photographs to sell posters depends on their age and whether they are still under copyright. Nobody has copyright into perpetuity. You have copyright while you are alive and how long after your death it continues is decided by the courts. I believe that max extension in current law, however, is 50 years.
So, any paintings of revolutionary war participants would surely no longer be protected by copyright. Any existing uniforms from the Revolutionary War would surely no longer be protected by copyright. If Time could legally get images of the painting and uniforms then they could legally use AI to construct their documentary without having to pay anyone for anything.
The clip said the faces in the documentary were depictions of what the people actually looked like. AI generated these images but AI would have to start with something. What images of these people actually exist? Well there are paintings of almost all these figures, so I assumed they started with those paintings. Yes, AI would have to get photos of those paintings that aren't under copyright (note I have a copyright for the shot I took of the Mona Lisa, so it is protected and not in the public domain). I have no idea if any photos of revolutionary war figures are in the public domain and no longer protected by copyright. It is certainly possible that there are a fair number of such unprotected photos available, but maybe there isn't.
The larger point I was making is you assume a crime (theft) was committed in making this documentary. I see no evidence of a crime. It is possible that there was theft, but also very possible that there wasn't. If you allege a crime, then I think it is reasonable to ask you what is the evidence for that crime. You have produced exactly zero evidence that a crime was committed....Show more →
For me not knowing anything, its not 50 years, you goofed on the time. There may be other things besides copyright, from what a knowledgeable friend of mine told a guy that had an old diary or something, maybe Civil War era. But, Perhaps text is different
They probably just fed the AI photos of modern people, then looked at the old paintings to match. You have no evidence of your goofy idea they fed the AI 250 year old paintings, and they probably would have had to pay to get the photos, making it even less likely thanit already is.
Time presumably bought software to generate an AI documentary. If the software developers just granbbed photos off the internet to train AI, Time is probably still liable, and could get caught up in any suit. I am not making some goofy claim Time stole the photos, you came up with that idea
Copyright in the U.S. is life of the creator plus 70 years for works created after Jan.1, 1978. The copyrights for works created before then depends on if and when it was first published. Laws in other countries are, of course, different.
AmbientMike wrote:
For me not knowing anything, its not 50 years, you goofed on the time. There may be other things besides copyright, from what a knowledgeable friend of mine told a guy that had an old diary or something, maybe Civil War era. But, Perhaps text is different
They probably just fed the AI photos of modern people, then looked at the old paintings to match. You have no evidence of your goofy idea they fed the AI 250 year old paintings, and they probably would have had to pay to get the photos, making it even less likely thanit already is.
Time presumably bought software to generate an AI documentary. If the software developers just granbbed photos off the internet to train AI, Time is probably still liable, and could get caught up in any suit. I am not making some goofy claim Time stole the photos, you came up with that idea ...Show more →
As I quoted in my first post in this thread:
"AmbientMike wrote:
Its just theft
Where did all the pixels come from to make the AI Time documentary"
So did you say TIME stole the pixels or not? Perhaps I misunderstood you, but what you wrote there sure seems to be saying that.
And yeah, I got the exact number of years wrong. I guess it is 70 not 50 in the US. I can admit when I am wrong. But whether it is 70 years or 50 years it doesn't change that any images from the Revolutionary War are not under copyright. And it is possible that TIME was using images that they are entitled to use and didn't steal them as your quote suggests. That was my whole point. Perhaps you can appreciate that point perhaps not, but if you can't let's agree to disagree. I am sick of this conversation.
Having spent 2026 so far not looking at any forums (or eBay) I decided to see what topics were being discussed on FM (only coz it’s absolutely pounding with rain outside -let’s hope it clears up)
This thread piqued my interest…
The irony for me here is that many of you have spent the past 2 decades passing off photoshopped images as your own and in doing so have basked in self adulation as those around you Ooh’d and Ah’d at what they innocently assumed to be your skill set..
(Little did they know!!) 🤣
Now the tables are about to be turned many are squealing.
Yet, you all wanted more and more
We gave you AF in the mid 80’s, by the mid 90’s it was good enough
Yet today you want eye tracking, you want 60fps, you want 4K option, then you want software to tweak even further
The result is AI will very soon deliver to the masses what you all kept wanting… but it’s now considered cheating… yet you all spent the last 20yrs doing just that!!
Oh the irony
As this is the canon board..
I can’t help but smirk at the very likely prospect of obsolete RF glass that is unable to be adapted to ANY other body other than the R system in years to come…unlike the EF that can be adapted not only to ALL canon bodies but also other non canon bodies too…!!
a very very versatile mount…yet they ended it!!!
Since the start of the year I’ve spent every weekend out of the house visiting various places… I can count on one hand the number of “real” cameras I’ve spotted being carried. Spotted loads using their phone, watched them zooming in, tapping then sliding the ex/control tool !!
AI meshed in with phone photography will be a killer combo, no one can deny that at this stage. It’s just how long camera manufacturers can hold out and survive in a rapidly dwindling market.
Pixelpuffin wrote:
Having spent 2026 so far not looking at any forums (or eBay) I decided to see what topics were being discussed on FM (only coz it’s absolutely pounding with rain outside -let’s hope it clears up)
This thread piqued my interest…
The irony for me here is that many of you have spent the past 2 decades passing off photoshopped images as your own and in doing so have basked in self adulation as those around you Ooh’d and Ah’d at what they innocently assumed to be your skill set..
(Little did they know!!) 🤣
Now the tables are about to be turned many are squealing.
Yet, you all wanted more and more
We gave you AF in the mid 80’s, by the mid 90’s it was good enough
Yet today you want eye tracking, you want 60fps, you want 4K option, then you want software to tweak even further
The result is AI will very soon deliver to the masses what you all kept wanting… but it’s now considered cheating… yet you all spent the last 20yrs doing just that!!
Oh the irony
As this is the canon board..
I can’t help but smirk at the very likely prospect of obsolete RF glass that is unable to be adapted to ANY other body other than the R system in years to come.
Since the start of the year I’ve spent every weekend out of the house visiting various places… I can count on one hand the number of “real” cameras I’ve spotted being carried. Spotted loads using their phone, watched them zooming in, tapping then sliding the ex/control too!!
AI meshed in with phone photography will be a killer combo, no one can deny that at this stage. It’s just how long camera manufacturers can hold out and survive in a rapidly dwindling market. ...Show more →
For at least seventy five years the vast majority of people shooting photos have shot something easy that produced images right away. That hasn't changed and I don't think it will. The vast majority of people will use their phones or perhaps another device that takes quite decent photos and gives them images they can show and share with others in seconds.
Despite that market for easy immediately available images there has also been a much smaller market for enthusiasts/artists who like to create an artistic expression through photography. I think that much smaller market isn't going to go away completely. It might shrink a bit, but like lots of artistic endeavors there will always be a number of people who will like to pursue it. I think worldwide that market will be big enough that a few camera companies will still make products to sell into that market. Yeah, some gear may become obsolete, but I am almost 60 and I am pretty sure that the gear I have now will be serviceable for the rest of my life even if it becomes "obsolete," so I am not so worried about that and if the market keeps making products for another 10 years, which I think is very likely, then I know I can pursue this hobby/artistic expression until I am too old to really want to do it any more.
This is an extremely strange and angry post. It sounds like someone addicted to social media and is attention starved.
I have never used photoshop. Never had interest. I also don't care aboit Ai and will never use it. I am also likely younger than you.
Stay off social media for your mental health is my suggestion.
Pixelpuffin wrote:
Having spent 2026 so far not looking at any forums (or eBay) I decided to see what topics were being discussed on FM (only coz it’s absolutely pounding with rain outside -let’s hope it clears up)
This thread piqued my interest…
The irony for me here is that many of you have spent the past 2 decades passing off photoshopped images as your own and in doing so have basked in self adulation as those around you Ooh’d and Ah’d at what they innocently assumed to be your skill set..
(Little did they know!!) 🤣
Now the tables are about to be turned many are squealing.
Yet, you all wanted more and more
We gave you AF in the mid 80’s, by the mid 90’s it was good enough
Yet today you want eye tracking, you want 60fps, you want 4K option, then you want software to tweak even further
The result is AI will very soon deliver to the masses what you all kept wanting… but it’s now considered cheating… yet you all spent the last 20yrs doing just that!!
Oh the irony
As this is the canon board..
I can’t help but smirk at the very likely prospect of obsolete RF glass that is unable to be adapted to ANY other body other than the R system in years to come…unlike the EF that can be adapted not only to ALL canon bodies but also other non canon bodies too…!!
a very very versatile mount…yet they ended it!!!
Since the start of the year I’ve spent every weekend out of the house visiting various places… I can count on one hand the number of “real” cameras I’ve spotted being carried. Spotted loads using their phone, watched them zooming in, tapping then sliding the ex/control tool !!
AI meshed in with phone photography will be a killer combo, no one can deny that at this stage. It’s just how long camera manufacturers can hold out and survive in a rapidly dwindling market. ...Show more →
Pixelpuffin wrote:
The irony for me here is that many of you have spent the past 2 decades passing off photoshopped images as your own and in doing so have basked in self adulation as those around you Ooh’d and Ah’d at what they innocently assumed to be your skill set..
The Whining Troll has returned. I guess he doesn't post HIS OWN photos because he would NOT get oohs and aahs. He probably adores his own images though because does not use newer gear or post-processing. Self-adulation.
Notice to all FM'ers: If you photoshop your images they are not your own.
Steve Spencer wrote:
As I quoted in my first post in this thread:
"AmbientMike wrote:
Its just theft
Where did all the pixels come from to make the AI Time documentary"
So did you say TIME stole the pixels or not? Perhaps I misunderstood you, but what you wrote there sure seems to be saying that.
And yeah, I got the exact number of years wrong. I guess it is 70 not 50 in the US. I can admit when I am wrong. But whether it is 70 years or 50 years it doesn't change that any images from the Revolutionary War are not under copyright. And it is possible that TIME was using images that they are entitled to use and didn't steal them as your quote suggests. That was my whole point. Perhaps you can appreciate that point perhaps not, but if you can't let's agree to disagree. I am sick of this conversation. ...Show more →
Do you think i ever wanted to waste my time on this? But it seemed to be gaining some traction
If you think they are training AI using ~250 year old paintings, I dont know what to tell you. I don't recommend telling everyone you think so, but it's a bit late for that
As far as manufacturing stuff about me accusing Time, Time has never released any AI photo editing software. So that doesn't make sense, either.
Feb 15, 2026 at 11:21 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
AmbientMike wrote:
Do you think i ever wanted to waste my time on this? But it seemed to be gaining some traction
If you think they are training AI using ~250 year old paintings, I dont know what to tell you. I don't recommend telling everyone you think so, but it's a bit late for that
As far as manufacturing stuff about me accusing Time, Time has never released any AI photo editing software. So that doesn't make sense, either.
Let's agree to disagree. Can we at least agree on that? And I don't need or even want your recommendations so please keep them to yourself. I am not sure why you think it would be useful for you to offer those to me.
And for the record all I said is that it is *possible* that they used legally obtained pictures of 250 year old paintings to train the AI and because that was possible your claim that TIME committed theft in making the documentary was based on a faulty inference. I stand by that statement and reasoning despite your recommendations.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Let's agree to disagree. Can we at least agree on that? And I don't need or even want your recommendations so please keep them to yourself. I am not sure why you think it would be useful for you to offer those to me.
And for the record all I said is that it is *possible* that they used legally obtained pictures of 250 year old paintings to train the AI and because that was possible your claim that TIME committed theft in making the documentary was based on a faulty inference. I stand by that statement and reasoning despite your recommendations....Show more →
If youre going to say a bunch of dumb crap, then yes, talking to you is a waste of time. You say "agree to disagree," then you say a bunch of other "stuff."
I dont know how many times I have to tell you I am not accusing Time of stealing images or how simple i have to make it before you finally comprehend. For starters you could read my last 2 posts.
Of course, the main problem with this discussion is you just don't know what you're talking about.
Feb 15, 2026 at 01:53 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
AmbientMike wrote:
If youre going to say a bunch of dumb crap, then yes, talking to you is a waste of time. You say "agree to disagree," then you say a bunch of other "stuff."
I dont know how many times I have to tell you I am not accusing Time of stealing images or how simple i have to make it before you finally comprehend. For starters you could read my last 2 posts.
Of course, the main problem with this discussion is you just don't know what you're talking about.
The first problem with this discussion is you did claim that TIME stole images and I simply quoted you saying that and you never clarified or retracted that claim. If you are now, which still isn't clear, I am glad you are finally recognizing that statement was not a very useful thing to say.
The other problem is that when I pointed out that your claim wasn't supported by any evidence you felt a need to subtly and now openly derogate me. I know how to make inferences from evidence. I was simply pointing out that the statement I quoted that you made was not a reasonable inference from the evidence. You can claim I don't know what I am talking about, but you don't know me or what I know. Claiming that I don't know what I am talking about just comes off as defensive. Yet another inference you made without the requisite evidence.
Zenos_Licht wrote:
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).
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.
AI can be useful for masking, but yeah, AI upscaling gives fake fantasy detail. The same applies to AI noise reduction. This is well known, at least in scientific circles, but every now and then there is a photographer who discovers it and puts out a video. Most people don't seem to care, but photographers should care. After all, photography means "to draw with light", not to draw with software.
What I am quite certain we will see with the advent of AI incorporated into the fast chips they are now developing, is we should find some very competent reduction of elements of noise of an image that the sensor is producing where detail is well retained. Think DXO's capabilities but nicely built right into the image produced prior to post processing. I have little doubt they will be able to bump dynamic range without the artifacts we'd been used to seeing in the past. Count on auto while balances that are supremely accurate in camera as well. Bottom line is it will all be so refined that there will not be the kinds of complaints we now have with such application. I for one welcome it.
