Lately you have probably been hearing more and more about AI, or artificial intelligence, and how it is becoming more advanced in all aspects of our lives. One of the more controversial forms of AI as of late has been AI art, and exactly as it sounds it is essentially computer generated artwork that is made by feeding the AI various example images or descriptions of what it should be creating. Many people could argue both sides, saying that it has its benefits but that it also has its negatives as well. For example, maybe you aren’t the best artist out there and you want a quick and easy work that you can use, just input some information and off you go. Then again, doesn’t this take away from half the point of it all? To many, creating various forms of art is something that has taken them years to perfect, and what makes so much of it so great is the amount of time and dedication that goes into making that final result. However, it doesn’t stop there, AI art is not only ruining the creative journey that many artists embark on, but in some cases it is stealing artwork outright. Now a group of artists has decided to take legal action.
Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz have come together to bring a class action lawsuit against the Stable Diffusion AI tool, a bot which has collected information from billions of copyrighted images that it now uses to create images of its own. As stated before, this goes far beyond simply speeding up the process of making a complicated work of art, but it has begun to infringe on the rights of artists who have put lots of time, money, and effort into the things that they have created. It might be a different story if the AI tool collected data from strictly non copyrighted images, but it instead learned how to create art by taking these legally protected works of art. Even if it used non copyrighted images, some might consider that scummy, but at least it would have a better argument on the legal side of things. Within the lawsuit they draw the comparison of streaming music, saying that they want AI products to follow the same laws that other mediums of art follow. There is a lot of intellectual property within the music scene, and copyright laws must still be applied and followed by streaming services, so they argue the same treatment should be applied to this AI art. In addition to these three artists, Getty Images is also said to be pursuing a lawsuit as they claim millions of their copyrighted images were taken and used to program the Stable Diffusion AI tool.
Setting the legality aside, AI art is still doing more harm than good for the world of art, many would argue. With such an influx in high level art being pumped out by these robots, it is going to make it that much harder for people to get into the industry, hard working people who have a dream of becoming a well respected artist. Hopefully these lawsuits against the AI art bot send a message to the art world, saying that the people who have dedicated their life to the profession are much more worthy of recognition than the robot who stole images from real life people.
4 thoughts on “Fighting Back Against AI”
With the rise and intrusion of AI into our daily lives, it is difficult to refrain from its usage to help complete tasks efficiently. However, using AI to generate art is plagiarism since technology just draws from different sources of art on the internet and combines it into an “artwork.” Plagiarism is stealing artwork as art is to be created using imagination and creativity. Those who use AI generate rather than create art which loses the true meaning of art. AI-generated art seems like an easy, effortless, and quick way to coin a product “art” instead of putting in the effort and thought into producing a piece of work that expresses beauty and emotion.
Interesting idea, that I think also raises a lot of questions about what art is and its function. I don’t think that AI art is necessarily a bad thing because anyone smart enough will probably end up figuring out how to use it for someone good. As far as the copyright right there’s so much crime in that industry as it is that I’m not sure that I agree with that. I think copyright these days only inhibit artist and doesn’t support them the way it should. A lawsuit like this could end up doing more harm than good. Just food for thought.
I completely agree with fighting against AI “art”. As an artist myself, I will admit that the technology is impressive, but overall is more damaging than helpful. I think AI “art” itself is just lazy and soulless; sure you have a cool picture now, but what did you really achieve? You just fed a computer hours of real humans’ hard work and just got a messed up amalgamation of that hard work that somewhat resembles an actual piece of artwork.
Hello Stuart! This is a thought-provoking article on the controversies surrounding AI art, particularly with regards to the legal implications and ethical considerations. It’s disturbing to learn about the Stable Diffusion AI tool and its use of copyrighted images to create new art without permission, and it’s great to see artists such as Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz standing up for their rights by pursuing a class action lawsuit. The comparison to the music industry and the need for copyright laws to be applied to AI products is a valid argument, and it will be interesting to see how this case progresses. Moreover, the article raises important questions about the impact of AI art on the traditional art industry, as well as the significance of the creative journey and the hard work that goes into producing genuine art. Overall, this article serves as a reminder that while AI technology can be beneficial in many ways, it is crucial to consider the potential consequences and take action to protect the rights and livelihoods of artists.