AI and copyright: Addressing an incongruity(4 min read)

In our rapidly evolving digital age, traditional concepts such as copyright are being rigorously tested. The advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI), in particular, has initiated a crucial debate on the validity and efficacy of existing copyright laws. This debate becomes particularly intense when we consider the striking difference in the treatment of photographs and AI-generated art under current copyright laws. This discrepancy calls into question our collective understanding of creativity, ownership, and the essence of copyright itself. Is it time for us to reevaluate the concept of copyright in the digital era?

The paradox of photography and AI art

Consider photography: a single button click creates a copyrighted work. The intellectual property is credited to the person who initiated the act of creation, simply by triggering the shutter. This is true regardless of the camera's intricate engineering or the algorithms that process the image. Even the quality of the photograph, whether masterful or mediocre, does not influence its copyright status.

However, AI-generated creations encounter a different legal fate. The U.S. Copyright Office maintains that AI outputs, despite being products of intricate algorithms and extensively trained models, are not copyrightable. Intriguingly, the human data input initiating the AI's creative process does not warrant the protection that a simple camera click does. This glaring disparity calls into question our collective understanding of creativity, ownership, and points to the arbitrary nature of our copyright system.

These questions have started to be addressed by the legal industry, and a good introduction to how the borders are blurring is Jani McCutcheon’s “Point and Shoot”

Copyright: A hindrance to progress?

In the spirit of personal freedom and technological evolution, I contend that the current application of copyright laws requires critical examination. These laws, initially designed to incentivise creation by offering exclusive rights, have often become barriers to innovation, impeding the open circulation of information.

Rather than serving as a catalyst for creativity, copyright appears to have become a legislative tool manipulated by large corporations, and we have seen copyright durations extend from a dozen years to over 100. This undue influence, often at odds with the democratic ideal of an open and free society, challenges the original intent of copyright protections.

Redefining copyright in the AI era

Throughout history, art and creativity have been largely viewed as distinctly human pursuits, but the emergence of AI and its burgeoning artistic potential challenges this narrow perspective. As AI continues to evolve and demonstrates increasingly creative capacities, our existing legal frameworks come under scrutiny. If the artistic output of AI, which is enabled by human data input and constructed on the foundations of human-designed algorithms, is not acknowledged as art, this denial appears to stem more from an anthropocentric bias in our copyright laws than an impartial evaluation of the work.

The artistic value of a piece should be judged independent of the author's identity. If an AI-generated piece can hold its own against human-created work, garnering awards and accolades, it merits recognition as art on equal footing with traditional forms. To argue otherwise is to diminish the significance of AI as a tool and to dismiss the creativity and intellectual labour that goes into its development.

AI is not creating in isolation. Like traditional artists, AI learns from and builds upon the works of past masters. In acknowledging the creative capabilities of AI, we can progress toward a broader, more inclusive comprehension of art and authorship, one that embraces the diverse modes of creation in our technologically advanced era.

Alternative models and a way forward

While my critique may advocate for complete abolition of copyright laws, it is important to emphasize that these laws are a relatively recent construct. They are not a prerequisite for artistic and cultural progression – societies have flourished creatively for centuries without such legislative protections. More than half the most famous paintings in the world were created well before copyright was invented in 1710. Historically successful models, such as patronage, were once the lifeblood of creativity and have been reinvented for the digital age through innovations like crowdfunding.

It is possible to democratize creativity. By rethinking our conception of copyright, we can nurture an environment in which creativity, irrespective of its source—be it human or AI, is not stifled but instead celebrated.

Towards a future without restrictive copyright laws

This leads us to a juncture where we must ask: should our creativity, or that of an AI, be shackled by restrictive laws that, instead of encouraging innovation, stifle it? In a world teeming with ideas and the means to express them, would it not be more beneficial to let ideas flow freely, for the betterment of society?

A world without restrictive copyright laws, or at least with significantly reduced copyright regulations, could lead to an era of unprecedented innovation, inclusivity, and artistic exploration, both by humans and our AI counterparts, while alternative funding mechanisms and community agreements could ensure artists are still rewarded for their creativity.

The AI era calls for a re-imagining of copyright law and a reconsideration of our preconceived notions of creativity and ownership. It is a time to question, to challenge, and most importantly, to adapt. It's time we recognise the potential of this future, and work towards making it a reality.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *