Lev Manovich’s article “Defining AI Arts: Three Proposals” examines how to define art pieces that are developed by artificial intelligence (AL). Manovich begins his exploration of separating art creations by humans and artificial intelligence into AI art. The concept of separating art from humans and AI art is a concern regarding the ownership of co-creating art with AI. These systems utilize a database filled with references and information that are limited by its design. This design reinforces the idea that artificial intelligence recreates pieces that were never designed by a computer. Artificial intelligence as a co-creating art form creates concern about whether or not the art from AI is owned by the user who engages the artificial intelligence, the developer company, or a mutual relationship between the user and the company.
The developer company of a given artificial intelligence software gives users the ability to recreate technical art pieces from references without having the rights or consent from the original artists. Gregory Barber’s article titled “The Generative AI Copyright Fight Is Just Getting Started” discusses the contradicting perspectives on whether or not artificial intelligence should be subject to copyright laws, including “fair use”. Barber is advocating for the implementation of artificial intelligence in the management of copyright laws. He states that “…image generators and other tools have proven able to impressively mimic works in their training data, and the scale and value of training data [have] become clear, creators are increasingly crying foul” (Barber). This means as AI software improves, it can instantly simulate the technical skills of multiple artists’ works which creates an influx of competition in the market causing division between artists and AI development companies.
Manovich contradicts himself by identifying that historians, scholars, and artists are in a constant conversation about what, why, and how art has evolved throughout society. The evolution of art has “….systematic questioning of the boundaries of what counts as art, and then going outside these boundaries…” since artificial intelligence cannot criticize art due to the lack of “…knowledge of art history and development of the arts until the present…” (Manovich 2). Reinforcing the concept that artificial intelligence can’t create original thought but by co-creating with artificial intelligence artists could be inspired by previous work to test the boundaries of art. Some artists can see the value of co-creating with AI, contrary to the artists who despise using AI as a process of developing art pieces, some artists accept AI as a tool and have a mutual relationship with it. From my perspective, allowing film companies to copyright their creations that incorporate artificial intelligence materials is unjust. In my opinion, this undermines the fair use policies that abuse the purpose and character as well as manipulate the materials’ potential market and value shares. It becomes a double entendre that the film companies that use AI want to copyright their creations after they skirt around “fair use” copyright. It is hypocritical for companies to copyright their AI material that incorporates other artists’ creations as references. It sets a precedent of manipulating and legalizing the concept of fair use to their advantage and ownership of what is not entirely their creation. Once these companies receive copyrights for their AI materials, future artists and users will be restricted from the same benefits of previous “fair use” materials.
