Why artists demand compensation from AI image generators

Artists obviously have a good reason to demand compensation AI art generators The programs and algorithms use the creative performance, work and the know-how of people to create (new) art in an artificial way.

A few days ago, the headlines in this dispute over the machine overturned again after the photo agency Getty Images against the Stability AI company due to copyright infusion through its popular generator Stable diffusion (SPIEGEL ONLINE reported: "Artificial intelligence: artists and photo agency complain against AI image generators" ) .

The way of using existing, copyright -protected works such as paintings and photographs is anything but fair - and artists have every right to demand damages from these companies should be given the complaint from Getty Images and numerous other arts.

Getty specifically accuses Stability Ai of having illegally copied and processed "millions of copyrighted images" This was only the economic advantage of the company and the disadvantage of the authors, Getty said on Tuesday in a blog post .

In recent years, many technology companies have started to use artificial intelligence (AI) to create art . This can be all sorts of things, from music and poetry to paintings , drawings , graphic design or photographs .

While some people think of this - apart from the legally still to be clarified copyright question - others are not so sure. Many believe that artificial intelligence should not art because it takes away creativity and leaves machines to people. Art would therefore be subject to hyperinflationary decay arbitrarily, infinitely replicated and as a result.

But what does this mean for those who use AI? Are you original creator of your “art” in the sense of the creation height? Or are the images just about random products that have no artistic relevance?

Some artists see an attack on their work in this type of art production and therefore call for compensation from companies that use AI. So far, however, neither courts nor regulatory authorities seemed to agree that artists can assert claims against companies that use AI.

This could change with a precedent - as expected in this complaint as a result - for the near future.

How AI is used in art production

Nowadays there are several technology companies that use AI to create art. The best known include the generative Music Studio of Spotify and Google's magenta project .

However, there are also many smaller companies that use AI in the same way. This includes Amper Music and Aiva , both of which specialize in the creation of music, Syfe , creates the poem, and Obvious Art , created the painting and drawings.

In addition to the stable diffusion mentioned at the beginning, the image generators also include Dall-E from Openaai or Midjourney. These art generators are based on artificial intelligence (AI) and can create a picture from a short text command that has never been made before.

In the past few months, these programs have experienced their commercial breakthrough and are now actively used by a growing mass of people.

All of these companies have good intentions when it comes to using AI to create art. Researchers even celebrate the programs as a milestone in the area of ​​mechanical learning , a sub -area of ​​the AI. The dark side, to whose suffering countless artists lies in the fact. that the hard work is exploited that real people have put in countless creative processes.

Without the creativity of human artists, these programs could never have existed in their current form . Because so that the programs provide good results, the artificial intelligence behind it must be fed and trained with a huge amount of existing images.

It is therefore only logical that the artists who originally created the work should be compensated for their contribution. And this is exactly where Getty's lawsuit comes in, since a valid licensing and financial compensation for the author of the images used for this use must be legally available. In many cases, however, this is not the state of affairs.

The legal implications of the use of AI to generate art

Artists demand compensation for AI art generators because they feel that their creative ideas and works are used illegally and without economic compensation.

AI art generators use algorithms and machine learning to create works of art. This technology is used in various areas, especially in graphic design or painting.

It is easier than ever producing AI works of art It is also much cheaper. Therefore, companies and organizations can save a lot of money by using this technology. You no longer have to pay creativity or invest time to develop works of art.

However, this also means that artists no longer receive the same remuneration for their work as before. However, the problem is even worse: many AI art generators are based on existing art and use their style as a template for new works. This allows the results to be very similar and artists feel cheated because they are no longer paid for their work.

Therefore, many artists consequently demand compensation from the organizations or companies that use these technologies.

One way to solve the problem is to secure fair remuneration for the artists and only allow the use of AI art generators with their consent. In addition, companies or organizations should be familiar with copyright and ensure that it is not violated.

In this way, it can be ensured that everyone involved is treated fairly and the rights of the creative professionals are preserved. It is no longer a secret that the use of AI in art production is becoming increasingly popular and there is already a lot of discussion about the moral conflicts behind this topic.

Although there is currently no definitive solution, it is obvious that everyone involved should be treated fairly - especially those whose work is used by others. It is up to all of us - both the government and the company - to ensure that the rights of the artists are defended fairly and that they are appropriately remunerated for their work.

Current legal situation and status of the lawsuits

According to "The Verge", Getty filed the lawsuit in Great Britain. Stability AI has not yet wanted to comment. In the past, AI companies have referred to regulation such as the fair-use doctrine in the USA . In certain circumstances, this allowed protected material to use if it serves public education or its own creative creation.

In the UK , however, the legal situation is a little different, which means that the CEO of Getty Images, Craig Peters , hopes that the makers of AI image generators , if they want to use the images as a template, for license fees .

In the United States, the 3 artists Sarah Andersen , Kelly Mckernan and Karla Ortiz against Midjourney, Stability AI and Dreamup of the artist platform Deviantart a collective action for compensation because their works of art were taken as a template to use the AI ​​to create images .

The lawsuit was submitted by lawyer Matthew Butterick together with the law firm Joseph Saveri. This specializes in antitrust and collecting lawsuits. According to a report by Golem.de, Butterick and Saveri are currently also suing Microsoft, Github and Openai in a similar case, which deals with the AI ​​programming model Copilot , which is trained using code lines collected online.

So far, there are no highest judicial decisions whether the AI ​​system violates copyright law. In addition, different legal systems (i.e. United States, Great Britain, EU) should not be sheared over a comb when assessing.

An overview of the legal situation in Germany and the EU , for example, makes it clear that according to experts, the copyright does not stand in the way of training image generators with works from the network. Even for the newly generated images, no copyright law can initially be claimed.

In general, the courts will primarily have to clarify when a image created by a AI is too similar to a human art style in order to be considered a "copy" or whether images of photo agencies that have been used to train AI models must be licensed.

Stability AI also announced a function to accommodate the criticism of artists. You should get the opportunity to contradict the processing of your images for AI training, but have to register on a special platform. However, this is cumbersome and such a resolution of contradiction is certainly not the yellow of the egg for creative professionals.

The rights that artists have on their works

Artists have the right to protect their works, as the copyright law prescribes.

This is not just a question of property and copyright - rather it is about ethics and morality behind the generation of art. concept of art also faltered and may have to be redefined.

Some artists argue that the use of AI art generators undermines their integrity as artists and that they have to be paid appropriately for their work. It seems so necessary that AI art generators have to pay compensation for created works, provided that they can (can) be created and used with commercial intentions.

In this way, artists can be protected and be sure that their rights are respected as creators. There are already several initiatives in the area of ​​copyrights that aim to protect the rights of creative rights. However, more needs to be done to ensure that AI art generators are used fairly and that artists are adequately paid for their work.

How the copyright laws have changed and improved to ensure the protection of creative work

Since the 20th century, copyright laws have changed and improved in many countries around the world to ensure the protection of creative work. These laws protect creativity and innovation and allow the copyright rights to their works.

Some of these rights concern the issuing, publishing and driving away of works, as well as the decision about the origin and the composition of the works. But in a digitized world in which artists work with new technologies, new questions about the protection of their creative work arise.

One of these questions is whether artificial intelligence (AI) generators such as goose or an "real art" create or not. While some experts believe that AI generators do not create any works of art because they have no human input, others believe that they can create works of art if they use the correct data.

Those who follow the first view argue that AI generators cannot reflect on a person's free decision and therefore works of art .

Those who follow the second view, on the other hand, argue that AI generators can be works of art despite the lack of human influence because they have a human input: the data.

Where is there any legal need to catch up?

The current debate about artificial intelligence and art has shown that the legal situation is still not sufficiently regulated. AI generators can works of art that go far beyond what people have ever created.

However, these works of art are not legally protected. The problem lies in the definition of art: While many people feel art as something beautiful and meaningful, it is only a tool for the case law for the development or representation of thoughts. In order to be considered art from a legal point of view, the so -called creation height must be reached, i.e. there must have been enough creative personal contribution into a work of art.

Art must therefore have a defined content in order to be legally protected. However, AI generators produce works of art without this level of creation in a previous interpretation. Nevertheless, these can be beautiful and useful - but according to the case law, they are not yet art.

Here the case law will have to ask itself open questions and develop into technological change in the same way.

Artists to use artificial intelligence to further develop their art or create new art arises as to whether this art (partly) created by programs is also adequately secured for use in the commercial context.

The answer is probably no. One of the greatest reservations about AI art generators is that they cannot distinguish between an original work and a copy incident.

This problem is reinforced by the fact that many of these programs do not contain the labeling of their work, which means that it is impossible to determine whether a certain work is protected by copyright or not.

Another problem is that these programs cannot lead an interactive dialogue with the user. This enables you to reproduce that already exist, but not able to create something new. This means that you have no authentic voice and therefore cannot have property or personality.

These aspects make it difficult for AI art generators to obtain the protection of copyright and thus also the protection of intellectual property. Although some of them will try to solve this problem and develop their programs in such a way that they are able to interact with users authentically and to register ownership of their work, this will still take a while.

Until then, it is up to the artists to find out how to deal with this problem and whether they should try to claim damages from the editors of these programs, provided their content has been used without consent.

Addendum on July 2023: AI law-EU Parliament decides to regulate artificial intelligence

European Parliament unanimously voted AI ​​Act , a new regulation that regulates the use of artificial intelligence. The EU hopes for a reduction in the risks that can assume such systems. However, it is unlikely that the regulation will come into force before 2026.

Nevertheless, this step is an important milestone in dealing with AI and shows the commitment of the EU for the protection of citizens from the possible dangers of this technology.

What the new AI law includes

With the AI ​​Act, the EU establishes a groundbreaking regulation for artificial intelligence that is unparalleled worldwide. The focus is on increased and effective regulation of AI applications . Because the use of AI is often opaque, complex and data -dependent and is based on the autonomous behavior of the applications.

This represents a risk of fundamental fundamental rights such as the protection of personal data and the protection of privacy. In order to monitor the implementation, a European Office for Artificial Intelligence is to be launched, which should ensure a safe and responsible use of AI using AI Act.

The popular Chatbot Chatgpt and similar AI software are also affected by the new AI law and will have to meet stricter transparency requirements .

AI Act should promote artificial intelligence and protect fundamental rights

The AI ​​Act is the EU's answer to the potential dangers that can go hand in hand with the use of AI. The support of the AI ​​Act by the parliamentary deputies follows the approval of the European Commission. By introducing such an extensive legal regulation for AI, the EU is breaking new ground.

A detailed, professional assessment of the AI ​​Act and its legal scope can be read here: Datenschutz.org> Ki Act