Why artists should demand (or are demanding) compensation from AI image generators

Artists apparently have a valid reason to demand compensation from AI-generated art . The programs and algorithms exploit the creative output, labor, and know-how of people to artificially create (new) art.

A few days ago, the headlines in this dispute between man and machine even more sensational after the photo agency Getty Images filed a lawsuit against the company Stability AI for copyright infringement through its popular image generator Stable Diffusion (Spiegel Online reported: “Artificial Intelligence: Artists and photo agency sue AI image generators” ) .

The way existing copyrighted works such as paintings and photographs are being used is anything but fair – and artists have every right to demand compensation from these companies should the lawsuit by Getty Images and numerous other artists be successful.

Getty accuses Stability AI of illegally copying and processing "millions of copyrighted images" Getty stated in a blog post on Tuesday .

In recent years, many technology companies have begun using artificial intelligence (AI) to create art . This can be anything from music and poetry to paintings , drawings , graphic design, or photographs .

While some people consider this a good thing – aside from the still-to-be-resolved legal issue of copyright – others are not so sure. Many believe that artificial intelligence should not art because it takes creativity away from humans and leaves it to machines. Art would thus become arbitrary, infinitely replicable, and consequently subject to hyperinflationary depreciation in value.

But what does this mean for those who use AI? Are they, in terms of the level of originality required, the true creators of their “art”? Or are the images merely random products lacking any artistic relevance?

Some artists see this type of art production as an attack on their work and are therefore demanding compensation from the companies that use AI. However, so far neither courts nor regulatory authorities have agreed that artists can assert claims against companies using AI.

This could change in the near future with a precedent – ​​as is expected to be the outcome of this lawsuit.

How AI is used in art creation

Today, several technology companies are using AI to create art. Among the best-known are Spotify's Generative Music Studio and Google's Magenta project .

However, there are also many smaller companies that use AI in the same way. These include Amper Music and AIVA , both specializing in music creation, SYFE , which creates poetry, and Obvious Art , which creates paintings and drawings.

Image generators include, in addition to the aforementioned Stable Diffusion, Dall-E from OpenAI and Midjourney. These art generators are based on artificial intelligence (AI) and can create an image from a short text command that has never existed before.

In recent months, these programs have experienced their commercial breakthrough and are now being actively used by a growing number of people.

While all these companies have good intentions when it comes to using AI for art creation, and researchers even hail the programs as a milestone in machine learning , a subfield of AI, the downside—which affects countless artists—lies in the fact that the hard work invested by real people in countless creative processes is being exploited.

Without the creativity of human artists, these programs could never have existed in their current form . For the programs to deliver precise results, the underlying artificial intelligence must be fed and trained with a vast amount of existing images.

Therefore, it is only logical that the artists who originally created the work should be compensated for their contribution. And this is precisely where Getty's lawsuit comes in, since legally, a valid license and financial compensation for the copyright holders of the images used are required for such use. However, this is apparently not the case in many instances.

The legal implications of using AI to create art

Artists are demanding compensation from AI art generators because they feel that their creative ideas and works are being used unlawfully and without economic compensation.

AI art generators use algorithms and machine learning to create artworks. This technology is used in various fields, particularly graphic design and painting.

AI-generated artwork is easier than ever before . It's also much cheaper. Therefore, businesses and organizations can save a lot of money by using this technology. They no longer need to pay for creativity or invest time in developing artwork.

This also means, however, that artists no longer receive the same compensation for their work as before. The problem is even more serious: many AI art generators are based on existing art and use its style as a template for new works. As a result, the outcomes can be almost identical, and artists feel cheated because they are no longer paid for their work.

Therefore, many artists are logically demanding compensation from the organizations or companies that use these technologies.

One way to solve the problem is to ensure fair compensation for artists and to only allow the use of AI-generated art with their consent. Furthermore, companies and organizations should be familiar with copyright law and ensure that it is not infringed.

This ensures that all parties are treated fairly and that the rights of creative professionals are protected. It's no secret that the use of AI in art production is becoming increasingly popular, and there is already much discussion about the moral conflicts surrounding this topic.

Although there is currently no definitive solution, it is clear that all parties involved should be treated fairly – especially those whose work is used by others. It is up to all of us – government and businesses alike – to ensure that artists' rights are fairly defended and that they are adequately compensated for their work.

Current legal situation and status of the lawsuits

According to The Verge, Getty filed the lawsuit in the UK. Stability AI has so far declined to comment. In the past, AI companies have cited regulations such as the fair use doctrine in the US . This allows the use of copyrighted material under certain circumstances, for example, if it serves public education or one's own creative work.

In Great Britain, however, the legal situation is a little different, which is why Getty Images CEO Craig Peters hopes that the creators of AI image generators licensing fees if they want to use the images as a template .

In the US, just last Friday, the three artists Sarah Andersen , Kelly McKernan and Karla Ortiz a against Midjourney, Stability AI and DreamUp of the artist platform DeviantArt seeking damages because their artworks had been used as a template to use the AI ​​to create images .

The lawsuit was filed by attorney Matthew Butterick together with the law firm of Joseph Saveri, which specializes in antitrust and class action lawsuits. According to a report by golem.de, Butterick and Saveri are also currently suing Microsoft, GitHub, and OpenAI in a similar case concerning the AI ​​programming model CoPilot , which is trained using code snippets collected online.

So far, there are no supreme court rulings on whether AI systems infringe copyright. Furthermore, different legal systems (i.e., USA, UK, EU) should not be treated uniformly in the assessment.

An overview of the legal situation in Germany and the EU, for example, makes it clear that, according to experts, copyright law does not pose an obstacle to training image generators with works from the internet. No copyright can initially be claimed for the newly generated images either.

In general, the courts will primarily have to clarify when an image created by AI resembles a human artistic style too closely to be considered a "copy", or whether images from photo agencies that have been used to train AI models must be licensed.

Stability AI announced a feature in December 2022 to address criticism from artists. They will be given the option to opt out of having their images used for AI training, but will have to register on a special platform to do so. This seems cumbersome, and such an opt-out solution is certainly not ideal for creative professionals.

The rights that female artists have to their works

Female artists have a right to protection of their works, as stipulated by copyright law .

This is not just a question of ownership and copyright – it is about the ethics and morality behind the creation of art. The very concept of art being called into question and may need to be redefined.

Some artists argue that the use of AI art generators undermines their integrity as artists and that they must be fairly compensated for their work. It seems necessary that AI art generators should be liable for damages for works created (or potentially created) for commercial purposes.

In this way, artists can be protected and assured that their rights as creators are respected. Several copyright initiatives already exist that aim for more adequate protection of creative rights. However, more needs to be done to ensure that AI art generators are used fairly and that artists are adequately compensated for their work.

How copyright laws have changed and improved to ensure the protection of creative works

Since the 20th century, copyright laws in many countries around the world have changed and improved to ensure the protection of creative works. These laws protect creativity and innovation and allow creators to have certain rights to their works.

Some of these rights concern the exhibition, publication, and distribution of works, as well as decisions regarding the origin and composition of the works. However, in a digitized world where artists work with new technologies, other questions arise concerning the protection of their creative work.

One of these questions is whether artificial intelligence (AI) generators like GANs or AIs “real art” or not. While some experts are convinced that AI generators cannot create works of art because they lack human input, others believe they can create works of art if they use the right data.

Those who follow the first view argue that AI generators cannot reflect a person's free will and therefore cannot works of art .

Those who follow the second view, however, argue that AI generators can still be works of art despite the lack of human influence, because they have a human input: the data.

Where is there still a need for legal improvements?

The current debate surrounding artificial intelligence and art has shown that the legal situation is still insufficiently regulated. AI generators can works of art that far surpass anything humans have ever created.

Nevertheless, these works of art are not legally protected. The problem lies in the definition of art: While many people perceive art as something beautiful and meaningful, for the legal system it is solely a tool for developing or expressing ideas. To be considered art from a legal perspective, a certain level of originality must be reached, meaning that sufficient creative effort must have gone into the work.

Art must therefore have a defined content to be legally protected. However, AI generators produce artworks without this level of originality, according to current interpretations. These may still be beautiful and meaningful – but according to legal precedent, that doesn't make them art.

The legal system will still have to address open questions and evolve in line with technological change.

Artists who use artificial intelligence to further develop their art or create new art are asking themselves whether this art, (partly) created by programs, is adequately protected for use in a commercial context.

The answer is probably no. One of the biggest reservations about AI art generators is that they cannot distinguish between an original work and a copying incident.

This problem is exacerbated by the fact that many of these programs do not include any labeling of their works, which means that it is impossible to determine whether a particular work is copyrighted or not.

Another problem is that these programs cannot engage in interactive dialogue with the user. As a result, they are able to reproduce that already exist, but are unable to create anything new. This means they lack an authentic voice and therefore cannot possess any ownership or personality.

These aspects make it difficult for AI art generators to obtain copyright protection and thus intellectual property rights. Although some will attempt to solve this problem and develop their programs to authentically interact with users and register ownership of their work, this will still take some time.

Until then, it remains up to the artists to figure out how to deal with this problem and whether they should try to claim damages from the publishers of these programs if their content was allegedly used without consent.

Addendum to July 2023: AI Law – EU Parliament adopts rules on artificial intelligence

In early June, the European Parliament unanimously approved the AI ​​Act , a new regulation governing the use of artificial intelligence. The EU hopes this will reduce the risks posed by such systems. However, it is unlikely that the regulation will come into force before 2026.

Nevertheless, this step is an important milestone in dealing with AI and demonstrates the EU's commitment to protecting citizens from the potential dangers of this technology.

What the new AI law includes

With the AI ​​Act, the EU is establishing a groundbreaking regulation for artificial intelligence, unparalleled worldwide. The focus is on strengthened and effective regulation of AI applications . This is because the use of AI is often opaque, complex, and data-dependent, and relies on the autonomous behavior of the applications.

This poses a risk to fundamental rights such as the protection of personal data and the safeguarding of privacy. To monitor implementation, a European Office for Artificial Intelligence is to be established, which, through an AI Act, is intended to ensure the safe and responsible use of AI.

The popular chatbot ChatGPT and similar AI software are also affected by the new AI law and will have to meet stricter transparency requirements .

The AI ​​Act is intended to promote artificial intelligence and protect fundamental rights

The AI ​​Act is the EU's response to the potential dangers associated with the use of AI. The support for the AI ​​Act by Members of Parliament follows the European Commission's approval. By introducing such comprehensive legal regulations for AI, the EU is breaking new ground.

For a detailed, expert assessment of the AI ​​Act and its legal scope, please visit: privacy > AI Act