While the legitimacy of AI art may never be settled, the copyright nightmares it brings is posing to become a bigger problem at hand.

Written by Samwel Rasheed Tan.
February 22, 2023

The fiercely contested debate regarding Artificial Intelligence (AI) art has been rapidly gaining traction as the advancement of AI art gets over most of the years. Whether it is ethical to utilize or even if it is considered art in the first place, we may never know. One thing is for sure, with its growth and revenue potential for big companies, due to the speed and accessibility of the work it provides, like the possibility of allowing the the potential work of a number of artists be done by single person good with text prompts, and other more, AI art will be here to stay.

While the debate looks far from over, one thing that has been overlooked is the legal ramifications of this movement—most specifically, what it means for copyright and ownership within this new phenomenon. 

The Dilemma in Ownership

Perhaps the main challenge in regard to this matter is determining the rights holder when dealing with AI art. Most existing copyright laws dictate that the original creator of the work is entitled to the copyright. But with AI-generated works, this remains unclear—is it the inventor of the AI, the individual who issued the prompt, or the AI itself? Or perhaps maybe the several artists the AI will base its style on?

The simplest and easiest perspective we can consider is that because an AI is still not human at the end of the day, the author/ownership should always befall on a human. However, this is easily challenged by the fact that the AI takes on the bulk of the work. Can a person really still be the author and/or owner if he’s only ever they’re barely involved in the creative process at all?

Because of this, another perspective can be raised, one of the compromises where AI-generated works will be recognized as collaborative efforts instead—with man and machine working together. However, this still raises another question whether the machine should be labeled as a co-author/owner instead?

In the perspective of making the machine a co-author, there is also one where it is considered as the sole author of the work. Whereupon the algorithm in the machine is viewed as the one responsible for the work, and the person is only the facilitator. This approach not only butt heads with the first perspective but also presents a precedent that lawmakers are wary to tread the new phenomenon as it will affect the future of AI and society as a whole. 

These dizzying questions and perspectives are just going to continue to be blurred by the day because of the nature of the works. And with no present existing legal framework equipped in addressing the matter while the development of AI art is not slowing down anytime soon for it to catch up—this only makes things difficult for proper protections to be put in place. 

Treading Legal Quagmires 

Aside from the obvious issue regarding authorship, a plethora of legal landmines surround AI art. Issues such as its authenticity, originality, and if such works can be even considered as creative will be a headache for those who will enforce it. 

These legal hurdles are further complicated by the international nature of the art world and copyright in general. With international copyright laws being different from country to country, there is an uncertain and complex legal landscape that makes it difficult for those that would like to pursue the proper protections. 
 

The Future of Copyright in the Age of AI Art

These topics and questions surrounding AI art and copyright will only get more prevalent and dizzying as AI-generated art continues to grow in number and gets more developed. Legal battles over authorship and ownership over these works will pop out, and the rulings on them will have far-reaching implications on the way we think about copyright, ownership, and intellectual property in the digital age altogether. 

Regardless of the approach, it will be important to consider the ethical and legal ramifications of AI art going forward. It will be crucial for lawmakers, and legal makers all over to establish these properly as go on. In doing so, they open the door for developments that will ensure the author—whether they be machines, men, or both, and their works are given the proper protections in this new age and territory of art and authorship. 

Final Word

AI art will likely continue as a topic of controversy in the art world. As companies continue to get invested with its capabilities, it will stay as a potential threat to artists and art in general if it falls towards the wrong people. This only makes the need for a better legal framework regarding AI art all the more pressing. 

Ultimately, the rise of AI-generated art has brought forth questions not just about art itself but what it means to be an artist, author, and owner. And as we continue to ponder over them, it is imperative that we re-evaluate our understanding of ownership, copyright law, and intellectual property. In doing so we open the possibilities of attaining a legal framework and understanding capable of dealing with these delicate matters– accommodating these works without hassle. The future of this phenomenon will be filled with debates, it will be up to us to ensure that it will be approached in a way that balances the interests of everybody involved regardless of the biases on the matter. 

Samwel Rasheed Tan is a fourth-year student currently taking BA Communication (Convergent Media) at Far Eastern University. His creative specialty lies in media analysis and arts writing. He is currently an intern for Art+ Magazine and is expected to graduate from his degree this coming July.