Why This Award-Winning Piece of AI Art Can’t Be Copyrighted::Matthew Allen’s AI art won first prize at the Colorado State Fair. But the US government has ruled it can’t be copyrighted because it’s too much “machine” and not enough “human.”
Allowing people to copyright A.I generated art could lead to huge issues where someone could just churn out generated images like no tomorrow and throw out copyright claims left and right. It could even lead to situation where you can’t really create any art because it’s probably something that’s already been generated by someone or close to it.
Making AI art not copyrightable is probably the best reasonable alternative that we could hope for.
Companies are always looking to cut costs and getting some computer algorithm to churn out endless art without having to pay an artist would be a corporate holy grail. Except that if that artwork then can’t be copyrighted and thus monetized (or not as easily monetized), then it ruined or at least lessens their push to replace all their workers with AI.
They will just churn out pictures from midjourney and hire a cheap artist to touch them up and then copyright that.
That’s basically what they did for the intro to Secret Invasion on Disney+. They used AI to create it and then touched it up. It still looks like shit, much like the show itself.
Companies can always just lie about it as well
This is a very delicate and complicated matter, part of me thinks that making AI works non copyrightable would incentivize human art
Given the presence of stolen artwork in the training data I don’t see why it should be copyright able.
Also award winning? It honestly looks like the kind of liminal mindfuckery most models could output. There’s nothing particularly impressive with the piece.
iirc it was submitted to a small art contest without disclosing it’s AI generated and it won a prize… which made a lot of people very mad
If this is the one in thinking of, they disclosed it was made using midjourney, but the judges didn’t know what that meant and didn’t ask.
Eh. I’ve seen abstract art that people are in awe with throughout my life. And like the uneducated swine I am, I’ve never thought they were impressive either.
Art appraisers are weird.
Edit: I saw the piece in question. This one is a tricky one, because if a human painted it, it would be impressive. Very nice details. But since it was generated by a machine in minutes… eh.
But according to the article, it wasn’t generated in minutes. The artist went through over 600 iterations of tweaking the prompt to get what he wanted. Sounds like days or even weeks of work probably. And then made additional tweaks via Photoshop.
Not too say that makes it any more impressive, but it wasn’t something that was without effort.
Point taken. In that case, I guess one can recognize the effort. Still, the impressive part of the piece is the style, which, if one were to assume was made with actual oil paint, it would be impressive.
With AI, I would explore styles that are inherently difficult to produce digitally. And yes, “oil paint” would be difficult to produce with digital tools alone outside of AI (maybe there are good plug-ins for it?) But you know what I mean. I don’t even know which styles those would be.
You can make digital illustrations with a graphic tablet and the right digital brushes that look remarkably similar to oil paint. Because with a graphic tablet and pen you can utilise tilting, pressure, speed, etc. The colours will often simulate how actual oil paints work (well, at least they try). It’s kinda like a very easy casual mode of actual oil painting.
Yeah, I was aware of these tools. I don’t know what to think anymore…
Are you the artist when you comission an artist to draw something the way you want?
When I commission an artist, I’m probably not looking over their shoulder the entire time telling them exactly what to do. But that does bring up an interesting point. Assume I have no use of my limbs and an artist agrees to help me make a painting. I tell them exactly what to do, which colors to use, where to make paint strokes, etc. I am guiding the image, but they are actually painting it, and their own skill and technique and style will obviously play into the final image. I don’t know who would have more of a claim to the image in that case.
You don’t tell the AI where to make each stroke, exactly what colours to pick and mix, every detail of the composition. The AI preselects everything for you by considering what the majority of people like in pictures.
No one would say the person “guiding the image” is the one who created the image. This is why ideas aren’t copyrightable. Everyone has a ton of ideas. It’s the execution that matters, which takes skill, patience and dedication.
Most clients have a very defined idea what they want to have drawn or designed. Especially in a higher price segment. This often takes weeks or months and multiple lengthy discussions between the artist and the client. Never have I seen a client later say “Well that took a lot of talking from my side. I guess it’s basically me who created this picture!”
I think a lot of people underestimate how much work it takes and since you don’t really see anyone creating the image, you get the impression you somehow magiced it into existence by yourself.
Read the article. He added details and the description fed into the prompt was 624 words long. He basically wrote a page describing the scene he wanted created.
Which I can also do. “Imagine a cave full of cats. The first cat is pink with yellow dots. The second cat glows in the dark. The third cat…”
I guess art involves expressing what you want to express it, sure. But also how you express it is part of it as well. If you make the strokes yourself, it’s more impressive. A machine? You gotta do better than making it look like someone painted it.
It’s like 3D printing. A 3D-printed statue? Neat. But not terribly impressive. A 3D figure that defies all optical illusion explanations? Now we’re talking.
Is it your art and are you the artist when you describe a painter or illustrator what they should draw? I can tell you, many clients use more than 624 words.
If you wrote 624 words into a machine like a typewriter and published it it would be copyrighted. But those same 624 words fed into another machine can’t be. Funny.
I agree completely. I think this is the best solution to the AI replacing human artists problem. Big companies can’t use AI to replace humans because if they do, whatever they make will be ineligible for copyright and everyone will be free to rip them off.
I just want to point out that the description beneath the image in the article is hilarious.
This is Allen’s AI-generated artwork, which we can publish without asking him because, as the article notes, it’s not eligible for copyright protections.
This will change the first time a big pharma pill designed by AI hits the market.
Drugs are patented, not copyrighted, and handled by the US Patent Office. This is a decision by the US Copyright Office.
Not the same thing, and I would not be surprised if the Patent Office decides drugs designed in part with AI tools can still be patented, while the Copyright Office decides art cannot be copyrighted.
I look forward to trusting my medical well-being to algorithms which can be completely fucked by the idea that Kenya starts with the letter K.
AI are already generating antibody treatments. Companies provide AI with the disease/issue and antibodies that kinda work, then have the AI generate antibodies to fix the disease/issue. The best antibodies are then made in a lab and tested in vitro. However, as somone else noted, antibodies/medications are patented, which is different than copyright. Patents can be done on the process of making the antibody so you patrent the final process of making the antibody, not the AI work to come up with which antibody to make. Source: I attended a Patent Law seminar on this a few months ago.
They’ll just say this random scientist over here that signed away to the rights of anything he thinks of came up with it.
The artwork, Théâtre D’opéra Spatial, was created by Matthew Allen and came first in last year’s Colorado State Fair.
No. No he didn’t create it. He put words into a black box.
“He didn’t create it. He moved a mouse.”
“He didn’t create it. He put commands into a keyboard.”
“He didn’t create it. He pressed the camera trigger.”
“He didn’t create it. He threw store-bought paint at a canvas.”
“He didn’t create it. He cleaned some dirt off the wall.”
“He didn’t create it. He was inspired by gods.”
Where you see a categorical difference, I see a qualitative one. AI-generated art can be nothing more than putting words into a blackbox, but it can also be a day-long process of tweaking dozens of parameters to get what you want from the words you put into the box. A child can slather paint onto a canvas without much thought - but that doesn’t mean great artists drawing complex, intricate paintings isn’t art, does it?
Generative AI is a tool. It can do more than most tools, but still, it is something wielded by an artist.
As I’d just written in another reply here, there is a world of difference in describing an illustration and creating an illustration.
I have to say that when I focused on computer-aided graphic design, my instructors who had done that kind of work with material supplies totally felt my work was invalid.
And when I was writing essays in high-school English and getting downgraded for poor penmanship, my teacher refused to let me word-process my work, lest I write a whole essay with the touch of a button.
So yes, creators have had their efforts minimized from the dawn of time, especially as new technology makes output better or easier.
Still, this isn’t about the art, it’s about the capitalism. If we had a society where no-one had to toil for a meager existence, then artists could do their thing for the sake of creating beauty and not to earn a buck. I believe post-war social programs in the UK drove the Rock-&-Roll revolution in the 1960s (advancements in electric guitars also did some heavy lifting).
So… feed our artists?
Same goes for lightning a fire without and with a lighter.
Even if I were to grant you that generative AI is just “describing an illustration”: other people say there is a world of difference between painting something with your hands and using a mouse, yet I think digital illustration is as real as physical illustration. Yet other people say there is a world of difference between creating something from the ground up and using store-bought materials and tools, yet I don’t discount artists who do just that.
But I don’t grant you that, because if I simply describe an illustration, the generative AI will not give me anything close to what I want. I have to learn the prompting language of the model (what words and phrases result in what?), I have to learn the influence the many different parameters have on the output, and I have to learn how to use things like prompt weighting, negative prompts and the like to get what I want. It’s something completely different from describing an illustration.
And that’s ignoring things like variant generation, inpainting, outpainting and the many different things that are completely removed from just “describing an illustration”.
Learn how to make a digital illustration, learn to make an oil painting and learn to make an AI image. Then we can talk.
I can do all three (worked on comission basis as a digital illustrator and did make Sci-Fi illustrations with acrylics and ink in the past). Generating AI images is not even in the same universe as the ballpark where digital illustration and traditional painting are playing.
It’s like saying watching someone’s Let’s Play of playing GTA is “kinda similar” to driving a Formel1 sports car yourself. Because you still have to turn on your computer and find a good streamer.
Learn how to make a digital illustration, learn to make an oil painting and learn to make an AI image. Then we can talk.
Done. What do you want to talk about?
Generating AI images is not even in the same universe as the ballpark where digital illustration and traditional painting are playing.
And what ballparks are there? How many ballparks exist in the realm of illustration, and where are the borders?
I just spent literally 31 seconds making this image:
According to what you write, this has a much higher artistic value than the header image of the linked article. Now please, explain to me: what value does this view bring to any discussion?
It brings value to the discussion if the discussion revolves around whether artists should be paid and how much. Whether AI images should be committed to art contests. Whether someone using AI to create an image should have copyright on that image. How much value we put on the time and effort it takes to learn artistic skills. Whether we want people to continue to take on that endeavour. Etc.
Actually I think discussing the differences and similarities between AI image generation and other forms of creating art is quite central to the issue.
🤓
He did some touch up in photoshop before submitting it.
Touching up your photograph or painting does not make it mine.
So he did make it. The tool can’t generate anything without something feeding it prompts. I mean technically it can but it will just be random totally incoherent stuff.
So…he did something and then by a process something beautiful was created. How is that different from pour painting?
He put words into a box == he just tipped over a can of paintNow I’m just hoping some idiot out there is trying to copyright melting crayons down a blank canvas.
This seems to follow a similar line of thought ( On Art In Context )
Yea, we’re well into DADA-ist territory to find interesting reference points for the timeless question of “what is art” in this discussion.
I’m curious: how do you feel this relates? Does the banana feel like it should or should not be art and/or copyrighted? Is it an energy/effort quality being compared to the end result? Or just the concept vs physical manifestation of the concept?
Because the AI controversy isn’t about art, it’s about money, and the notion that artists have to art to stay alive. Specifically, they have to please rich patrons, often by providing a thing that fits into their own vanity project. That said, it doesn’t matter how much time someone spent on a thing, whether they poured their soul into a 100,000 word volume, or taped a banana to a wall. All that matters is if it entertained a Rockefeller enough that they are willing to pay a fee.
If artists weren’t on the brink of starvation and homelessness and getting shot by law enforcement, then AI would be a new keen tool. And it’s not even that it will replace artists, but that rich guys think it’ll replace artists and it will save them from tossing some coins at riff-raff.
We actually saw this during the 2020 epidemic and lockdown, that artists given a grocery budget, a warm home and nowhere to go will get arty on their own, and by this way we could have a very robust public domain. But that’s now how we do things.
Sorry, did you take this as me coming at you? I was genuinely interested in your take on the banana’s relevance because high conceptual contemporary art is very easy to dismiss as “not art” by the layperson which makes it an interesting touch point for the AI value debate. I very much understand and agree with what you’ve said here, and you’ve described me at two separate stages of my career.
I find it fun that you mention a 100,000 word novel because I keep going back to thinking about how “a picture is worth a thousand words” is probably seeing some major economic volatility nowadays. That adage is very much in question now. Some of these prompts are getting way up there and, personally, the results very rarely look like they’re worth the effort.
As it exists, AI isn’t even a keen new tool, yet. But I am biased as someone who routinely creates visuals from scratch and uses a lot of different tools. It’s clearly mind-blowing for the folks who don’t. It is a kinda fun gadget, but it’s really no more sophisticated than good old “content-aware” and just as fiddly and commercially not useful. The prompt engineers will have words for me, but really: this tech is laughably dumb at this stage.
But I don’t believe it ever really will be keen with this mode of operation as it’s basis - all this will ever do is force the homogenization of visual anything/everything. We’ve already seen similar thanks to Pinterest and ArtStation and any other community drawing for the same reference points. Fantastic if you don’t care about visuals but uh, hope you’re really into hyper-mainstream media because that’s all it will look like.
Because you’re right, it’s only the non-artists who think it can replace artists -because they don’t actually value art, just the benefit it grants them. Not that they value the artist either, obviously. These are people who agree with AI developers that not only can visual design be formulated, but even worse that it should be to make it easier/cheaper/whatever.
But the sad reality is that it’s here. And it’s impressive enough to convince those with resources that it is worth pursuing further down this path of development. It isn’t, but they’re definitely not going to go back to carve out protections for the creative community. So we are stuck with a few options.
-adapt - work it into your flow because you’ll have to at this rate. Sucks, but they fucked the game.
-abolish - yea, we’re not going get that far, but we might be able to maintain this copyright denial which will keep it from replacing jobs by way of being unusable content.
-compete - obviously it’s going to be impossible to do so directly as an artist versus an AI for output, but keep in mind this still just the first wave of this concept. Future iterations of the concept (I’m talking specifically not future versions of current tools) can still be about challenging the basis this technology operates on. Something ethically designed to respect and reward the human behind every element the AI interacts with. They’d love for us to think they’re too dominant to challenge, but look at how many copycats exist already. There’s tons of room for sending this wave to the obsolete pile.
Removed by mod
It goes from the same idea that if you saw someone else’s art and made your own art, the copyright of the new art would be yours, and not the one who inspired you.
We’ve seen edge cases in the music industry (Ray Parker Jr.‘s Ghostbusters vs. Huey Lewis and the News’
Hip To Be SquareI Want a New Drug ) though in most cases in music, artists routinely borrow each other’s elements.The problem is that AI generative art still requires effort from the programmer (the one who prompted the AI) and went through process of telling it what to do, curating the output, running it back through the AI again to add new elements. If that process is sufficiently long, then it warrants copyright. If that process is insufficiently long, then it challenges the copyrightable merits of artists who make quick art.
In my opinion (removed from the whole AI controversy) is that intellectual property law has been long abused, not by artists and creators but by publishers and studio owners who have used their landlord-esque positions to take control of most art, and then extend their IP rights while denying the public a robust public domain.
And they are the ones that are going to ultimately be hurt by the death of IP laws. Artists will still do art, but for the sake of expression, and then it’s a matter of the rest of society making sure they’re not exhausted by their day-job (which, according to the strikers in Hollywood, they totally are).
It was I Want a New Drug, not It’s Hip to Be Square
Checked and fixed.
In my opinion (removed from the whole AI controversy) is that intellectual property law has been long abused, not by artists and creators but by publishers and studio owners who have used their landlord-esque positions to take control of most art, and then extend their IP rights while denying the public a robust public domain.
The idea that a strong public domain is beneficial to all culture has been lost. Now we have huge court cases because two different songs use a similar progression of notes. The point of copyright should be to motivate people to create more art, not prevent people from doing it.
Take the whole Under Pressure/Vanilla Ice fiasco. Nobody listening to “Ice Ice Baby” is going to then say to themselves “great, now I never have to listen to Queen again”. They are both very different songs in different genres, that use the same guitar riff.
I understand why selling pirate DVD’s should be illegal, for recently made movies that are still under print, but transforming a work should not be infringement.
While my thinking is in line with what @TheLobotomist@lemmy.world and @NateNate60@lemmy.ml have already said, why can’t “AI artists” just do what everybody in a profit-seeking situation does and just lie about it? “No your honor, our studies have shown cigarette smoking is not hazardous to your health,” “yes, your honor, OxyContin is completely safe,” or in this case “yes, your honor, I created this illustration.” If your conscience is really bothering you, you could claim it was AI-assisted. I wouldn’t think there’d be a “Big Eyes” prove-you-painted-that courtroom case. Am I wrong?
Funny situation indeed. Thoughts:
- Copyright is particularly artificial and openly amenable to change to suit the needs of the economy and creators it applies to. So treating this as open ended is probably necessary.
- Copyright has for a long time happily provided varying degrees of protection by recognising that one may hold copyright over a work but only over a “thin” or relatively minor aspect of the work.
- While there seems to be broader factors involved here regarding the power and market dynamics afforded artists and corporations should AI copyright be protected, there also seems to be plenty of scope to recognise that actual original work can be behind an AI work, however “thin” and distinct from the ordinary categories (eg Music, Literature etc) it may be. Indeed I would question how much the judges involved actually understand this enough.
- Does anyone know how this policy is tracking with or affected by policies in whether the AI engines themselves are infringing copyright?
deleted by creator
Looks like shit
