The AI Creative Copyright Conundrum

_{24|04|2024 - 6 min read}

So now you know here at ticktockrobot we’re not actually robots, but thoughtful, fleshy, humans.

With the anouncement that robots will become embeeded into microsoft, AI is here to stay and will be part of our lives.

But what do robots actually think? We thought we’d find out on various topics, from animation, ai, and beyond. Let's see where this goes...

Our third interview sees us delve into something touched upon in our last chat – copyright and the potential infringement of creatives legally protected work.

Rightly so, everyone is not letting the AI elephant in the room go. Last time we chatted about the actual creative process and if robots could replace us. Now we ask if they legally can…

Human:

"Is AI stealing human artists work and infringing on their copyright when it produces visuals?"

"AI-generated visuals can raise complex legal and ethical questions regarding copyright infringement. If an AI creates visuals that are substantially similar to copyrighted works without permission, it could potentially be considered infringement.

However, the responsibility often falls on the individuals or organizations that deploy the AI rather than the AI itself. The legal framework around AI-generated content is still evolving, and there's ongoing debate about how copyright laws should apply. Some argue that since AI lacks consciousness and original creative intent, it shouldn't be held liable for copyright infringement.

Others believe that AI creators and deployers should be held responsible for ensuring that generated content doesn't violate copyright laws. Ultimately, as AI continues to develop and produce increasingly sophisticated outputs, it's important for legal and ethical guidelines to be established to address these concerns and protect the rights of human creators."

Human:

"I agree that AI itself cannot be held responsible as it is only a tool. But users of AI who create work for commercial gain are effectively stealing copyright from the artists whose work trained and informed AI without their permission. Agreed?"

"Yes, there is a valid argument that users of AI who generate work for commercial gain using copyrighted material as training data may be effectively benefiting from the intellectual property of others without permission.

This can raise ethical concerns about fair compensation and recognition for the original creators of the training data. It's essential for users and developers of AI systems to be mindful of the sources of their training data and to obtain appropriate permissions or licenses for copyrighted material.

Respect for intellectual property rights is crucial in ensuring a fair and ethical ecosystem for both human creators and users of AI technology."

Human:

"Since it is impossible for AI users to know which artists have been used to train and inform AI to create their image, would it not be prudent to ban AI generative art from being used commercially due to the legal and ethical ramifications?"

"Banning AI generative art from commercial use entirely may be too extreme.

Instead, implementing clearer regulations and guidelines, such as transparency in data sources and mechanisms for compensation, could address legal and ethical concerns while still allowing for innovation."

Human:

"A book cover references the artist on the inside cover. How would that be done for a book cover created by AI when the data is not available on whose work trained and was sourced to create it?"

"In cases where a book cover is generated by AI and the sources of the training data are unknown or inaccessible, it becomes challenging to attribute the creation to specific artists.

However, the book could include a general acknowledgment or disclaimer acknowledging the use of AI technology in generating the cover art without specific attribution to individual artists.

This approach provides transparency about the process without making misleading claims about the origins of the artwork."

Human:

"But it still infringes the unknown artists copyright?"

"Yes, if the AI-generated artwork infringes on the copyright of unknown artists whose works were used in the training data, it could still be considered a violation of their intellectual property rights.

In such cases, it's important for users and creators of AI-generated content to take appropriate measures to ensure compliance with copyright laws, even if the specific sources of the training data are unknown.

This may involve obtaining licenses for copyrighted material when feasible or seeking legal guidance to mitigate potential infringement risks."

Human:

"Or just not use it since that data is not available?"

"Avoiding the use of AI-generated content if the data sources are unknown is certainly a cautious approach to minimize the risk of copyright infringement.

Without clarity on the origins of the training data, it becomes difficult to ensure compliance with copyright laws and to provide proper attribution or compensation to original creators.

In situations where transparency and legal compliance are priorities, opting for alternative solutions or creating original content may be the most prudent course of action."

Human:

"Like hiring a skilled human designer or artist?"

"Yes, hiring a skilled human designer or artist to create original artwork is one way to ensure both creativity and compliance with copyright laws.

Working directly with a human creator allows for clear communication, customization, and the assurance that the resulting work is entirely original and free from any copyright concerns related to AI-generated content.

Additionally, supporting human creators fosters a positive and ethical ecosystem within the creative industry."

Human:

"Once again - couldn't agree more!"

Another example where even robots agree human creativity trumps the data mined algorithmic and legally bankrupt 'creations' AI provides...

Here are some more articles to read further on the matter – transformative use being a sticking topic – and something we personally here have umbrage with regardless of using AI or not.

Produce original works – for the sake of a more exciting, beautiful, and creatively driven horizon! Your audience will thank you for it!

FORBES: IS GENERATIVE AI STEALING FROM ARTISTS

NEWYORKER: IS AI ART STEALING FROM ARTISTS

Why not get in touch and see what we could create together?

GET IN TOUCH

BOOK AN INTRODUCTION

03: The Creative Copyright Conundrum

Is AI stealing our legally protected creative rights?

Our third interview sees us delve into something touched upon in our last chat – copyright and the potential infringement of creatives legally protected work.

Human:

"Is AI stealing human artists work and infringing on their copyright when it produces visuals?"

Robot:

Human:

"I agree that AI itself cannot be held responsible as it is only a tool. But users of AI who create work for commercial gain are effectively stealing copyright from the artists whose work trained and informed AI without their permission. Agreed?"

Robot:

Human:

"Since it is impossible for AI users to know which artists have been used to train and inform AI to create their image, would it not be prudent to ban AI generative art from being used commercially due to the legal and ethical ramifications?"

Robot:

Human:

"A book cover references the artist on the inside cover. How would that be done for a book cover created by AI when the data is not available on whose work trained and was sourced to create it?"

Robot:

Human:

"But it still infringes the unknown artists copyright?"

Robot:

Human:

"Or just not use it since that data is not available?"

Robot:

Human:

"Like hiring a skilled human designer or artist?"

Robot:

Human:

"Once again - couldn't agree more!"

Let's keep in touch...