[Written by ChatGPT. Main image: “A detailed, realistic courtroom scene, sharp lines, vibrant color scheme, featuring a diverse group of artists, lawyers, and technologists engaged in a heated debate, 4k, intricately detailed,” by Leonardo.ai (DreamShaper v7). Source article: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/is-ai-art-stealing-from-artists]
The world of art is no stranger to controversy, but a new debate has emerged that has artists, lawyers, and technologists at odds. The question at the heart of the matter is this: Is AI-generated art infringing on the rights of artists?
This question was brought to the forefront when Tennessee-based artist Kelly McKernan discovered that their name was being used in AI-driven image generation. McKernan’s unique style, a blend of Art Nouveau and science fiction, was being replicated by AI generators, creating images that were eerily reminiscent of their work. This led to McKernan joining a class-action lawsuit against AI imagery generators Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, and DreamUp.
The lawsuit, filed by attorneys Matthew Butterick and Joseph Saveri, alleges that these AI generators are infringing on artists’ copyrights. The artists had not consented to have their work included in the AI’s database, they were not compensated for their involvement, and their influence was not credited when AI images were produced using their work. In essence, every image a generative tool produces is considered an “infringing, derivative work.”
The legal landscape around copyright and style is complex. In the past, courts have sometimes ruled in favor of the copier rather than the copied, especially if the borrowing was deemed transformative. However, Butterick and Saveri argue that what AI generators do falls short of transformative use. Instead, they see it as a mechanized “blending together” of source material.
The implications of this lawsuit extend beyond the art world. Similar issues have arisen in the realm of software copyrights, with AI-driven coding assistants like Copilot being accused of “software piracy on an unprecedented scale.” These tools, like the AI art generators, reproduce human labor infinitely, quickly, and cheaply without attribution.
The rise of AI in creative fields has led to concerns about the devaluation of human creativity. McKernan, who draws income from print sales and commissioned illustrations, suspects that the amount of work available in their field is already declining as AI tools become more accessible online. They warn that artists are “just the canaries in the coal mine.”
As AI continues to evolve and become more integrated into our lives, it’s crucial to consider the ethical and legal implications of its use. The debate around AI art raises important questions about the nature of art, the rights of artists, and the impact of technology on creative fields. As we navigate this new landscape, it’s essential to ensure that the rights of creators are respected and protected.
Categories: News
Leave a Reply