Exactly. There are now source tags required for AI companies to have. These tags show where they got the asset from. You can now trace it like money to see if they stole those assets or have them licensed, which we all know is rarely the case.
These companies are even disappearing people from being a Witness in Court. They know their business is collecting stolen data, put it in a blender and profit with subscriptions .
I think I came across wrong!
What I meant was that I believe many who are getting sued would rather buy a licence than do battle in court.
And the companies would rather have them buy a licence, because proving where things came from is going to take time, cost a lot and get messy.
.
.
I did say it feels like trash, but what I also should have said is that 3D models are being devalued so quickly.
A.I is getting better and better at modelling so fast now. The models it creates are almost there and it won’t take too much longer for it to get the topology right.
So, for me…
…I don’t see any point investing time in being creative at the moment.
It seems to me that if somone wants a 3D model for basic use (background, etc) why come to buy one from fab, when you can get one created by one of the many companies doing it at the moment for pennies or even free?
And I believe it’s not too far off now, that very technical models will be created for pennies as well.
Being a creative, from modelling, movies, art and music is going to be an uphill battle against A.I to make any money from.
It’s all very depressing the way the creative world is being devalued at a rapid rate of knots.
Yes, no doubt about that. It’s already impressive, but the devaluation is due to lack of regulation enforcement. When that happens, 3D models will get very valuable for the reason that AI needs more quality content to eat/train/learn.
Not at the moment I agree. But when technology catches up and forces AI companies to pay Artist for their creations (not one time but as it is being requested by their algorithms), then a balance is found: AI companies get their quality content and Artist get paid constantly. We still years from that unfortunately.
I disagree. I think it be the contrary: a high demand for hand sculpted, high quality technical 3D models. Think of AI generators as PIRATES BAY in 2000. They had all the theater movies, expensive software, music… all FREE while they profited through Advertisement. It took years but eventually they got destroyed because it was all Copyright and Intellectual property infringement. The only difference is that AI companies hide and don’t want to show where they got the content from. That’s about to change in Europe for example. If they don’t tell their sources, they simply cannot enter that Market
Just ban AI-generated assets from fab.com and launch a separate site called fabAI.com, dedicated entirely to AI-created content. That way, fab.com stays focused on traditional, human-made work, while fabAI.com becomes the go-to place for AI assets.
Offline AI asset generators are already available. They can run on any regular computer, generate thousands of assets within an hour, and even include tools to automate tasks such as uploading AI assets automatically to multiple marketplaces. Because of this kind of cheap mass production, platforms like SoundCloud have banned AI-generated music, and Apple Music and other stores are now doing the same for both AI music and AI art.
Even stock marketplaces that initially allowed AI assets from the very beginning have now decided to ban them. When anyone can easily flood a marketplace with AI content, selling those items individually doesn’t make sense. Creating a dedicated platform for AI assets would solve the flooding problem without harming sales for original asset creators on fab.com.
.
Meta refuses to sign EU’s AI code of practice.
