"The laws governing AI art are outdated and need to be changed," according to multi-published author Gini Graham Scott, who has published over 200 books, including three dozen picture books. After she began creating some AI illustrations for four of the books, she learned that it is not possible to copyright AI art, since the copyright office has ruled it is not created by humans. Also, she discovered that there are infringement issues raised about the use of AI images which are created by on combining images or parts of images that are available on the Internet or other online sources.
As Scott discovered, the laws were written for a previous era and don't reflect the way individuals are creating and using AI art today. Plus she found that the laws governing AI writing need to be revisited and revised. So now she is looking for intellectual property lawyers and others who want to get involved in a campaign to change the laws.
As Scott explains in an article recently published on Medium, she first got involved in creating AI art about a month ago after reading an article about the Midjourney platform and using it to create the illudytsyiond for four picture books. Then, she began wondering about the big concern of many artists and writers: will AI replace them; will it cause them to lose jobs and clients, since AI can create images and copy much more quickly and cheaply. At the same time, it is a tool that writers and artists can use to create other writing and art, just like any new technology has been adopted and used throughout history. Thus, while AI writing and art may be disruptive in some ways, it is helpful in others and is here to stay.
But if it is here to stay, that raises two legal questions, as she describes in her article: "Protecting one's rights in any AI created art or writing raises copyright issues, while considering how AI can be used legally raises concerns about infringement. But the laws affecting AI were developed before AI has become widely popular today. Thus, these laws need to be changed."
She then goes on to discuss the huge number of AI artists in the millions, how AI-based image generators work, the problem with copyright law, and what to do about the infringement issue. As she points out: "The problem with copyright law is that the U.S. Copyright Office has ruled that AI art can't be copyrighted on the grounds that an image generated through AI lacks the 'human authorship necessary to support a copyright claim.'"
Yet, Scott believes the law is wrong because while AI images may be generated by a machine, there is human authorship in creating the prompts that generate a series of images. Also, there is human authorship in selecting the image or part of an image to be featured in a book, painting, or art piece. Thus, she wants the law changed to permit the copyright of AI-created works.
She also believes the laws about infringement should be updated to explicitly include AI-generated content. As she writes: "There shouldn't be any infringement if the data-mining process results in using an image or part of an AI-generated image…unless it is using a recognizable copyrighted, branded, or trademarked image, such as a Disney or Marvel character. Otherwise, the use of the image should be covered by the fair use exception that has long permitted the use of small sections of text or parts of images or transformed images."
She cities the Google Books battle with the Author's Guild which claimed infringement when Google created the Google Books database by digitizing of millions of images. Ultimately, after ten years of litigation in a case that went up to the Supreme Court in an appeal, the courts decided that there was no copyright infringement. Rather, there was fair use, because "The ultimate goal of copyright is to expand public knowledge and understanding."
Thus, Scott believes that whatever restrictions already apply to art created by artists should apply to AI-created art, and this should be codified in the law, so AI art, with a few exceptions, should be clearly protected from infringement claims and be able to be copyrighted, once the copyright law is changed.
As she concludes the article, she hopes it might "bring together a network of artists and writers who would like to see the law changed to provide copyright protection for AI created works and affirm that AI created works are covered by the fair use doctrine, apart from the exceptions for branded and trademarks art. Then, she hopes this network can help to get lawmakers to support such legislation.
For more information, and you can read the full article on Medium at https://ginigrahamscott.medium.com/lets-change-the-laws-governing-ai-art-b0f1a2703de9 and you can join the Facebook group – The AI Revolution and Writers and Artists – at https://www.facebook.com/groups/508303514489177/people
*********
Gini Graham Scott, Ph.D. is the author of over 50 books with major publishers and has published 30 books through her company Changemakers Publishing and Writing (http://www.changemakerspublishingandwriting.com). She writes books and proposals for clients, and has written and produced over 50 short videos through Changemakers Productions. (http://www.changemakersproductions.com). Her latest book is I Was Scammed, available on Amazon at: https://www.amazon.com/Was-Scammed-Updated-Expanded-Becoming-ebook/dp/B09PNB38GJ. A paperback and hardcover are available, too. She is also the author of How to Find and Work with a Good Ghostwriter.
Jana Collins
Jones & O'Malley
http://www.jonesomalley.com
818-762-8353