Time to talk about artificial intelligence (AI) again. This subject has taken an interesting twist. But to understand the development, we should talk about Naruto – the monkey, not the anime.
So, David Slater (wildlife photographer) left his equipment in a jungle. A monkey called Naruto grabbed Slater’s camera and took a selfie. The selfie was impressive enough for Slater to include it in a self-published book titled Wildlife Personalities. Guess what People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) did? They sued Slater for infringing on Naruto’s copyright by using the monkey’s selfie without consent.
That sounds absurd, doesn’t it? The US legal system dismissed the case because the Copyright Act only applies to works with human authorship.
Why does that matter? A while back, someone tried to copyright images they made using Midjourney, a popular AI system. The artist in question argued that Midjourney was merely a tool in their creative process.
Nonetheless, The Copyright Office rejected their request. Now, Stephen Thaler just lost his case against The US Copyright Office, and the judgment in that particular situation has attracted all kinds of attention. The Copyright Office rejected Thaler’s attempts to copyright images generated by his Creativity Machine algorithm; so, he took them to court. Judge Beryl A. Howell concluded that one could not copyright AI-generated artwork.
This creates two conundrums. First of all, AI, as we know it today, is not true intelligence. These algorithms cannot produce unique content from scratch. Instead, you train them by feeding them images from other artists.
They can also scrape the internet for what they need. In other words, they base their creations on the work of human beings, and many human artists oppose the practice. They believe that AI essentially disregards copyright laws by using their work (without permission) to create new art.
Some experts in this field expect a tidal wave of lawsuits to eventually bury the companies behind these programs. More interestingly, Hollywood is embroiled in strikes from actors and writers who don’t want AI to replace them. And their fears are rooted in reality. Why would a studio hire human experts to make anything if AI can achieve the same results for free in a fraction of the time?
Granted, AI is still severely limited in its capabilities, but artists are dreading a day when artificial intelligence becomes savvy enough to compete with humans. You can understand why Hollywood would gravitate towards this technology.
It would cut their costs significantly. However, the Stephen Thaler case creates a wrinkle. If you don’t understand why copyright matters, allow me to explain it.
Copyright gives you legal control over anything you make. For instance, if I draw a mouse-shaped character on paper and he becomes immensely popular, you can’t place that character on a shirt, cup, or billboard without my permission. Unless we come to an arrangement, no one can benefit from my artistic endeavours (except for me).
Do you see why the Stephen Thaler judgment is problematic? Right now, you can’t make a Mickey Mouse film without Disney suing the pants off you. But if those protections don’t apply to AI-generated content, any original art they make with AI is technically fair game. Anyone can use it for their own ends. This may put a pause on any plans they have for this technology in the future.
I wonder whether the Uganda Registration Services Bureau cares about AI-generated works. I suppose only time will tell; it might be a while before Ugandan artists dip their toes into AI-generated work.
katmic200@gmail.com
Source: The Observer
Share this content:
