Our third interview sees us delve into something touched upon in our last chat – copyright and the potential infringement of creatives legally protected work.
Rightly so, everyone is not letting the AI elephant in the room go. Last time we chatted about the actual creative process and if robots could replace us. Now we ask if they legally can…
Human:
"Is AI stealing human artists work and infringing on their copyright when it produces visuals?"
Human:
"I agree that AI itself cannot be held responsible as it is only a tool. But users of AI who create work for commercial gain are effectively stealing copyright from the artists whose work trained and informed AI without their permission. Agreed?"
Human:
"Since it is impossible for AI users to know which artists have been used to train and inform AI to create their image, would it not be prudent to ban AI generative art from being used commercially due to the legal and ethical ramifications?"
Human:
"A book cover references the artist on the inside cover. How would that be done for a book cover created by AI when the data is not available on whose work trained and was sourced to create it?"
Human:
"But it still infringes the unknown artists copyright?"
Human:
"Or just not use it since that data is not available?"
Human:
"Like hiring a skilled human designer or artist?"
Human:
"Once again - couldn't agree more!"
Another example where even robots agree human creativity trumps the data mined algorithmic and legally bankrupt 'creations' AI provides...
Here are some more articles to read further on the matter – transformative use being a sticking topic – and something we personally here have umbrage with regardless of using AI or not.
Produce original works – for the sake of a more exciting, beautiful, and creatively driven horizon! Your audience will thank you for it!
Why not get in touch and see what we could create together?
