A few truth bombs:
AI-generated “art” is not art.
You are not an artist, NOR DO AI TOOLS MAKE YOU “CREATIVE”, because you can create an image by entering a few keyword prompts.
If you call yourself an “AI Artist”, you are claiming a title that you did not develop, did not earn, and do not deserve.
You are in fact, a fraud, a cheat, and a plagiarist who is creating "art" based on intellectual property stolen from real artists.
No doubt the above statements will raise a few hackles and result in stereotypical social media responses such as “you don’t get it” or “you’ll just be left behind” or I’ll be told that I’m “angry”, I don’t care. Supporters of AI art will cite all manner of reasons why AI-generated imagery is a game changer. It makes no difference whether or not I can personally identify AI imagery versus hand drawn art, nor does it matter if machine-generated images are “cool.”
AI-generated imagery is:
Dishonest, destructive, and devalues real artists.
“Artists will just have to adapt to the new reality”, according to people who are excited by AI image generators such as Midjourney and DreamStudio. The actual reality is that artist’s livelihoods are being threatened by a technology that literally would not exist if not for artists.
AI image generators allow people who do not have an iota of artistic talent or creative ability the means to compete with people who have spent decades nurturing, improving, and perfecting their creative skills. This is not “progress”. Progress would entail a societal reckoning with art leading people to value art, artists, and creativity enough to fund art programs (in schools), developing young minds, and eventually flooding the creative market with talent that was groomed for the job. AI generated imagery circumvents the entire creative process, literally creating a reality out of the notion that art is “easy” to produce, completely devaluing art and artists.
What can be done about it? Even if Getty Images wins its lawsuit over the theft of their entire image catalog, there are millions of artists around the world whose intellectual property was stolen to “teach” AI generators. I imagine that my work was stolen too. The fact is that there is nothing that anyone like myself can do if our work was used without our permission to educate an algorithm and the companies who developed these AI tools know this, more to the point, they banked on it. They banked on the 20% rule—which states that “if you change 20% of a work of art, it’s not plagiarism.” The problem is, this widely-held belief is 100% false. There is no law, rule, or statute that says if you “change xx percentage of an artwork” it’s no longer plagiarism. This “art” rule is urban legend.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that congress steps up and passes a law that reinforces intellectual property (copyright) laws. There is next to zero likelihood that the companies who created AI image generation tools will be forced to pay royalties or licensing fees to millions of artists for the IP that has already found its way into their data sets, but that’s exactly what needs to happen. Companies like Getty and some famous artists may be able to extract compensation from these AI image companies, but the average artist will get screwed. The average artist does not have the name recognition or cash reserves required to fight a prolonged court battle over intellectual property rights.
The problem is that the damage has already been done—Centuries of artwork has already been stolen. AI platforms possess all of the image data they need to operate for eternity, make billions of dollars off the backs of real artists, severely impacting markets where artists ply their trade. Simply put, AI image generators represent the largest art (intellectual property) theft in history.
Companies and individuals that purchase art will undoubtedly take advantage of the savings AI tools will offer them for conceptual and creative work. Why would a company hire an illustrator, designer, or photographer and negotiate for the use of custom art when they can create an image similar to a specific style for a paltry monthly fee and own the IP for the work generated by the AI tool? The answer is: If a cheaper option exists, they will opt for the cheaper option. Companies will attempt to take every advantage, every time regardless of the grimy details and inconvenient facts about how AI image generators generate images. One only need look at a “standard” contract to find the inevitable work-for-hire clause to know how little companies value an artist’s rights to the work they create.
Legally, the only path to controlling the impact of AI-generated imagery so that it helps all artists is to do a handful of things:
For consumers of AI generated art:
1. Mandate that AI-generated art carry a label “this is AI-generated or machine-generated art” then list the artists whose work was used to generate the amalgamated image.
2. Pass a law that requires any company or individual who uses AI tools to generate imagery for commercial purposes to pay licensing fees for all AI-generated images in the same manner that Getty Images licenses images to their customers.Which means …
For companies that build AI generators:
3. Pass a law or strengthen existing copyright laws requiring all companies who create AI tools to pay licensing fees to every single artist around the world whose images are part of their data sets and royalties for each and every piece of art that is referenced to create an amalgamated AI image.
4. Under no circumstances should these companies be allowed to transfer full IP rights to imagery created by consumers of their tools.
In summary:
AI image creation should be regulated in the same manner as a stock image companies and all imagery generated should be licensed in an identical manner. AI image generators amalgamate existing artwork to create images, which means that every image that was referenced to create the machine-generated “art” can be tracked—Every single artist whose work was referenced to create the amalgamated image should be compensated as if they’d been hired to create the work.
Artists have every right to be concerned and angry about the impact AI image generators will have on their livelihoods. I have worked for decades to help educate illustrators, artists, and designers about protecting their IP rights and I can say from experience that the endless onslaught of underhanded nonsense we have to endure to protect our art, rights, and livelihoods from people and businesses who would take advantage of our talents is exhausting and AI image generators will make this exponentially more difficult. There is nothing existential about the impact AI image generators will have on millions of artists worldwide—AI generators represent a clear and present danger to our livelihoods and our profession.
This isn’t about riding the technology wave or even finding a way to integrate AI image generation into my work … I don’t need to use an AI image generator as a creative wheelchair because I carry an art-generation machine on my shoulders.
For those of you who are excited about AI image generators, it doesn’t matter if you like or dislike my art, nor does it matter if you think I have any talent at all … It matters that you don’t give a damn that my intellectual property may have been used to create your AI “art”.