By Lisa Bensoussan,
Artificial intelligence (AI) has become a popular tool for artists and creatives, producing intriguing and often original works. However, the emergence of AI-generated art, also known as “prompt art,” has raised crucial questions about copyright. Who owns the rights to a work of art, created by an AI system? Can copyright law adequately address the unique challenges posed by AI-generated art? This article examines these and other pressing issues, exploring legal frameworks, recent case studies, and future developments in this emerging field.
Copyright is a legal concept that grants exclusive rights to the creator of an original work. This includes the right to reproduce, distribute, and display the work. In the context of AI-generated art, copyright law poses unprecedented obstacles. AI-generated art refers to works created by artificial intelligence systems with varying levels of human involvement. For example, the recent AI-generated art created by Open AI’s DALL-E system has been making headlines for its impressive ability to generate highly detailed and imaginative images based on text prompts. DALL-E uses a combination of deep learning algorithms and natural language processing to create images of objects, animals, and scenes that do not exist in the real world. Its capabilities have sparked a great deal of interest in the art world and beyond, raising important questions about the relationship between human creativity and AI-generated art, as well as the legal and ethical considerations surrounding ownership and copyright.
Ownership is a fundamental topic in AI-generated art, as the question of who owns the rights to a work of art created by an AI system is not always straightforward. Additionally, the distinction between works, created entirely by AI and those created with some human input can be difficult to make, further complicating ownership questions. Some countries argue, that the human artist or programmer who created or trained the AI system should own the copyright, such as the United Kingdom which displays this perspective in section 9(1) of the 1988 Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act.
However, according to Ryan Meyer, of Counsel at American law firm Dorsey & Whitney LLP, drumroll… no one owns the copyright! Most case law tends towards this conception, as the Court of Justice of the European Union stated in its Infopaq decision (C-5/08 Infopaq International A/S c. Danske Dagbaldes Forening) that human intervention is necessary to use copyright law. Therefore, AI-generated art can fall into a legal grey area, raising important questions about ownership and copyright that require further exploration.
Furthermore, copyright law requires that a work be original, but it is unclear whether a work created by an AI system can be considered original if it is generated using pre-existing data. For instance, a class action lawsuit has been filed by a group of artists against AI image generators, namely Stability, Midjourney, and Deviant Art, accusing them of exploiting their work for use in machine learning algorithms. Some experts believe that these systems have the potential to violate copyright and may face significant legal challenges in the near future.
One potential solution to the ownership and copyright concerns raised by AI-generated art is the use of template licenses and collaboration agreements. These contracts outline the terms and conditions for using and sharing intellectual property, including copyrighted works and other proprietary information. While the template license agreement is a pre-written legal document that outlines the terms under which a license can use a licensor’s intellectual property, a template collaboration agreement is a legal document that outlines the terms and conditions for working together on a project, in this case, between an artist and the AI company. The terms and conditions of generative AI platforms may include limitations on various aspects related to the way prompt art is distributed and used in a way that respects the rights of the original artist while also allowing for the creative and commercial use of the work. For example, according to DALL-E’s Content Policy and Terms, you own the images you create with their program, including the right to reprint, sell, and merchandise. However, this approach is limited if the terms and conditions present restrictions. Indeed, it may be difficult to enforce the agreements, as seen with Midjourney, which lost its case against an artist who won an art contest using its program.
Another approach for the creation and distribution of AI-generated art is the development of Web3, which relies on blockchains, cryptocurrencies, and NFTs to empower users by granting them ownership of their digital assets. By utilizing smart contracts, a blockchain network can potentially govern user interactions in a decentralized manner, eliminating the need for a central authority to oversee and enforce regulations. This approach could give artists more control, proper credit, and compensation for their work, while also allowing for greater transparency and accountability in the ownership and distribution of AI-generated art. Dan Neely, CEO of Vermillion, believes that the creative industries are at a crossroads and must decide whether to tolerate unauthorized usage of generative AI or embrace new technologies like blockchain to mitigate the problem.
In conclusion, AI-generated art presents singular difficulties to copyright law and ownership, as well as raises fundamental questions about creativity and authorship. As AI systems become more advanced and continue to play an increasingly important role in the creation of art, it is important for legal and ethical frameworks to be developed and updated to address the issues raised by these new technologies. This may involve, re-evaluating current laws and regulations, as well as exploring new solutions such as licensing agreements and blockchain technology. By doing so, we can ensure that AI-generated art is created, distributed, and owned in a way that respects the rights of artists while also fostering innovation and creativity in this exciting and rapidly-evolving field.
References
- “The scary truth about AI copyright is nobody knows what will happen next”, James Vincent. theverge.com. Available here
- “Art-istic or Art-ificial? Ownership and copyright concerns in AI-generated artwork”, Atreya Mathur, itsartlaw.org. Available here
- “Class-Action Lawsuit Filed Against Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt”, Jamie Lang. cartoonbrew.com. Available here
- “Can blockchain solve the ownership debacle over AI generated art?”, Savannah Fortis. cointelegraph.com. Available here
