top of page

AI-generated art: Original expression or copyright infringement?

Source: 0fjd125gk87 on Pixabay

As the field of artificial intelligence continues to advance, new ethical questions are arising. In light of multiple lawsuits involving Midjourney, an AI art generator, and DeviantArt, a popular art site, the debate is whether AI-generated art should be subject to copyright claims from the artists whose art was used for training the data.

The Case for AI Generated Art

On the one hand, some argue that AI-generated art is a form of original expression and should be protected as such. They argue that the AI system is essentially an artist in and of itself, using the data it was trained on as its inspiration. Additionally, AI-generated art often goes through a significant amount of processing and manipulation before it is finalized, making it distinct from the original artwork.

The Case for Artists

On the other hand, others argue that the artists whose work was used to train the AI should be credited and compensated for the use of their artwork. They argue that without the use of this original artwork, the AI-generated art would not exist. Additionally, they argue that it is unfair for the creators of the original artwork to have their work used without permission or compensation.

Potential Solutions

One solution could be to treat AI-generated art similarly to how we treat cover songs or samples in music. In these cases, the original artist is credited and compensated, but the new artist is also able to create something new and original based on the original work. In the same way, the AI system could be credited as the creator of the new artwork, but the original artists whose work was used for training the data would also be compensated and credited.

Another solution could be to have the AI-generated art to be considered as a transformative use of the original art, this way the artist would be credited but the AI generated work would be protected as a new work.

The question of whether AI-generated art should be subject to copyright claims from the artists whose art was used for training the data is a complex one with valid arguments on both sides. It is important to consider the rights and interests of both the AI creators and the original artists, while also finding a solution that promotes creativity and innovation in the field of AI.

What do you think? Do you believe that AI generated art should be considered fair use, or should artists get the credit for the images generated based on their work?


Top Stories

Subscribe to our newsletter

Subscribe to our weekly AI newsletter to stay up to date with news and trends in the field. As a subscription bonus, get a free copy of our "History of AI: Power, Dangers and Possibilities" e-book.

Thanks for subscribing. Check your inbox to find out how to access your eBook.

bottom of page