Like any new form of artistic expression and technological progress, the combination of art created by artificial intelligence is not exempt from controversy due to its practices and results. Current software does not create from scratch, but rather synthesizes an accumulation of pre-existing works to create its vision. There are those who defend this practice, alleging that it is exactly the same thing that artists have done throughout time, that they imitate trends and emulate styles for the conception of each of their works. There are even those who have directly copied! We are not referring to facsimiles, but to exact replicas. Like those of Pedro Pablo Rubens with the work of Vecellio di Gregorio Tiziano, which has in no way called into question the qualities of flamenco.
Others, however, have another word to define the works created by these systems: plagiarism. The defenders of this position consider that the machine does not follow the natural processes of human inspiration, but rather operates by directly loading pre-existing works in order to make mere mixes. This, in addition, with direct imitation, which in a normal situation would be a violation of copyright. The situation is even worse because the artists whose works are taken do not receive any kind of royalty.
Legal debates of creations with AI
Many artists have been outspoken against the rise of the alleged art of Stability AI, Deviantart, and Midjourney. Only in the visual field do we have directors like Guillermo del Toro, Hayao Miyazaki and Jorge Gutiérrez, comic creator Mike Mignola or character designer Lois van Baarle.
The latter took advantage of its social networks to explain the discomfort: “literally, my art is fed into these generators through the data sets and is spit out in a program that does not have an inherent sense of what is respectful with artists. Until there is a database of ethical sources that compensates artists for the use of their images, I am against AI art.
I also believe that platforms should do everything they can to prevent their content from being scraped for these databases.”
The unrest has spread through social networks and artistic platforms, where users have turned the letters AI crossed out in red into the symbol of their fight. But aware that this will not generate a change, the first demands have already emerged in this regard.
Artists Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan and Karla Ortiz have launched a legal battle against Stability AI, Deviantart and Midjourney, arguing that these systems “remix these works to derive (or ‘generate’) more works of the same type” without the knowledge or consent of the original artists. The resulting images compete with the originals in a market that seems oversaturated with copies or near copies that harm artists in many ways and create unfair competition. The legal document can see it here.
It is worth noting that the lawsuit in question does not seek to end the artistic development of artificial intelligence. Rather, and aware that innovation is unstoppable, it seeks to promote coexistence between the parties with the creation of fair and ethical technology for all.