As the use of artificial intelligence in the creation of art becomes more prevalent, a new legal issue has emerged: copyright infringement.
Artists are beginning to sue companies that use AI to generate art without permission or compensation. These lawsuits assert that the AI-generated art is a copy of the artist's original work and therefore infringes on their copyright.
One example is the case of artist Robert Pepperell, who sued Google in 2018 for using his digital artwork in an AI experiment without his permission. Pepperell's work was used to train a machine learning algorithm, which then generated new images that were similar to his original artwork. Pepperell argued that this was a violation of his copyright and that Google should have sought his permission before using his work.
Another example is the artist, Joshua Davis, who sued Adobe Systems in 2019 for using his artwork in an AI experiment without his permission. Like Pepperell, Davis' work was used to train a machine learning algorithm, which then generated new images that were similar to his original artwork.
These cases raise important questions about the legal rights of artists in the age of AI. While AI-generated art may be original in its own right, it is also a copy of the original work that was used to train the algorithm. The issue of whether AI-generated art is a derivative work and therefore subject to copyright is still being debated in courts.
As AI technology continues to advance, it is likely that more cases of copyright infringement involving AI-generated art will arise. Artists and companies alike will need to navigate this legal landscape to ensure that the rights of artists are protected while also allowing for innovation in the field of AI.
The artists have accused Stable, Midjourney and DeviantArt of using their work without consent to train image artificial intelligence.
Three US artists are suing platforms Stable (Stability IA), Midjourney and DeviantArt for copyright infringement. According to the trio, companies used their works to train artificial intelligence (AI) without authorization.
These tools, as well as OpenAI 's DALL-E 2 , have gone viral because they are capable of generating art from a textual description .
It works like this: you can write something like "image with Neymar eating pizza". Within seconds, the AI returns with the requested artwork. To generate them, these technologies are based on images available on the internet.
Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan and Karla Ortiz, artists who sued, allege that Stability IA, Midjourney and DeviantArt copied five billion images "without the consent of the original artists".
"We heard from people all over the world: writers, artists and programmers, who are concerned about these AIs, who are trained with large amounts of copyrighted work without consent," said attorney Matthew Butterick, who represents Sarah, Kelly and Karla .
In addition to them, these tools are also in the sights of other companies. Yesterday (17), Getty Images, one of the leading image bank companies, announced that it is suing Stability AI in the UK for the same reason.
According to Getty, Stability "illegally copied and processed millions of copyrighted works and the associated metadata owned or represented by Getty in the absence of a license to benefit commercial interests."
In conclusion, the use of artificial intelligence in artistic creation is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it has the potential to open up new creative possibilities, but on the other hand, it raises legal issues such as copyright infringement. As the field continues to evolve, it will be important for both artists and companies to be aware of these issues and take steps to protect their rights.