Chapter 1: Understanding AI Art and Copyright

The question of who owns the copyright for art has become increasingly pertinent, especially with the rise of AI image generators like DALL-E. These tools have sparked concerns among artists regarding the ownership of creative works. AI programs are trained on vast datasets, pulling from millions of images to learn how to recognize and reproduce various elements. As Wired points out, some images produced by these generators are purely machine-made, with users contributing only text prompts, which complicates copyright claims.

Consider the infamous monkey selfie case: such images could be classified as public domain, meaning they are free for anyone to use. However, when users provide more substantial input, such as editing or enhancing, this could signify human authorship, thus making it eligible for copyright protections. Still, a critical question arises: do commercial tech firms retain the copyright for images that users alter on their platforms? It's essential to scrutinize the fine print, as copyright laws are rapidly evolving.

Kris Kashtanova, an artist based in New York, has potentially made history by filing for what could be the first registered copyright for AI-generated artwork with his graphic novel "Zarya of the Dawn." Using Mid Journey for image creation, he remarked to UPI News, “I attempted to argue that we do hold copyright when we create something using AI.” This raises further discussions about the ethics of AI scraping images from the internet and stock photo websites, with many artists accusing these platforms of infringing on their copyrights.

Getty Images has announced that it will no longer accept submissions generated with AI models such as DALL-E, Midjourney, Nightcafe, and Imagen, and intends to remove any previously submitted AI-generated art. Other firms like Shutterstock are following suit. Getty stated, “There are unresolved questions and rights issues concerning the underlying images and metadata used to train these models.”

I am both a photographer and an artist, and I would take legal action if I found my work utilized without my consent. Artists put in considerable effort to safeguard their intellectual property, and when we aren't battling large corporations for the use of our images, we support one another. When fellow artists claim our work as their own, it feels like a betrayal. Although AI art platforms are here to stay, I remember the backlash against using Photoshop for competition submissions. There needs to be a system in place to credit original artists and photographers whenever their work is used in images produced with art-generating tools. It's only a matter of time before legal disputes arise over the reconfiguration and sale of famous artwork.

Stephen Marche's thought-provoking article in The Atlantic draws parallels between the anxiety surrounding AI and the fears faced by photography in the 19th century. Back then, many dismissed photography as a legitimate form of art, merely equating it to pressing a button. However, photography did not eliminate the need for traditional art; instead, it created space for both mechanical and non-mechanical forms of creativity. According to Marche, AI reshapes creativity, stating that “Creative AI is the art of big data” and “Creative artificial intelligence is the art of the archive.”

In light of the recent public release of Anthony Bourdain's text messages, one must consider: who owns your digital footprint after death? Can your estate or family override your wishes regarding the publication, sale, or destruction of your digital legacy? Naomi Cahn from the University of Virginia School of Law provides an in-depth analysis of these legal issues in Slate.

Moreover, renowned voice actor James Earl Jones has sold the rights to his voice to a Ukrainian startup, Respeecher, as he steps away from his iconic role as Darth Vader. Meanwhile, Bruce Willis's decision to sell his digital likeness has raised eyebrows.

Chapter 2: The Legal Quagmire of Celebrity NFTs

In the unregulated sphere of NFTs, celebrities have found themselves embroiled in various legal predicaments due to a lack of transparency in their sponsorships. Kim Kardashian recently faced a hefty $1.26 million fine from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for not disclosing her financial ties with EthereumMax. Other celebrities, including Eminem, Tom Brady, and Gwyneth Paltrow, have also been called out for similar oversights, although they escaped fines. The Federal Trade Commission emphasizes the importance of social media influencers disclosing their financial, personal, and material connections with brands.

Ginger Liu, the founder of Ginger Media & Entertainment, is a Ph.D. candidate focusing on photography and artificial intelligence. She is also an author, artist, and filmmaker, and shares her insights in her podcast.