In 2022, an AI-generated artwork took the spotlight by winning the art competition at the Colorado State Fair. The artist, Jason Allen, utilized a generative AI system called Midjourney, which had been trained on art collected from the internet, to create his piece. The process was not entirely automated, as Allen spent approximately 80 hours working through about 900 iterations to develop and refine his submission.
The recognition of generative AI art tools like Midjourney and Stable Diffusion has raised significant questions regarding ownership and authorship. These tools acquire their generative capabilities through extensive training on numerous prior artworks, allowing the AI to learn how to produce artistic outputs.
Should the artists whose works were used to train the AI models be compensated? Who possesses the rights to the images created by AI systems? Can the process of fine-tuning prompts for generative AI be considered a form of genuine creative expression?
While technophiles celebrate artworks like Allen's, many working artists perceive the use of their art for training AI as exploitative. Our team, consisting of 14 experts from various disciplines, recently published a paper in Science magazine that delves into generative AI. In our study, we explore how advancements in AI will impact creative work, aesthetics, and media. One of the crucial questions that arise pertains to U.S. copyright laws and their ability to effectively address the distinctive challenges posed by generative AI.
Copyright laws were established to encourage the arts and promote creative thinking. However, the advent of generative AI has complicated established notions of authorship.
Although generative AI may appear unprecedented, history can serve as a guide. Consider the emergence of photography in the 19th century. Prior to its invention, artists could only attempt to depict the world through drawings, paintings, or sculptures. Suddenly, reality could be captured instantly using a camera and chemicals.
Similar to generative AI, many argued that photography lacked artistic merit. In 1884, the U.S. Supreme Court provided its perspective on the matter, ruling that cameras served as tools that artists could employ to give tangible form to their ideas. Consequently, the court held that the "masterminds" operating the cameras should own the photographs they produce.
May cases are working their way through the courts which will fundamentally change the way that Generative AI is used to create content. As the old saying goes, time will tell. We will continue write updates as those cases are decided as they will create important precedents.
コメント