THE TREAT HOT TAKE:

In our previous magazines, we covered in detail both AI art and the threat (and opportunity) of GAI (general artificial intelligence) replacing human careers. The bad news is that it is inevitable. It is how we respond to this challenge that really matters.

The poor quality of debate on both sides over AI art isn’t surprising. History is full of examples of new technologies appearing so rapidly that they disrupt existing systems, workers' rights, and livelihoods. Often, the law is the last to catch up after the dust settles. Almost inevitably, these sudden shifts are accompanied by disdain and derision, followed by fierce opposition and outrage. The lasting economic and social benefits almost always outweigh the temporary disruption. The difference here is that artists are in the best position to consider the state of the art space with nuance and insight. They can flex and support the community, initiate methods to legally push back against the platforms, and take positive action to protect art careers. The trick is doing so without alienating the majority of AI enthusiasts in the process.

The core argument from commercial artists can be summarized as “The AI model is stealing our work. We want our styles and methods to be copyrighted and licensed." The current law says otherwise, and in general, styles, genres, or modes of art cannot be copyrighted or licensed. Copyright law protects original, completed works of known authorship, or ownership, such as paintings, sculptures, and literary works. It does not protect the ideas, concepts, or styles that led to the creation of these pieces of art. This means that while an individual artist can hold the copyright to a specific painting or sculpture, they cannot hold the copyright to the style or genre in which that work was created.

Unfortunately, technology companies and their advocates have a bad track record of “acting before thinking” and a laissez faire attitude toward people’s data, privacy, and rights. Plagiarism has been a bugbear of the NFT space for years, with multiple collections being carbon copies of others' work and even other NFT collections! It isn’t so much a moral or ethical challenge as one of establishing rights to a proper legal standard for pre-curation, post-curation, and modeling of the data. Where digitized photographs, video, art, writing, music, and other forms of data are not in the public domain, such as stock libraries and online galleries, it is always advisable for AI developers to obtain permission from the licensors or copyright holders in advance. Better still, when training models, only use images from open source libraries, which are curated for the purpose and made available for free use.

Technology companies and their AI art platforms shouldn’t be allowed to circumvent the ownership and rights to vacuum up copyrighted (and personal) data without obtaining proper permission from the stock owners, or copyright holders, and individuals, as this clearly constitutes illegal copyright infringement. It is also important to avoid legal “gray areas” in the post-curation or commercial monetization of the resulting data. The ownership of art media should be clearly defined in the terms of service and content agreements between parties, with explicit permission to view and modify, and “fair use” and “good practice” laws for AI models standardized.

AI art should be part of the digital arts toolbox, just as Photoshop and Krita are essential to editing and refining a photo or design. Generating concepts and assets that help to inspire and support an artist’s ongoing work and promote personal development is important, and when uploading their work, artists should always be given the explicit final choice to "opt in" or "opt out" of AI models.

In conclusion, AI art isn’t coming. It is here and in use. It’s on trend, exciting, and addictive, and it's creating a whole new generation of art enthusiasts. Workplace AI technology is up and running and dominating some sectors, while lawmakers are slow to show up and even slower to act in the public interest. Corporate clients from film to architecture to fashion are already embracing AI to increase efficiency and cut outsourcing costs, and the core models are only going to get more effective at servicing their needs. It is as inevitable an evolution as digital photography was to film or Photoshop to the painters' easel and oil paints. It need never replace these traditional mediums, but it should be allowed to work alongside and enhance them for artists.

Once you’ve created your original art piece using traditional mediums or AI tools, be sure to trademark it, copyright it, or license it. Put your signature on your work, or logo, and be sure to read the “terms of service” very carefully before uploading anything to online sites to curate. Vigilance is a price worth paying to maintain your security and control over your digital identity, data, and online rights.

And remember, don’t despise anyone for their love of art. It’s Valentine’s Day; go hug an artist and show them you still care.