An artist who infamously duped an art contest with an AI image is suing the U.S. Copyright Office over its refusal to register the image’s copyright.

In the lawsuit, Jason M. Allen asks a Colorado federal court to reverse the Copyright Office’s decision on his artwork Theatre D’opera Spatialbecause it was an expression of his creativity.

Reuters says the Copyright Office refused to comment on the case while Allen in a statement complains that the office’s decision “put me in a terrible position, with no recourse against others who are blatantly and repeatedly stealing my work.”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    13 months ago

    It’s been used many times before, but I like the analogy of ordering food. If I go to a restaurant and order risotto, I haven’t made the dish, I’ve only consumed it. I want you to focus on that word “consume”, it’s important here.

    Another idea I’ve seen recently that I like was a summed post something like this:

    • People use AI to write a 4,000 word article from a 15 word idea (introduction of noise)
    • Others then use AI to summarize the 4,000 word article into a 15 word blurb (introduction of more noise)

    I know I’m using a lot of analogies here; from food to writing and now the visual medium - but stick with me. Completely sidestepping any lofty notions of soul or humanity, let’s look strictly at what’s being communicated in a visual piece of art generated by AI. It’s an idea, one containing neither your specific style (the creative process) or vision (the final product), though you may feel you get a close approximation after several iterations and a detailed/complex enough prompt. If you wanted to convey the idea of “eagle perched in a tree”, you’ve already done so with that phrase (or prompt in this respect). By providing an AI-generated image, you’ve narrowed my own ability to interpret down into the AI-generated noise now taking up space between us.

    The reason you’d use AI-generated art is because you need to fill space, like the thumbnail to go with an article. An empty space to dump things into. While I can’t ever claim enough authority to define what exactly art is and is not (nobody can), I can say with absolute certainty that no matter how far the tech evolves, to me PERSONALLY, AI will only ever generate content, not art. There is already more art in the world than I could possibly consume in a hundred lifetimes, I neither want nor need this garbage.

    • @MTK
      link
      23 months ago

      I understand your point, but I disagree.

      As someone who has a very vivid imagination and absolutely no artistic skills, and who doesn’t enjoy drawing, i find that being able to produce my ideas through words is amazing.

      For me, AI art is a tool that enables me to express ideas that would otherwise never be expressed.

      I don’t consider a few lines of prompt of the top of your head art, but if someone sat down, revised, tweaked and put effort and imagination into it, isn’t that art? Would it be more of an art piece if they just published the text instead of the generated image?

    • Terrasque
      link
      fedilink
      13 months ago

      If I go to a restaurant and order risotto, I haven’t made the dish, I’ve only consumed it. I want you to focus on that word “consume”, it’s important here.

      If I buy a bread at the bakery, ham and cheese in the grocery store, and make me a sandwich, who’s the creator?