do they care that the images could be used by other companies? or is there something that stops this from happening? from what i understand ai art has no copyright protection . so sure, the images look great but every eye-glass co in every town could use the images, right?
I haven't educated myself about copyright protection laws so I'm not sure if the creator or the client can claim that they own the images. If not, you are right that any eyewear company could lift the images (possibly change the glasses to make them specific to the products they have) and call it their campaign.
But then again, while that might not be plagiarism legally, it is plagiarism ethically, isn't it?
that’s my problem with using ai art or even copy as advertising. someone could just use the image - maybe a competitor wants to negate your claims using the same image, maybe someone who doesn’t like the company makes variations for social sharing. we just saw everyone have fun with steam boat willy, for example. lack of copyright doesn’t stop this approach in the tracks but it needs to be considered before ignoring it. advertising production has been so sensitive to rights ownership throughout its history. this is not something a big agency is just going to be able to take many risks with…..
Speaking of risks, I see that both agencies and big brands aren't quite embracing AI-generated imagery in a hurry precisely for this reason. And they are right to be risk-averse.
On the other hand, I also do see small brands using AI rather shamelessly. They are probably more focused on selling stuff in the short term and 'building a brand' is too intangible.
do they care that the images could be used by other companies? or is there something that stops this from happening? from what i understand ai art has no copyright protection . so sure, the images look great but every eye-glass co in every town could use the images, right?
I haven't educated myself about copyright protection laws so I'm not sure if the creator or the client can claim that they own the images. If not, you are right that any eyewear company could lift the images (possibly change the glasses to make them specific to the products they have) and call it their campaign.
But then again, while that might not be plagiarism legally, it is plagiarism ethically, isn't it?
that’s my problem with using ai art or even copy as advertising. someone could just use the image - maybe a competitor wants to negate your claims using the same image, maybe someone who doesn’t like the company makes variations for social sharing. we just saw everyone have fun with steam boat willy, for example. lack of copyright doesn’t stop this approach in the tracks but it needs to be considered before ignoring it. advertising production has been so sensitive to rights ownership throughout its history. this is not something a big agency is just going to be able to take many risks with…..
Speaking of risks, I see that both agencies and big brands aren't quite embracing AI-generated imagery in a hurry precisely for this reason. And they are right to be risk-averse.
On the other hand, I also do see small brands using AI rather shamelessly. They are probably more focused on selling stuff in the short term and 'building a brand' is too intangible.