I acquired a domain name last week, and once it transferred to GoDaddy, I set up a custom landing page using Carrd. Instead of buying a stock photo for its background image, I decided to test an AI image generator to save some money.
In my paid Chat GPT account, I searched for an image generator tool. I found the image generator tool created by Naif J. Alotaibi and gave it a whirl. Since the domain name is a French woman’s name in .com, this was the prompt that I used: “Create a realistic image of a woman in Paris looking out at the Eiffel Tower.” I made one additional tweak to ensure the woman was looking at the Eiffel Tower, and here’s the image that was created:
I think this is a pretty good background image for my landing page. Depending on my needs going forward, I wouldn’t hesitate to use an image generator again in the future. It can help ensure a descriptive domain name stands out while using a unique image to illustrate.
I am somewhat uncertain about the proper way to attribute this AI generated image, so I figured I would be safe by providing a link to the image generator in the footer.
Have you tried creator.nightcafe.studio?
No – just the one in the link. I don’t use AI to create many images though.
Hi Elliot, I queried ChatGPT 4. Of course, can’t guarantee the response, as I’m not an attorney.
”
Attributing AI-created images involves acknowledging both the tool used to generate the image and, in some cases, the creators of the prompts or original concepts. This practice is crucial as it respects the roles of both the technology and the human input in the creative process. Here’s a guideline on how to properly attribute AI-created images:
1. **Name of the AI Tool**: Clearly state the name of the AI tool or service used to generate the image. For example, “Image created using OpenAI’s DALL-E.”
2. **Credit to the Prompt Creator**: If the image was created based on a specific prompt provided by someone other than the person using the AI tool, credit the creator of the prompt. For example, “Based on a concept by [Name].”
3. **Date of Creation**: Including the date when the image was generated can be helpful, especially since AI technology evolves rapidly. This gives context regarding the technology’s capability at that time.
4. **Additional Details (if applicable)**: If the image modifies or is inspired by existing copyrighted works, this should be noted to clarify the creative lineage and respect copyright, where applicable.
5. **Disclosure of AI Involvement**: It’s important to disclose that the image was AI-generated. This maintains transparency about the nature of the artwork, especially in contexts where digital authenticity is important.
Example of a comprehensive attribution:
“Image created with OpenAI’s DALL-E, based on a prompt by Jane Doe, generated on April 15, 2024.”
Such attribution ensures transparency and gives credit to all contributors, including the AI’s developers and the individual who crafted the prompt, maintaining ethical standards in digital creativity.
“
This is the prompt used:
”
What’s the proper attribution for the use of an AI-created image?
“
I am able to confirm for everyone who is uncertain that the image is very good. (Yes, a little humor there.)
I was just speaking about AI myself. Check out what I said to Brent Oxley about that over at Andrew’s:
https://domainnamewire.com/2024/04/11/man-gets-486k-judgment-against-rob-monster-and-epik-inc-over-stolen-domain/#comment-2279950
#4 in the list above is key. But… I’d be very careful.
The concern is that AI tools may draw on existing images and IP created by real artists and creators and not attribute the copyright holder of the IP. Many artists and creators are rightly concerned that their copyrighted work product will be reused in AI-generated images without any notice or consent.
If someone infringes on content created by an artist or creator then the court and legal costs and settlements with the copyright holder can be very high.
As a company that has registered hundreds of copyrights, and actively defended them when infringed, I can really understand these concerns. I’m pretty sure that most IP holders would vigorously defend their rights if their IP was infringed in AI-generated images, and they found out about it.
So I think AI is great for things like this, but I’d be very cautious to make sure that it doesn’t infringe on the work of others.
Good points. How would you research that for a specific image?
Check this out. I tried to comment under John Berryhill at the CircleID post today about ACPA and “Re-registration,” but it demands that you use your real full name so I passed. This is what my comment was going to be:
Title:
“Predatory and rapacious lying liars like to lie…”
Comment:
““Had Congress wished to restrict the word ‘registration’ as used in the ACPA to initial registrations, it surely knew how to do so.”
Had Congress wished to apply ACPA to anything beyond the plain and ordinary meaning of “registration” or “register” it surely knew how to do so.
Register means register, and renewal of existing registration means renewal of existing registration.”
https://circleid.com/posts/20240415-does-renewing-domain-name-count-as-registering-under-acpa
That one is such a disgusting predatory perversion, corruption and lie that it should go to SCOTUS if necessary and people should be sued for malpractice and abuse of the legal system.
I hate AI photos..they are fake and Bullshitwebsites
The lady in the photo is pure sexist