AI should fear art copyright law
Art is copywritten when it is fixed in its physical form (writing, recording, photograph, painting, etc) as copyright for creative work is seen as a right.
I have hope that this AI thing will shake out in favor of real live human artists.
Why?
Because American copyright law is on the side of artists. Our judicial system may be broken, but so is our educational system. With no proper art education in public K-12 schools, it’s no wonder most Americans don’t understand how Art (the industry and practices) works. It’s also no wonder people think there’s money to be had in the art space… which is hilarious because if that existed, most artists would already be rich.
When NFTs took off, I felt the same way. People who were swept up in the NFT craze failed to understand that you could, just buy, artist’s hard copies. “It’s not the same thing,” the tech bros with no art literacy wined. Yes, they are correct, it is slightly different. However I would absolutely be willing to sell my original digital files to collectors who wanted them, deleting them from all of my hard drives so they exist entirely for the people who paid me handsomely for them.
That is different from AI, of course. But what I’m saying is the sheer lack of understanding of how buying, selling, trading, and owning artworks will be the downfall of AI.
Right now Artificial Intelligence companies are resorting to stealing artist’s work to fuel their data banks and feed their algorithms. This not only infringes on copyright laws protecting the artists and their art but opens up these companies to huge legal troubles. What these companies fail to realize is that this is a class action lawsuit waiting to happen, because art is protected by copyright laws.
Artist’s art is copywritten to them when it’s created.
Art is copywritten when it is fixed in its physical form (writing, recording, photograph, painting, etc) as copyright for creative work is seen as a right. You can further protect your work by filing a copyright with the United States Government. When you do this, you pay a fee for extra security on your creative works. You can even file a quick copyright if someone seeks legal action against you, expediting the copyright process.
In short, an artist’s artwork is theirs. If that copyright is infringed upon (even if they own the government copyright or not), they can make a legal case for it in the eyes of the US courts. The legal copyright just makes your case stronger. For instance, I have multiple copyrights with the US government, including my shark infographics and endometriosis story. These works were stolen so much, that I decided to make sure my copyright claims were ironclad.
“If Your Work Is Used Unlawfully, it is your right to pursue legal action if your work is used unlawfully without your permission and not under a statutory exception or limitation like fair use. However, if your work is a U.S. work, you do need to register it with the Copyright Office before bringing an infringement lawsuit in federal court. Also, if you take someone to court for using your work without your permission and you want to try to have your attorneys’ fees covered or pursue certain other types of compensation (called statutory damages), the timing of your registration matters. See Circular 1 for more on that.” - Copyright.Gov
So if this art is stolen, whether it be to feed AI or it is for Tesla to put a farting unicorn in their computer systems… artists have power.
A lot of artists feel like their power is being taken away right now, but I’d argue that it only seems like that is the case.
Really, AI is just moving too fast for laws to catch up. Historically, this doesn’t mean they are exempt from repercussions. This just means that when laws catch up, there will be repercussions.
Fair Use
AI companies are claiming they can use art, writing, and other things found online because their usage falls under fair use laws. However many artists, authors (including George R.R. Martin), publishing houses, news organizations (including the New York Times), and more are suing saying this is theft and not fair usage rights.
“Fair use is a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances. Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research—as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use.” - Copyright.Gov
AI art is discouraging
There’s no doubt about it, the use of AI art and the rabid replacement of artists and creatives is discouraging. Not just because people don’t understand art and the copyright laws attached, but because money-hungry executives are racing to find ways to replace trained, expert creatives. This is just another way people in power are saying that artists are replaceable (they aren’t, but more on that in a future post).
I hope that artists don’t find this discouraging, but rather an obstacle to overcome. The issue is, that artists are historically underfunded and that will make this an uphill battle. When we get the legal side of this going, I think artists will come out better for having faced this.
Right now, artists are the canary in the coal mine. We are vocalizing that this has to change, and quickly before we ruin entire industries. I hope people wake up, get on board with supporting creatives, and help us fight back against greed and corruption before this hits other industries next.
Read more of my thoughts on AI
The future of art is analog (coming soon…)
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Planting Seeds to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.