How AI is Stealing Art

1. 

   @Avrian_Skyes

   January 26, 2026 at 6:57 am

   I GOT AN AI AD AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS VID LOLLL

2. 

   @kreatingwithkatie555

   January 26, 2026 at 6:57 am

   6:50 oh, like shein for art

3. 

   @ease7142

   January 26, 2026 at 6:57 am

   I work in architecture and on my computer there is plenty of copyrighted stuff that I use for my designs, it doesn't matter at all though because my results are something completely else. No one cares about how a piece is created only the outcome matters. If I was to randomly draw lines and accidentally drew Mickey Mouse I won't be defending it by saying "but look at my work process"

4. 

   @marblemelon-e2w

   January 26, 2026 at 6:57 am

   Its not the ai or ai images themselves that bug me. Its pretentious art thieves and people taking credit for things they never made. A lot of ai users also have very ignorant dehumanizing arguments about creativity and only look at how they can profit from anything. They get mad when we get mad about these rational things. I don't care if the ai looks good or bad. Its the way its used and some of its users that suck.

5. 

   @talksaboutfanfiction

   January 26, 2026 at 6:57 am

   wait till its good enough to make videos

6. 

   @Zero-K-999

   January 26, 2026 at 6:57 am

   Tldr it's not. Cry more.

7. 

   @TortoRacoon

   January 26, 2026 at 6:57 am

   But doesn't human art rely on the work of other artists as well? aren't people that learn from the style of others really "Stealing" if they make traces the same way other artists do? (which is what AI does too?) are artists saying they learned art blind folded with out looking at taken reference from already existing art?

   I don't think the problem is AI per se, as it is how artists will adapt to using as a tool while others just try to demonize it and stay behind. There are great artists that train their LoRa in their style to sell them for people to use it and the original Artist/Modeler gets credited.

8. 

   @zame2476

   January 26, 2026 at 6:57 am

   I get why people feel that AI "steals" from artists, but honestly, this isn’t much different from how innovation has always worked. AI doesn’t steal – it’s trained on data, learns patterns, and creates something new, much like how artists are influenced by the world around them. No one calls it theft when artists draw inspiration from other artists, styles, or cultural movements.

   It’s worth remembering that technological advancements have always disrupted industries. The printing press put scribes out of work, photography challenged painters, and the loom replaced weavers. Every time, the people who adapted thrived, while those who refused to evolve got left behind. AI is just the next step in that process – it filters out those unwilling to grow and pushes creativity forward.

   Instead of seeing AI as a threat, maybe it’s worth looking at it as a tool that can expand possibilities. The ones who stay curious and evolve their craft will always stand out, while those who resist change will naturally fade. That’s not theft – it’s progress.

9. 

   @gobosMommy

   January 26, 2026 at 6:57 am

   i was just called a thief yesterday because i used AI to make photo realistic images. I never give it images to use, i created the concept, the very rough sketch to use as layout, the prompts, sometimes hundreds of words long, which were changed over and over and over (one image took over a week and a few hundred prompt changes), then i brought them into photoshop to edit them more. what part of that is theft? because AI learned what a person looked like, or what a lake looks like, or galaxies? where is the line? i spent months working on something, never looking at another image for even concept ideas, and yet i'm being told i'm immoral for using a new tool that was provided to me? i went to school for graphic design, i specialized in layout and typography. i took many photo classes and did poorly in all of them because i just dont have that skill no matter what i try (granted, this was film days, so maybe if i could try to take the photo a 100 times and see feedback right then and there i had a better shot). but where does the tool become the issue? people who learned photoshop 20+ years ago were being told the same thing, and now how many graphic artists use those tools on a daily basis and no one bats an eye? is a DJ not an artist because he's just pushing buttons that are using sounds many times created by another person? or what about today's animators? people who did animation by hand probably thought the use of computers to do so was wrong and stealing their jobs… ugh. sorry. rant over.

10. 

    @xjamdoidst5167

    January 26, 2026 at 6:57 am

    Government has to put an end to corporate greed but saying that is a joke as they don’t do shit I’m telling you this technology is in the wrong hands it’s Oppenheimer of the 21 century

11. 

    @aLwE17

    January 26, 2026 at 6:57 am

    I just saw this video after watching her recent video "Everything wrong with AI" and I was curious because I thought gabi was okay with in favor with AI to which prompted me to unsubscribed after her last video on AI, I also made a comment defending artists and design professional like myself against the questionable ways AI companies collect their sources for "learning", I'm glad to know that gabi made a followup video on her previous AI. While to some it may seem like she did this because of her PR and she wanted to save face, but for me it's still commendable addressing an issue head-on instead of removing a video and pretending it didn't exist at all. I've re-subscribed again and glad to be watching gabi videos again.

12. 

    @kirole7381

    January 26, 2026 at 6:57 am

    AI is a dystopian technology

13. 

    @СтепанБахирев-г4м

    January 26, 2026 at 6:57 am

    I'm extremely confused as to where is the first video Gabi is talking about in the beginning? I couldn't find any other video with AI in the title on their channel. Was it deleted?

14. 

    @gail_blue

    January 26, 2026 at 6:57 am

    I use AI art, and I really like the idea of paying artists… just I haven't seen any artist produced models, ever. A bunch of artists, call it an association, should get together and license various models, and then use most of the profits to sue everyone else using their art as training data, to pull the unlicensed models down. This is what the RIAA does, they even go beyond their rights to do so, but no one can say anything about it because scary lawyers.

15. 

    @vanacid2

    January 26, 2026 at 6:57 am

    Concerning the question of whether it is legal to charge for a service that uses Stable Diffusion to generate images, I have the answer for you.

    Yes, it is legal, the money they charge you is not for the use of Stable Diffusion. They charge for the use of their hardware/infrastructure, the electricity and the reliable service without interruption.

    You can install and run stable diffusion on your computer for free. However, you pay for the computer, you pay for the video card, you pay for the electricity and you are responsible for setting up and maintaining the environment where Stable Diffusion will run.

    It is the same idea as paying for a web server to host your web site. You could host it yourself, but you are on your own when it comes to buying the hardware, setting up the server, getting a reliable connexion, …

    I feel that this won't be seen as there is already 770 comments. I hope you will see this as it answers the question you had in the video.

16. 

    @Stratelier

    January 26, 2026 at 6:57 am

    My thoughts on the "stealing" argument: "Stealing" is the wrong label to use but I don't know what the correct label for it should be, either.

    Some details:
    – In the context of copy rights (note the emphasis), "stealing" mostly pertains to the acquisition of a copy at all, independent of whether or not (or even if/how) it actually gets used later. In which context claiming that AIs are "stealing" is correct in as much as the source datasets absolutely go around scraping/archiving samples without source consent…
    BUT.
    – In the ethical and artistic context, "stealing" mostly pertains to the usage of something, independent of its acquisition. Which is … kind of literally the inverse? Like how people claim Palworld "stole" ideas from Pokemon, due to an assortment of (even conspicuous) similarities between their creature designs.

    6:20 – if a "free" application asks you for payment information, RUN AWAY. Uninstall the app. Cancel the download. Close that browser tab. That's "need to know" level personal information.

17. 

    @theycallmeutopia

    January 26, 2026 at 6:57 am

    AI has no true intelligence to it. Never had. The very term used "artifitial intelligence" is part of their semantics brainwashing to make people believe robots and machines are the original talent. This hidden, very obvious intention of big tech shows up in, for example, the fact of trying to win an art contest attributing the merits of art making to an AI machine "artist", a robotic artist. This invention and forcibly implementation of AI worldwide is indeed an obvious, spiritual move against humanity's spiritually, since art making is highly spiritual in essence.

18. 

    @pseudonamed

    January 26, 2026 at 6:57 am

    thank you for covering some of the harms of AI art.

19. 

    @lemonpie2056

    January 26, 2026 at 6:57 am

    I'm pretty sure that its not just art anymore. From what ive heard they're taking art AND any information that they can get from whatever app they ate talking from. (Instagram i think) Just ti teach it.

20. 

    @channelnice2985

    January 26, 2026 at 6:57 am

    as an averege person i love ai generated images and think artists will ruin this wonderful technology for all of us for their personal greed. get a job

21. 

    @ThePhilosopher

    January 26, 2026 at 6:57 am

    Normal people: use AI and enjoy it.

    "Artists": "Noooo! If you use AI to make art, how am I gonna exploit you as a source of money?!"

22. 

    @yeslinsequeira4612

    January 26, 2026 at 6:57 am

    What do you intend "new art" to mean? Youre not making sense. What I'm hearing from you is, AI models cant make whatever that is (and humans can?). There may be a coherent & sensible idea behind that desciption, but I would like it if you unambiguously describe what "new art" is (Im guessing there isnt, and you're indoctrinated to parrot nonsensical ideas).

23. 

    @insertnamehere1398

    January 26, 2026 at 6:57 am

    0:41 I think the problem people had was thaat you weere using a very bad comparison. by using synethic and digital music production as an allegory for ai art which made no goddamn sense

24. 

    @PremiereGal

    January 26, 2026 at 6:57 am

    The new iStock ai generator creates images based on its library and pays the artists who's photos it learned from. How much money? No idea. Did the artists who submitted the stock give permission? Not sure. Do they have a choice if they agreed to sell stock on platform? Not sure either. Definitely gets murky!

Comments are closed.