From the auto-correct on your phone to producing prize-winning digital art, artificial intelligence is here to simplify your life. It stirs up controversy while travelling!
Yes, a significant discussion among the art community has been sparked by the just concluded Colorado State Fairs’ annual art competition. Digital artist Jason M. Allen won the competition with his mesmerising entry, “Théâtre D’opéra Spatial.” However, since he used AI to make this artwork, other artists did not view his invention as the “fruits of intellectual labour.”
It sparked a Twitter argument between artists who were for and against artificial intelligence-based art. In the end, it all came down to this: Who should be the owner of the copyright for AI-generated art?
You must take a hard look at two factors in order to respond to this question: the first is copyright law, and the second is artwork that relates to artificial intelligence.
How Does AI Function In The Art World?
Artificial intelligence is applied in art in two separate ways: in the analysis of already-existing works and in the production of new works. Let’s concentrate on the second category in this situation. Since the introduction of computer graphics in the 1950s and 1960s, AI-based art generation has been a growing field.
In 2022, several AI-based programmes are employed in the realm of art. A lot of advertising, fashion, architecture, and movies use AI-generated art. Simply enter certain terms, and the AI system will help create the images in a matter of seconds. Jason M. Allen used Midjourney in this instance to produce his prize-winning artwork.
One of the major advantages of employing AI to produce art is that it often produces hyper-realistic works of art that are difficult for humans to produce. Artificial intelligence is also developing constantly in art. Contrarily, artificial intelligence-based art doesn’t necessitate a lot of human labour, and you won’t have complete control over the end output as an artist.
Copyright Law And AI
Technically speaking, copyright refers to a legal right that gives creators the ability to forbid copying and establishes that their work is theirs alone. This specific issue is governed under India’s Copyrights Act of 1957, which safeguards literary, theatrical, and creative works from infringement.
In general, a work of art is granted copyrights when it meets the following requirements:
- Artistic Nature: In order to be protected by copyrights, a work of art such as a painting, sculpture, drawing, or photograph is required. One could argue that artwork based on artificial intelligence doesn’t fit these definitions.
- Originality: This refers to the author’s original work, which shouldn’t be copied from other works of art. Artificial intelligence incorporates all of the online data to produce a specific work of art or piece of knowledge. Some individuals feel that it lacks uniqueness because of this.
- Human Authorship: In order to copyright a piece of work, the author must be a national of that country. Simple human instructions to the AI algorithm should not be interpreted in this situation as an attempt to assert copyright.
Position of the World on AI and Copyrights
According to the Federal Court of Australia, originality calls on the author to be creative, innovative, and intellectually active. All around the world, but particularly in Australia, Japan, the European Union, and the United States, this is a widely held belief.
However, some nations, including Hong Kong, India, Ireland, New Zealand, and the UK, take a different stance on copyrights for works of art based on artificial intelligence. The author of a computer-generated literary, dramatic, musical, or aesthetic work is presumed to be the one who makes the arrangements necessary for the work to be created, according to the unambiguous language of UK copyright law.
There have been certain cases where artificial intelligence has been given the status of a co-author, particularly in India. Then, for a short time, it was discontinued.
Getting back to the primary topic: Who should be the owner of the copyright for AI-generated artwork? According to Section 2(d) of the Indian Copyright Act, the copyright in the Indian subcontinent is given to either the AI programmer or the person who employs the programmer. In accordance with Section 24 of the Indian Copyright Act, copyright protection is only valid for 60 years following the death of an author. As a result, it is difficult to grant AI copyrights.
When it comes to copywriting AI-generated art, it is an issue. The nearest human is handed the copyright directly in countries like India, but this isn’t a perfect answer yet. It is obvious that neither the programmer nor the owner contributed entirely to the final product. Additionally, AI uses a lot of data to produce a single piece of work, hence it cannot be considered original.
Both sets of justifications must be heard since they are both persuasive. To address this issue and ensure that original artists and their works are treated fairly in light of ongoing technological and artistic advancements, a suitable framework must be established. Artificial intelligence-centered copyrights must also be introduced.
