Just this week, a case was found in favor of Invoke AI that images generated by that system are copyrightable as that system provides the tools to modify that picture enough to exhibit human intent. My husband has the article; I'll have him link it if you'd like.
I would also say to the artists who are saying this would lost jobs for artists making book covers, this has already happened. Services such as Getcovers and their sister site MilArt can provide professional grade covers for as low as $25. They are out of the Ukraine and other places where cost of labor is much cheaper than the US and small, independent artists in the US cannot compete with such services - and these were available long before the AI explosion.
I agree that AI is still art, though I would say that it can be "A" art beyond just "a", just as artwork by humans can be both - human artists produce cheap, careless art all the time.
But I think as you said, eventually, there will be equilibrium to be found as the limitations of AI are reached. I've already felt such frustration when trying to come up with images to include with my own substack posts or pictures, where I just need something quick to accompany a free internet blog piece or story and could not get close to what I wanted. The trained human artists are going to prove to be more nimble and more able to match exact visions than AI can, and for those who can afford it, I do think that human produced are will still have its market.
But for those of us who cannot afford to have human art produced for us and who have no skill to bring our own visions to life, AI is the compromise available to us, and it still takes skill to generate exact images, and I would dare to say that those who learn to use all the tools to generate an image, to manipulate it to tease out an exact vision as they see in their mind, they are still artists with the capital "A".
I enjoyed reading this and found it really thoughtful and clarifying.
One additional dimension of the creative experience occurs to me, which is how the artist is changed through the process of engaging with materials (words, pigment and canvas, etc.). This seems to me to happen between, or separate from, the intention and the resulting product.
I am not sure how relevant it is to the artistic experience and discussion you've outlined here, but it is something I think about because my own main experience with producing a work of art is the novel in verse I wrote, basically a narrative poem. I sort of had an intention, but the intention changed and developed as I worked, and the materials of rhyme and meter actually changed what I was doing, what my literary characters did, and what I learned about them and about myself and about language and meaning and memory. The process surprised me.
It probably doesn't matter to the reader of the book, and it may be less relevant to plot-driven fiction than to poetry. But I am different than I was when I began working on my narrative poem, in ways that I am still discovering. I suppose I could have entered the instructions for content and form into an AI thing, and it would have generated sonnets much quicker than it took me. But I would have experienced no discovery, no learning, and no change. Again, this may not affect the reader's experience of the book. But I think it will of necessity affect the reader's experience of whatever books follow.
Yes, you raise a great point about the artist being changed by the process! I would say that’s indisputable—but also extremely personal, difficult to quantify, and certainly very separate from the finished work…unless we want to produce follow-up “making-of” documentaries of how we artists were transformed while creating!
I have noticed that the (visual) AI works I’ve played around with, whatever the intent and however they may be received by the viewer, don’t resonate with me the same way my ‘real’ art pieces do. It’s like they just…happened…and there’s little emotional connection and certainly no history of struggle or accomplishment with them!
Here's the article on the new tool that is able to make copyrightable gAI images. I use this tool and can tell you this is just as hard, if not harder than creating work with a digital sketchpad and photoshop or 3d modeling software. It's just a different tactic. The bad news is, this is the future and Invoke is on the inside track to becoming the next Adobe. They have a free downloadable, local/offline version of their software, as well as for those without the computer to handle it, an online "enterprise" option. It's not easy to use and I'd highly recommend watching their training videos to show you how to make incredibly complex, custom compositions. No longer will you be making AI generated clip art to composite elsewhere or worry if you're running afoul of copyright, because all AI art without customization is creative commons according to current legal rulings.
This future, no matter our opinion, will not be stopped any more than they stopped the car, desktop publishing, the steam loom, or any other major advancement to human enterprise by technology. We can only adapt, evolve and move forward.
This is such a thoughtful and enriching take on AI and art Sarah! You articulated so many connections that have been on my mind and heart. I’m so grateful for you perspective.
As someone that is very Anti-AI, I really can't stand how people have essentially pushed this toy down everyone's throats and made it their identity and sort of creativity without even putting in the hard work themselves to even attempted themselves, so it's very hard to agree with some of the things said here.
However, that doesn't change the fact that you put a lot of thought into this and while I disagree with a lot of what's being said it's insightful to read nonetheless so your opinion and how you've articulated it is well thought out.
See for me, there's adjusting and then there's simply kowtowing which unfortunately given how much of the AI Revolution is built around spite they will expect you to simply kowtow to what toys they have their disposal. People so desperately want to follow the trend and get the money the quickest rather than stay true to their own values as creators and that's a sign of desperation which is what the AI Revolution has done to the creative landscape and it's poisoned that like a cancer.
Which is why I have no plans to ever see eye to eye or playing nice with people that support this garbage, what's the point in having a hamster wheel if you haven't got a hamster to run it? Tools need grip and control in order for them to move according to what direction people want them to move in and it's why I can't stand this insufferably belligerent attitude that people that support AI have the AI is essentially a "tool" rather than a toy, which in reality is what it is.
To put a bluntly I think we should be a little bit more hostile towards people that forced the garbage onto us rather than just hop on the trend no questions asked, because the people behind this wouldn't understand the concept of innovation if it flattened the tires in their car.
Good article!
Just this week, a case was found in favor of Invoke AI that images generated by that system are copyrightable as that system provides the tools to modify that picture enough to exhibit human intent. My husband has the article; I'll have him link it if you'd like.
I would also say to the artists who are saying this would lost jobs for artists making book covers, this has already happened. Services such as Getcovers and their sister site MilArt can provide professional grade covers for as low as $25. They are out of the Ukraine and other places where cost of labor is much cheaper than the US and small, independent artists in the US cannot compete with such services - and these were available long before the AI explosion.
I agree that AI is still art, though I would say that it can be "A" art beyond just "a", just as artwork by humans can be both - human artists produce cheap, careless art all the time.
But I think as you said, eventually, there will be equilibrium to be found as the limitations of AI are reached. I've already felt such frustration when trying to come up with images to include with my own substack posts or pictures, where I just need something quick to accompany a free internet blog piece or story and could not get close to what I wanted. The trained human artists are going to prove to be more nimble and more able to match exact visions than AI can, and for those who can afford it, I do think that human produced are will still have its market.
But for those of us who cannot afford to have human art produced for us and who have no skill to bring our own visions to life, AI is the compromise available to us, and it still takes skill to generate exact images, and I would dare to say that those who learn to use all the tools to generate an image, to manipulate it to tease out an exact vision as they see in their mind, they are still artists with the capital "A".
Thank you for the legal update!
I enjoyed reading this and found it really thoughtful and clarifying.
One additional dimension of the creative experience occurs to me, which is how the artist is changed through the process of engaging with materials (words, pigment and canvas, etc.). This seems to me to happen between, or separate from, the intention and the resulting product.
I am not sure how relevant it is to the artistic experience and discussion you've outlined here, but it is something I think about because my own main experience with producing a work of art is the novel in verse I wrote, basically a narrative poem. I sort of had an intention, but the intention changed and developed as I worked, and the materials of rhyme and meter actually changed what I was doing, what my literary characters did, and what I learned about them and about myself and about language and meaning and memory. The process surprised me.
It probably doesn't matter to the reader of the book, and it may be less relevant to plot-driven fiction than to poetry. But I am different than I was when I began working on my narrative poem, in ways that I am still discovering. I suppose I could have entered the instructions for content and form into an AI thing, and it would have generated sonnets much quicker than it took me. But I would have experienced no discovery, no learning, and no change. Again, this may not affect the reader's experience of the book. But I think it will of necessity affect the reader's experience of whatever books follow.
Yes, you raise a great point about the artist being changed by the process! I would say that’s indisputable—but also extremely personal, difficult to quantify, and certainly very separate from the finished work…unless we want to produce follow-up “making-of” documentaries of how we artists were transformed while creating!
I have noticed that the (visual) AI works I’ve played around with, whatever the intent and however they may be received by the viewer, don’t resonate with me the same way my ‘real’ art pieces do. It’s like they just…happened…and there’s little emotional connection and certainly no history of struggle or accomplishment with them!
Here's the article on the new tool that is able to make copyrightable gAI images. I use this tool and can tell you this is just as hard, if not harder than creating work with a digital sketchpad and photoshop or 3d modeling software. It's just a different tactic. The bad news is, this is the future and Invoke is on the inside track to becoming the next Adobe. They have a free downloadable, local/offline version of their software, as well as for those without the computer to handle it, an online "enterprise" option. It's not easy to use and I'd highly recommend watching their training videos to show you how to make incredibly complex, custom compositions. No longer will you be making AI generated clip art to composite elsewhere or worry if you're running afoul of copyright, because all AI art without customization is creative commons according to current legal rulings.
This future, no matter our opinion, will not be stopped any more than they stopped the car, desktop publishing, the steam loom, or any other major advancement to human enterprise by technology. We can only adapt, evolve and move forward.
https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/this-company-got-a-copyright-for-an-image-made-entirely-with-ai-heres-how/
Here's the link to download Invoke.
https://www.invoke.com/
This is such a thoughtful and enriching take on AI and art Sarah! You articulated so many connections that have been on my mind and heart. I’m so grateful for you perspective.
Thanks, and your own perspective is also appreciated!!
As someone that is very Anti-AI, I really can't stand how people have essentially pushed this toy down everyone's throats and made it their identity and sort of creativity without even putting in the hard work themselves to even attempted themselves, so it's very hard to agree with some of the things said here.
However, that doesn't change the fact that you put a lot of thought into this and while I disagree with a lot of what's being said it's insightful to read nonetheless so your opinion and how you've articulated it is well thought out.
Thanks! I agree that the whole thing came on way too quickly for people to adjust to, and it's rather freaky.
See for me, there's adjusting and then there's simply kowtowing which unfortunately given how much of the AI Revolution is built around spite they will expect you to simply kowtow to what toys they have their disposal. People so desperately want to follow the trend and get the money the quickest rather than stay true to their own values as creators and that's a sign of desperation which is what the AI Revolution has done to the creative landscape and it's poisoned that like a cancer.
Which is why I have no plans to ever see eye to eye or playing nice with people that support this garbage, what's the point in having a hamster wheel if you haven't got a hamster to run it? Tools need grip and control in order for them to move according to what direction people want them to move in and it's why I can't stand this insufferably belligerent attitude that people that support AI have the AI is essentially a "tool" rather than a toy, which in reality is what it is.
To put a bluntly I think we should be a little bit more hostile towards people that forced the garbage onto us rather than just hop on the trend no questions asked, because the people behind this wouldn't understand the concept of innovation if it flattened the tires in their car.