What you need to know
- An AI artist who won a painting contest in Colorado using a Midjourney-generated creation claims he’s losing millions of dollars from people ripping off his work.
- The artist claims the US Copyright Office’s reluctance to register his AI-generated collection as copyrighted content has left him with the shorter end of the stick, allowing repeated stealing of his work without attribution or compensation.
- His lawyers argue that his prompt engineering and scene-selecting skills should be considered creative input or human authorship, and therefore, be used as grounds for copyright consideration.
As a seasoned intellectual property attorney with decades of experience navigating the complexities of copyright law, I find myself intrigued by the case of Jason M. Allen, the AI artist who is challenging the US Copyright Office’s stance on AI-generated content. My life’s work has been dedicated to understanding and protecting creators’ rights, so I can’t help but empathize with Allen’s predicament.
As AI tools such as Microsoft Copilot and OpenAI’s ChatGPT gain widespread use, concerns about copyright infringement are growing due to their reliance on copyrighted materials during development. While the CEO of OpenAI, Sam Altman, acknowledges that it is impossible to create models like ChatGPT without using copyrighted content, he points out that current copyright law does not explicitly prohibit training AI with such content.
In 2022, Jason M. Allen, an artist and executive at a tabletop gaming company, took part in Colorado’s digital art competition and emerged victorious. Yet, this achievement sparked a mix of feelings, particularly among other competitors in the contest. The crux of the matter revolved around his creation using Midjourney as a tool to generate his artwork, and the potential impact on the broader art industry moving forward.
In that period, the field of AI was still emerging, and new players such as OpenAI were gaining attention following the release of ChatGPT. However, Allen appeared unfazed by his competitors’ struggles, instead basking in his triumphant moment, suggesting a confident demeanor.
I have no need to apologize; I emerged victorious, and I played fair. This trend isn’t ceasing. Essentially, art as we know it has reached its end. AI triumphed. Sadly, humans were outmatched.
Can AI-generated content be copyrighted?
Now, it appears that the situation has reversed for the unruffled AI artist, who has openly voiced his discontent over losing vast sums of money due to people illegally using his AI-created work (as reported by GIZMODO). To clarify, the US Copyright Office has decided that works produced with AI tools are not shielded from copyright infringement under existing copyright law, as they contain aspects of human creativity.
Allen has recently filed an appeal known as Théâtre D’opéra Spatial in the federal court of Colorado. His aim is to get the Copyright Office to re-evaluate their decision and grant copyright protection for his AI-generated content. This step would shield his work from being unlawfully duplicated. In an interview with Colorado Public Radio, Allen expressed that he isn’t generating enough income from his creations.
My work seems to be undervalued by some, making it difficult for me to maintain the standard pricing within the industry due to this perceived decrease in value.
Interestingly, an AI artist argues that others are taking his creations, yet firms like OpenAI, Microsoft, and Google face copyright battles due to their advanced AI systems capable of designing intricate structures that could potentially replace professionals in architecture and construction. However, it’s also noted that these AI tools may struggle with basic tasks such as creating a simple white image. This points to both the potential threats and limitations of AI in this field.
According to Allen:
I find myself in a difficult predicament due to the Copyright Office not registering Theatre D’Opera Spatial. This means I have no legal means to prevent others from taking my work, unpaid and uncredited.
In presenting Allen’s argument, his legal team highlighted his dedicated work leading to the finished product of his Théâtre D’opéra Spatial project. Instead of solely relying on Midjourney for image generation, Allen is said to employ Photoshop for refining images and subsequently pass these images through Gigapixel AI for additional editing and polishing.
The U.S. Copyright Office determined that works generated by AI tools like Midjourney cannot receive copyright protection. On the contrary, Allen contends that the office overlooked the crucial aspect of human creativity necessary to create a work using Midjourney’s program. Consequently, Allen seeks recognition for his prompts engineering abilities in the decision-making process and advocates for the possibility of copyrighting AI-generated content.
According to Allen’s lawyer:
The US Copyright Office’s stance on not acknowledging human authorship in works created with AI assistance raises a significant concern in contemporary intellectual property law. Given the ongoing advancements in AI technology, it is essential that our legal systems evolve to safeguard the rights of those who utilize these tools for artistic expression.
It’s uncertain if Allen’s argument will be valid in court, however, his legal representatives are likely to face a challenging day arguing on behalf of the AI artist in the halls of justice.
Read More
- SQR PREDICTION. SQR cryptocurrency
- LDO PREDICTION. LDO cryptocurrency
- JASMY PREDICTION. JASMY cryptocurrency
- DOP PREDICTION. DOP cryptocurrency
- SAGA PREDICTION. SAGA cryptocurrency
- BLOCX PREDICTION. BLOCX cryptocurrency
- Miners ‘punishing’ Bitcoin? Analysts point fingers as BTC slides below $66K
- Top gainers and losers
- CELL PREDICTION. CELL cryptocurrency
- EUR BRL PREDICTION
2024-10-02 20:09