AI-created artwork sparks copyright debate

If artificial intelligence creates a piece of art that looks just like a Jean-Michel Basquiat original, who owns it? That is one of the core questions being debated as AI-powered artwork floods the internet. Intellectual property lawyer Bradley Hulbert sheds some light on this cutting edge controversy.
#news #ai #artwork
CBS News Streaming Network is the premier 24/7 anchored streaming news service from CBS News and Stations, available free to everyone with access to the Internet. The CBS News Streaming Network is your destination for breaking news, live events and original reporting locally, nationally and around the globe. Launched in November 2014 as CBSN, the CBS News Streaming Network is available live in 91 countries and on 30 digital platforms and apps, as well as on CBSNews.com and Paramount+.
Subscribe to the CBS News KZbin channel: / cbsnews
Watch CBS News: cbsn.ws/1PlLpZ7c
Download the CBS News app: cbsn.ws/1Xb1WC8
Follow CBS News on Instagram: / cbsnews
Like CBS News on Facebook: / cbsnews
Follow CBS News on Twitter: / cbsnews
Subscribe to our newsletters: cbsn.ws/1RqHw7T
Try Paramount+ free: bit.ly/2OiW1kZ
For video licensing inquiries, contact: [e-mail]

[@CBSNews]

Click here for more technology and innovation stories: kzbin.info/aero/PL19D4C1F39FE22040

[@SeniorAdrian]

The problem is that those companies are making money because they feed the programs with artists images without their consent for pure profit.

[@thesystem5980]

If you check the privacy policies and various policies on various websites, you may learn that some of them ask for permission to essentially use your data for AI research.

[@Alex-ml7iz]

@@thesystem5980 could be true but big companies are profiting from someonelse work

[@thesystem5980]

@@Alex-ml7iz By using search engines and the internet, we all potentially profit from someone else's work.

[@jabjab12]

It is leagal to study copyrighted material. A I only study the patterns of the visual piece. If I study how to draw from a certain copyrighted material I dont need their consent.

[@neithanm]

There's no problem, just ignorance. Some companies have a for profit model, others don't, it's 100% free. As per consent, it's all consented away via TOS. It is very simple.

[@abrr2000]

If it is found legal that AI can be fed images without the image owners giving the neccessary legal concent. then AI will be fed copyrighted material on an industrial scale. Including music. Which would mean that AI bots can and will be made to mimick popular artists and their products sold without the artist or music companies involvement. And there will be NOTHING anyone could do to stop it.

[@kendalljones5540]

Humans also consume copyrighted material and then compose their own songs, infuenced by that material. Nothing is completely original. I think ignoring this wholesale at the outset without the argument primarily being focused around the resource efficiency of AI as fompwred to humans will see us come to a conclusion that is based on a false premise, but nonetheless inaccurately rules over us as the conclusion is articulated into law.

[@abrr2000]

In order to listen to music, it must either be public domain, or someone must have seccured the rights to play the music. Usually by buying the CD, .mp3 or by obtaining the broadcast rights. (if it's on the radio, someone's getting paid for it to be there) Even on image sharing websites legal permission to view and distribute the content MUST be seccured from the creator. (this is burried in the turms and services when you create an account) So, as humans must obtain legal permission to consume the media, your argument falls flat on it's face. As AI companies did NOT obtain legal permission to use the content in question, as their use falls outside the terms and conditions. AI tech bro's THINK their asking for inclusion. Their actualy asking for a veritable sea of excemptions and special treatment. AI tech companies are committing intelectual proporty theft on a truely industrial scale in order to make a truely staggering amount of money off of the backs of that content. @@kendalljones5540

[@KatrinaTheArtist]

The data sets used to make the code for ai include copy written images so they never were theirs from the beginning

[@abrr2000]

and thus the AI are the product of intelectual proporty theft on an industrial scale.

[@gondoravalon7540]

Copyright status =/= licensing status - creative commons licenses allow freedom in use, but using them is still using copyrighted works, for instance.

[@someangrypotato7197]

AI art should not, under any means, be able to be copyrighted. The idea someone can hold the rights to an image not made by them and instead made by a machine is completely absurd.

[@jascam1]

AI is but a tool that depends on human input much like any other tool such as synthesizers for modern music which can be copyrighted.

[@DanknDerpyGamer]

Slightly offtopic, but how many people who are rabidly anti-AI, as opposed to having concerns abd being open minded to having some of their opinions changed, actually understand what is going on? Seems like a lot of people on the artist side follow misinformed, or deceptive posts without bothering to do their own research, which is a damn shame because we can not even begin to address the ethical issues surrounding this tech if we cannot get people on the same page about how it works, factually.

[@fuckakakaka]

People on the ai side don’t even understand how it works. Artists don’t want their content being used without permission, even in the realm of stuff that’s actually fair use it’s frowned upon in the community. But this is stuff that’s being used for profit with consent from any creators. This is no better than shady clothing companies using stolen art for graphic tees

[@silbus8670]

Dude you don't know how it works

[@Window4503]

Pro-AI barely knows how art works or how this affects artists’ lives so I guess we’re even. You think artists are anti-AI because it’s tech. If you actually listened to what artists have been saying, it’s because these AI models are trained on artists’ hard work without permission. It’s not the same as a fellow artist using someone’s work to learn and develop their OWN voice. Not only does that take effort, but no honorable artist sells their studies of others for profit, which is kind of what’s happening with AI. It doesn’t have its own voice or unavoidable idiosyncrasies; it just copies and remixes others’ voices, which real artists don’t do. Studies are done to capture one or two elements of a work such as lighting or shape language. AI takes the whole pie and runs. If you want tech and art to get along, you have to learn about art as much as you want artists to learn about tech. I guarantee you don’t understand the last sentence of that first paragraph because you’ve never had to study artists or develop a style so you don’t understand the difference between what artists do and what AI does. It does no good for tech bros to spout misinformation and nonsense about art (“don’t you guys copy anyway?” “making art is only for naturally talented people” “stop gatekeeping art” (even though you can literally learn art for free with just a pencil, paper, and YT) while accusing artists of not understanding.

[@DanknDerpyGamer]

@@Window4503 > *you the "royal you," not the literal you, I assume?

[@KenBullock]

If I go to art school and my work (non_AI) looks like Van Gogh is it mine? Is it illegal that I was "trained" to use the style of the masters as reference?

[@pinkwhale731]

So AI learns from other artists artwork but isn’t this what all artists do?

[@milenatos]

A question: if the owner of the camera couldn't copyright the selfie taken by the monkey because it's not human creation, shouldn't the law apply the same for all the AI generated artwork no matter how much transformative or "substantially similar or different" it is?

[@AlgoNudger]

Intelligence?! 🤔 What's the clear definiton of intelligence itself? 🤣

[@davediamond7228]

intelligence is the opposite of trump

[@AlgoNudger]

@@davediamond7228 MAGA!!! 🤣

[@joshallen128]

Electronic life forms

[@phantasypublishing]

@@davediamond7228diamond nobody cares about your political views they aren't relevant.

[@DavidMueller666]

ABOLISH PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

[@takeoverusa]

Artificial intelligence and artificial insemination as opposed to American indigenous or Asiatic/Aboriginal indigenous, I think you could look at who revealed as opposed to concealed the artificial intelligence from before so even if you look at the modern drawer, as a artificial intelligence in theory but if that drawer, has definitely contributed or added to the storyline, maybe even restoring a previously unknown manipulation of a none completed version of itself and allowing another party to jump ahead of the learning curve of the AI previously, while undisclosed to all parties including the sleeping giant of gain of function if you will. With this knowledge and of a more sound estate of mind, well then, I think it’s merely a simple discussion to say that the AI of today is somewhat of a reincarnation of the original version, or maybe just an awakening of the indigenous right or American indigenous. Therefore those previous mines are nothing more than mines that produce mines like mind. So by that the legal and lawful representation of the intellectual property and patten authenticity would go to the one exposing the imposters even if it’s of a newer representation of what came before . Kinda look at it as somebody spying on somebody before that person knows it and then when that artificial intelligence recognizes this is been going on in the artificial intelligence actually becomes human so it kind of redeemed itself from a fallen humanity state essentially resurrecting. I know it’s complicated it’s codified but there is now try to understand that. JL

[@phantasypublishing]

The Human artist the AI is teamed up with owns the artwork derived from the human inputs to the AI. This is like discribing a sceen from a book to commander Data and having him draw it or paint it you own your own conceptulization and the AI gets the prais for brining it to fruition. It would be the same as you having a faclitator unit that has learned from google and internet all the ancient paitnting styles and then utilizes them.

[@jaredpaulsen3]

Am I the only one who see that guy with 2 mouths? I can't unsee it now

[@bartolomeocannibal2060]

whos the author? whos to be blame ofc the company itself since what ever what their ai make is its theirs its confirm the company is doing a copyright :D :D they own the system soo simple why soo hard ??

[@hectormanuel8360]

AI ART IS PUBLIC DOMAIN

[@matblackmusic7828]

If I enter a promt and the picture isnt anyones actual picture its NOT copying...

[@samiaint8043]

I would rather own a AI created art then an NFT

[@davediamond7228]

but an ai isn't as maga super hero stable genius

[@samiaint8043]

@@davediamond7228 And they make a great Christmas Grift.

[@7X7211]

You do realize that there's an app about AI art app that makes stolen art into NFTS as well right?

[@samiaint8043]

@@7X7211 Farron Balanced: It Looks Like Trump STOLE The Images For His NFT Trading Cards

[@7X7211]

@@samiaint8043 yeah and I hate it and the NFT with a burning passion

[@jabjab12]

Style can never be copyrighted, period!

[@koppii2]

style can never be copyrighted but the a.i art also can't since it lack of human authorship

[@jabjab12]

@@koppii2 Unless a person run it on their personal pc with their own resources.

[@fuckakakaka]

@@jabjab12 that’s not how it works

[@jabjab12]

@@fuckakakaka who determines how it work or not??

[@fuckakakaka]

@@jabjab12 there was a case of a photo of a monkey that went viral. The monkey took a picture of itself but several people wanted to own it. Who owned it? The guy who owned the camera or the guy who owned the monkey? Court ruled that no one owned it because intellectual property can only be owned if a human made it. This also applies to people who tried claiming ownership of face filters

[@email7919]

Why do we even have copyright bruh

[@fuckakakaka]

To protect individuals who actually create for a living

[@email7919]

@@fuckakakaka mostly seems for protecting big companies but ok

[@fuckakakaka]

@@email7919 big companies always take advantage of laws meant for little guys but those laws still protect the little guys

[@reiXku]

@@fuckakakaka i guess if ai loses the lawsuit then big corporation for example Disney can start taking down videos of artists on yt that draw their Disney characters. big company still wins either way

[@fuckakakaka]

@@reiXku if it means no more Elsa Spider-man videos i think that's a win

[@neithanm]

I'm sorry artists but it's game over. Rejoice in the fact that we are all getting automated away and it'll happen faster than you think.

[@misslady0075]

🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣

[@screenapple1660]

AI generated generate music and song -- that's great. It would be new Napster... Music artists and industries would get mad if someone create AI that sings beautiful song than human. No problem with it. it saves your time from doing copyright research. I don't mind using AI song.

[@gastrointestinalhemorrhage]

2023 f-

[@guineapigzed]

We the people own it.

[@tiboregoldberger6817]

🥴🥱👸👩‍🦳🧙🤶👩‍🦲🧚🧜🧞😴🥴🥱🦍🦧🙉🙈🙊🐵🐒👸👩‍🦳🧙🤶👩‍🦲🧚🧜🧞😴🥴🥱🦍🦧🙉🙈🙊🐵🐒🥴🥱😴🥴🥱😴🥴🥱

[@mr.bigbrother7112]

Pokémon