News Round-Up: Generative AI and Artists
My take on AI-generated art, plus some of the latest developments
As I mentioned in my Substack About page, I have backgrounds in both computer science (formal) and art (self-taught, currently a professional illustrator). I also had a keen interest in A.I. back in university, specifically in natural language processing.
While I believe that A.I. technology can help humankind in many ways, I also strongly feel that if an artist’s name is used as a prompt, then that artist should be compensated. Here are how some artists feel about AI-generated art and what they’re doing about it.
Netizens took hundreds of his drawings posted online to train the AI to pump out images in his style: girls with Disney-wide eyes, strawberry mouths, and sharp anime-esque chins. “I couldn’t believe it,” Yang said. “I kept thinking, This is really happening … and it’s happening to me.” Yang trawled Reddit forums in an effort to understand how anyone could think it was OK to do this, and kept finding the same assertion: there was no need to contact artists for permission.
Excerpt from Art In America article, quote from Canadian illustrator Sam Yang.
Here’s how Greg Rutkowski felt about his name being used as a popular AI art prompt:
Rutkowski was initially surprised but thought it might be a good way to reach new audiences. Then he tried searching for his name to see if a piece he had worked on had been published. The online search brought back work that had his name attached to it but wasn’t his.
Excerpt from MIT Technology Review article about Polish artist Greg Rutowski.
Here are just a few illustrators (including living children’s book illustrators) whose names are specifically available as prompts, without their permission or compensation.
The topic of A.I. art is hugely controversial in the creative world these days. Some want to ban the use of AI-generated art completely, saying AI is evil and will take over the world. Others sneer at those who object as troglodytes, pointing out how new tech has always upset those who don’t like change.
I believe that A.I.-generated images are here to stay and could (eventually) even be a useful tool for professional illustrators. However, copyright issues need to be ironed out first. Artists whose styles are being explicitly used as prompts need to be compensated. I’m not crazy about my own images being scraped without permission, but I strongly suspect it’s too late for present-day artists to do anything about it since our data is already in the mix. From a technical standpoint, I don’t think there is currently a way of removing our data. Looking ahead, I’m hoping more tools are available for creatives to protect their original work.
I’ve been closely following A.I.-generated art news for developments, and will share some of the articles I’ve found via my Substack, for others who are interested. I don’t think I’ll send this out via a regular newsletter, but just make these posts available publicly for those interested, via my AI tag on Substack.
👉🏼To those thinking of using AI-generated art in their professional work: Be aware that this may hurt your career, depending on your target market. Similarly, if you use AI-generated art in your promotion for book festivals, publicity, or book covers, it may also have negative consequences. I have already seen recent instances where book festivals and publishers have had to issue public apologies after public backlash. Even if you only use AI-generated art in a small part of your illustration, be aware that there are many in the industry who have a knee-jerk negative reaction to anything AI-related, and may dismiss ALL of your creative work because of the AI component, no matter how small. Some of these people may be professional reviewers, on award juries, or be influential in the industry. Note: I’m not telling you WHAT you should do, but advise you to be prepared for possible repercussions. In case you haven’t seen it, here’s a Washington Post article about someone who wrote and illustrated a children’s book using AI tools (Headline: “He made a children’s book using AI. Then came the rage.”)
Artists are suing artificial intelligence companies and the lawsuit could upend legal precedents around art (Art In America)
Excerpt:
In the eyes of those artists, tech companies have unleashed a machine that scrambles human—and legal—definitions of forgery to such an extent that copyright may never be the same. And that has big implications for artists of all kinds.
A group of scholars say that a generative AI program should not be called an ‘artist.’ (ZDnet.com)
Excerpt:
The authors warn that imputing agency to an AI program could lead people to several follow-on false beliefs, such as failing to give credit to the human creator of the work.
New AI image generator Ascendant Art promises to pay royalties to artists who submit work to train its model (Artnet News)
Excerpt:
Ascendant Art, which launched this month and uses A.I. to generate avatar images, promises to pay royalties to the artists who voluntarily submit the artwork those programs are trained on. So far, nearly two dozen artists have registered.
Berkeley computer science professor says ChatGPT and Dall-E should watermark their results. (Gizmodo)
Excerpt:
Generative AI systems can, and I believe should, watermark all their content, allowing for easier downstream identification and, if necessary, intervention.
AI art will be subject to copyright infringement in Japan (Siliconera)
Excerpt:
This means that if the newly AI-generated image is deemed derivative or dependent on existing copyrighted work, the copyright holder can claim damages on the basis of copyright infringement, and the person responsible for generating the image can be subject to criminal charges.
US Copyright Office: AI Generated Works Are Not Eligible For Copyright (Artnews)
The US Copyright Office says an AI can’t copyright its art (The Verge)
And here’s ArtOfSoulburn’s take on the US Copyright Office rules for generative AI:
Because the topic of A.I.-generated art is so controversial, I’m turning off comments for this post because I lack the time to moderate; when I’ve tried posting on this topic on other social media, it often ends up in a flamewar between those on either extreme (“AI is evil and should be banned”, “AI is harmless and anyone who feels differently is ignorant” etc.). The main purpose of my news round-ups is to share posts I’ve found as I continue to follow developments online. However, feel free to comment in my Note for this post, especially if you’re interested in seeing more occasional news round-ups on this topic. Thanks for reading this far!