In 2022, Getty Images officially challenged AI art by banning its use on the website. The technology still has vague legal boundaries, but the potential rights violations are clear.
At the moment, works created solely by artificial intelligence — even if produced from a text prompt written by a human — are not protected by copyright. When it comes to training AI models, however, the use of copyrighted materials is fair game.
A.I. -generated artwork won't replace all artists, according to intellectual property (IP) lawyer Kate Downing, but it will have a significant impact on people in specific sectors of the art world. Stock images, marketing materials and generic mass-produced works will be the first to go, she told Observer.
As long as all assets used, if any, in the making of the art are owned by you, then you're able to sell the work. For instance, if you used an initial image to generate an artwork via an AI generating app and you own the rights to it completely, you own 100% rights to the generated artwork.
Can I sell AI-generated art Yes, it is okay to sell AI images, but you need to make sure the images are licensed for commercial use. Midjourney paid memberships and most Stable Diffusion applications permit commercial use. You also need to ensure the platform you are selling the images on allows AI-generated images.
While AI technology has made significant progress in generating visual and audio content, it still lacks the creativity and human touch that is intrinsic to art. Moreover, artists bring their own unique perspectives and emotions to their work, which AI apps cannot replicate.
Of course, AI-produced art is not authored by humans directly nor made of original materials. Most countries worldwide follow similar practices, making AI-generated artwork unable to be copyrighted.
As AI systems become more capable of producing high-quality artworks, there is a potential threat to human artists' livelihoods and creative opportunities. The danger lies in devaluing human artistic skills and eroding the market for original human-made artworks.
Artists vs AI
To understand the lawsuit in simple terms: The plaintiffs say AI companies trained their models using their artwork as input without their permission, and so, the outputs provided by MidJourney, Stable Diffusion, Dall-e and other AI image generators are, at least partially, plagiarizing their content.
As far as art goes, be it a video, an image, a script, a song, or any medium that the AI can work with, the (US) law is pretty straightforward – According to copyright law, only humans can be granted copyrights. If it's created by AI, nobody can claim ownership of it or copyright it.
The DALL-E 2 is free to try, thanks to OpenAI's generous trial credit scheme. Those who intend to use it permanently, for generating bulk images will have to purchase additional credits. However, casual users who only want to use the tool every so often will find that the allotted free credits is enough each month.
Many artists worry that a market flooded with AI-generated media will drown out work done through the lengthy, unpredictable traditional creative process. There are also concerns that businesses will happily rely on sub-par AI art if it means lowering their creative budgets by not having to pay real artists.
The future of AI art is bright, with advancements in AI technology making it possible to create more complex and sophisticated art forms.
The key issue people seem to be taking with AI art is that the artists who created the images from which the programs were trained were not consulted and are not remunerated for their work.
AI art generates its pieces through taking and combining pieces of artwork from all over the internet without giving any sort of credit to the original artists. AI art companies are essentially stealing art from actual artists and profiting from their work.
The images would not, as only human-made creations are eligible for copyright. This last point, that copyright only protects creations made by humans, will be the guiding principle for future judgements of the registration of works.
It undermines the hours, weeks, and months artists put into conceiving and creating their work and has the ability to disenfranchise them in a matter of minutes. AI can undercut a skilled artist's economic viability.”
AI programs might also infringe copyright by generating outputs that resemble existing works. Under U.S. case law, copyright owners may be able to show that such outputs infringe their copyrights if the AI program both (1) had access to their works and (2) created “substantially similar” outputs.
The contest's organizers, in turn, said they didn't know the extent to which the work utilized AI. Boris Eldagsen won the World Photography Organization's Sony World Photography Awards for a piece titled The Electrician. The work appears like an old photograph showing two women, one of whom crouches behind the other.
DALL. E joins GPT-3, Embeddings, and Codex in our API platform, adding a new building block that developers can use to create novel experiences and applications. All API customers can use the DALL. E API today.
Go to DALL. E 2's web app, and sign up (it's free). Type your prompt on the home page, and click Generate. Wait a few seconds, and you'll have four AI-generated images to choose from.
AI graphic design still needs designers
Most graphic design jobs require the creative and social skills to negotiate, persuade and solve problems. AI might be the newest technology for designers to learn, but AI is far from a total replacement for professional designers.
The artists who create the art should be the ones to own it, as they are the ones who put in the creative work. So, if you are an artist who uses AI to create your art, you have every right to sell it!
Producing art entirely through AI and capitalizing on it without notifying or rewarding the original artists in any way is unethical. In time, there's no doubt that it will become illegal. That's why understanding how to use AI art as ethically as possible is important.
If someone produces an image of a trademarked character using AI, this would violate copyright, but as they themselves did not produce the image it seems incredibly unlikely that they would be taken to court over the matter.