People can use generative AI to create art, text, and music from datasets of previous art, which is significantly impacting the current creative economy. The debate of what makes an artist and the lack of clear compensation are growing concerns, prompting the evolving issue of royalty battles over AI-generated work. The Evolution of Royalty Battles AI is changing royalty battles to a debate about what makes art original. The traditional notions of authorship and ownership are being abandoned, as AI utilizes data from existing art to create new pieces. The original artists are not compensated for the new creation, while the users who prompted the machine are arguing about copyrighting the AI’s product. are arguing about copyrighting are arguing about copyrighting Royalty battles are not a new concept. Recently, Rick Nelson’s family sued his former record label for not compensating them for the royalties from his songs. The lawsuit reached a settlement, but it reveals that artists and their families have been arguing over copyright for many years, predating the AI argument. However, these new machines are using data from previous artwork without permission, significantly complicating the battle. sued his former record label sued his former record label Current Legal and Ethical Debates AI developers and artists are consistently arguing over the legal and ethical issues surrounding algorithms in creative fields. On the legal side, artists are filing lawsuits against AI companies for using their work without permission to train their models. Some popular art generators are DALL-E 2 and Artbreeder, which create images from large datasets of original human work. The work is copyrighted, so artists are demanding compensation. Many also want brands to stop using their artwork altogether, as they consider it a form of theft. are DALL-E 2 and Artbreeder are DALL-E 2 and Artbreeder Currently, the U.S. Copyright Office is developing policies to address this legal debate. In 2023, the office ruled that work generated __entirely by AI is not eligible__for copyright. However, work with significant human modifications after the initial AI-generated piece is eligible. The Office based its ruling on the premise that completely generated work lacks a human author, regardless of the prompt’s detail. entirely by AI is not eligible Beyond the legal battles for appropriate royalties is the ethical debate surrounding AI-generated art. These pieces were not created by a human, but draw from many examples of human-made work, causing some to debate the true meaning of art. Many believe AI cannot make true art because it does not understand the emotional aspect. Others believe that if they use a bot to create something similar to the idea in their head, it should be considered original. New Royalty Models for Fairness There are several solutions to modify royalty models that provide fair compensation for artists and AI users: Usage transparency: Users should clearly demonstrate when and how they used AI to create a book, painting, song, or other piece. People might enjoy the work more if the artist is transparent about their usage. It also alerts those who want to avoid AI-generated art.
Micropayments for artists: Large AI enterprises could give micropayments to artists every time machines use their art to generate something new. This method reduces disgruntled artists and accurately compensates them for their hard work on the original piece. However, some may still want their work removed from new training sets, limiting the scope of AI-generated content.
New copyright law: Given the U.S. Copyright Office’s ruling, new AI-generated works must undergo many changes to qualify for copyright. Work with limited human interference will not be considered original. Usage transparency: Users should clearly demonstrate when and how they used AI to create a book, painting, song, or other piece. People might enjoy the work more if the artist is transparent about their usage. It also alerts those who want to avoid AI-generated art. Usage transparency: Micropayments for artists: Large AI enterprises could give micropayments to artists every time machines use their art to generate something new. This method reduces disgruntled artists and accurately compensates them for their hard work on the original piece. However, some may still want their work removed from new training sets, limiting the scope of AI-generated content. Micropayments for artists: New copyright law: Given the U.S. Copyright Office’s ruling, new AI-generated works must undergo many changes to qualify for copyright. Work with limited human interference will not be considered original. New copyright law: The Need for Ongoing Dialogue While royalty battles are not new, AI is significantly complicating them. Currently, the technology is evolving faster than officials can create adequate policies. Artists, policymakers, and AI companies must collaborate to create a sustainable framework for art in the new world.

The AI Engine is the New Artist: Rethinking Royalties in an Age of Infinite Content

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

4 iPaaS Use Cases for 2023

How to Copyright Your AI Creations

Using Open Source Licensing to Resolve the AI Copyright Debate: AI as Derivative Works

Does Generative AI Violate the Rights of Authors and Artists?

Navigating the Murky Waters of AI and Copyright Law

7 Steps To Prepare A Dataset For An Image-Based AI Project

4 iPaaS Use Cases for 2023

How to Copyright Your AI Creations

Using Open Source Licensing to Resolve the AI Copyright Debate: AI as Derivative Works

Does Generative AI Violate the Rights of Authors and Artists?

Navigating the Murky Waters of AI and Copyright Law

7 Steps To Prepare A Dataset For An Image-Based AI Project

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Minty

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps