We all witnessed last year how generative AI tools exploded in popularity, offering users the ability to create “art” by typing prompts. Everything from tik tok filters, profile pictures to actual “prompters” selling their images as hand-drawn. While it may seem fun and harmless at face-value, this rapid advancement has sparked a heated debate, particularly among artists who feel their work is being exploited, and the craft undervalued.
Many AI models are trained on massive datasets that include millions of images scraped from the internet. This often includes copyrighted artwork created by professional artists (Quach, 2023). This raises serious concerns about copyright infringement and the potential for AI “steal” the unique styles of individual artists. There’s even lawsuits in the process due to this (Nguyen, 2024). Artists even took to X to point out that Ai was creating things in their style:
A lot of platforms now require you to “opt out” of having your data used for training, however if that is where it ends is up in the air.
Another concern that gets brought up a lot regarding Ai is the replacement of humans. Art is one area that this is already becoming evident. AI-generated art devalues skills and diminishes the importance of the creative process. Some argue that it allows those who cannot create traditionally a means to express themselves creatively. But at the end of the day is this the proposed point of generative Ai? Likely not. The goal is more likely to cut artists out in endeavours where they would typically be hired (Merchant, 2024). The proliferation of AI-generated art could potentially flood the market, making it harder for artists to sell their work and earn a living. I personally have had a significant decrease in art commissions over the last two years.
It’s not just visual artists at risk; it’s being used to produce books and to narrate audiobooks too (Ai Audiobook, 2024). Consumers are also concerned about how difficult it is to screen out media that utilizes Ai:
“Over 100 titles by AI “narrators” were in their catalog, and Robin was having trouble finding indications that the authors themselves are real?” (Ai Audiobook, 2024).
Many book consumers are fighting against this, and will automatically block authors who chose to engage in artificial intelligence in any way.
As artificial intelligence only continues to get better, will we even be able to tell the difference?
But there is hope: artists are fighting back. New programs like Glaze and Nightshade protect an artists’ work from being trained and used. By Ai. Nightshade turns any piece of data to one unusable by training systems. It caused the output to be distorted. Glaze also protects by making sure any usage is minimal. (Choo, 2023).
But will it be enough? Perhaps we will continue to see a decrease in the wares of artists. Or maybe a new revival of the traditional arts.
Citations
Ai audiobook narrators in Overdrive and the issue of library AI Circulation Policy. Smart Bitches, Trashy Books. (2024, December 16). https://smartbitchestrashybooks.com/2024/10/ai-audiobook-narrators-in-overdrive-and-the-issue-of-library-ai-circulation-policy/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0RcKxskIacWRN4LptdkgrNa4DApquiQcECCI2Y8hYIMZPS_oo5ZRF7Aus_aem_NrjdQURA048lkP2KSU9eGw
Choo, Y. (n.d.). 2024 What is nightshade?. Nightshade. https://nightshade.cs.uchicago.edu/whatis.html
Merchant, B. (2024, August 16). The artists fighting to save their jobs and their work from AI are gaining ground. Blood in the Machine. https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/the-artists-fighting-against-ai-are
Nguyen, B. (2024, May 9). New York Times sues openai and Microsoft: “billions” owed for AI copyright infringement, case claims. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/britneynguyen/2023/12/27/new-york-times-sues-openai-and-microsoft-billions-owed-for-ai-copyright-infringement-case-claims/
Placido, D. D. (2024, May 9). The problem with AI-generated art, explained. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2023/12/30/ai-generated-art-was-a-mistake-and-heres-why/
Quach, K. (2023, January 7). Adobe will use your work to train its AI algorithms unless you opt out. • The Register. https://www.theregister.com/AMP/2023/01/07/adobe_ai_training/
Comments
5 responses to “Ai “Art”?”
The rise of generative AI threatens artists through copyright infringement (Quach, 2023; Nguyen, 2024), devaluation of skills (Merchant, 2024), and market saturation. While AI offers creative tools, its potential to replace human artists and erode livelihoods is a serious concern, impacting visual artists and even authors (Ai Audiobook, 2024). Protective measures like Glaze and Nightshade (Choo, 2023) offer some hope, but the long-term impact remains uncertain.
I just learned today as well that you cannot copyright your own name! So searching “art in the style of xyz” can’t actually be monitored.
Given the backlash against using AI to generate art, how much creativity are we losing? Millions of people don’t have the fine motor skills required to generate graphic art. However, they can use text promotes to express themselves in a graphic way. Why is it that individuals who use AI tools to generate visual art are considered second-rate?
“AI-made art poses an ontological threat to anthropocentric worldviews that artistic creativity is uniquely human.”
Horton, C. B., Jr, White, M. W., & Iyengar, S. S. (2023). Bias against AI art can enhance perceptions of human creativity. Scientific reports, 13(1), 19001. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45202-3
I see the key argument of this post as a premise of ethics. In the case of Copyright, work that takes advantage of some previously created work while not duplicating it is not a violation of the original creator’s copyright. Point in case is Andy Warhol’s Campbells Soup Can art. Did Warhol violate Campbells Image Copyright? Or was this simply a case of leveraging previous work for a new purpose?
Sekrst, McHugh, and Cefalu (2024) posited that ethics in AI will require guardrails to prevent infringement of Copyright. They also point out that guardrails currently exist, but do not necessarily take new scenarios into account. It will fall on the platform creators to build customizable guardrails into AI.
(1) Sekrst, McHugh, and Cefalu (2024); https://arxiv.org/html/2411.14442v1
Andy Wharhol did in fact appropriate the Campbells soup logo. He was also sued multiple times for use of photographer’s images without permission. He violated copyright multiple times and the organization still faces lawsuits regarding it.
The thing that A.I. does now that is ever scarier is actually copying not just the subject matter, but the artists’ style as well.
Andy the appropriator: The copyright battles you won’t hear about at the Whitney’s Warhol exhibit. Andy The Appropriator: The Copyright Battles You Won’t Hear About at The Whitney’s Warhol Exhibit | The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts. (2019, August 2). https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/lawandarts/announcement/view/112#:~:text=Similarly%2C%20Warhol%20used%20the%20Campbell’s,initial%20permission%20was%20still%20appropriation.