How does AI demolish copyright and where should we go?

An installation for a thought experiment

This installation was developed in an application format, where the user enters a text prompt and an image is generated accordingly by artificial intelligence (AI), DALL-E, by OpenAI. The program reads all individual pixels from the machine-generated picture, and the RGB color values are mapped to frequency and played as sound. The experiment is to show which part of the material should I be granted copyright?

Rethink artistic creation in copyright

With the technology of AI, we have a tool that can generate content easily. In the past, creating content is time and effort-consuming. To acknowledge one’s effort, copyright grants creators of original works exclusive rights to control the use and distribution of their works. These rights are intended to protect the creators' economic interests and to encourage continued creativity and innovation.

Recently, the US Copyright Office (2023) issued rules regarding generative AI. The office considers AI creations to not include human authorship, so artworks made by AI cannot be copyrighted. In the case of my installation, I hold the copyright of the program since I typed the code and put different functions together. The AI-generated image by the Dalle model does not incur any copyright since the AI is not human. However, should I bear the copyright of the sound generated by my code? According to the office, mechanical processes cannot be recognized as human authorship, so the copyright for the sound generated by the code may not apply. In other words, writing prompts to trigger the generation is considered part of the idea domain and therefore may not be subject to copyright protection.

Is it permissible to remix sound generated by my installation that contains human authorship, by combining it with material generated by or with the assistance of technology? The answer will depend on the circumstances and a case-by-case inquiry, according to the Office. This inquiry should consider how the AI tool operates and how it was used to create the final work. In general, if I contributed enough to the creation of the work, I can still own the copyright of the part that I created.

So far so good. But what if I feed my remixed soundtrack to an AI model and generate new content by AI? AI music programs like AIVA can let a user feed an audio sample to make the AI find out the pattern and generate similar products. As far as I went through the guidelines from US Copyright Office, they do not specifically mention this kind of situation. The decision of rather it can be copyrightable is a dilemma. If something is not eligible for copyright protection, some people may use copyrighted materials from others and feed them into AI. This washes off the copyright and allows for the creation of extremely similar things with an extremely cheap and effortless process. If it is copyrightable, some owners may flood the market with their own successful materials with AI processes and spam the market, which can hinder new creators from trying to innovate. In both cases, the sacred quality of creativity is devalued.

Some may argue that AI is simply a tool. Humans have been inventing new tools for art creation for centuries, so the adjustment to AI should not be a major problem. However, in the past, when new technologies were developed, artists contributed a portion of creativity and technique to result in the same amount of creative output. For example, in composing music, the use of DAW or notation software does not create more material in a vacuum compared to pen and staff paper. The basic principle of a 1 to 1 ratio of creative input and output, or the "law of conservation of authorship" (originally energy) I borrowed from physics, held nicely before the AI era. The development of AI generative material breaks this principle, and we have not yet encountered a legal or societal response to it.

The problem of an infinite chain of uncopyrightable assets

The installation shows a chain of material generation with a mixture of copyrighted and non-copyrighted materials. In the past, every new material created was copyrighted. Artists may be inspired by other copyrighted and non-copyrighted materials but copyrighted material always come to an end, from human authorship —— the mean. The uncertain copyright issue from AI-generated content causes the collapse of the goal of creation.

As a composer, I would prepare for potential challenges. The issue of copyright infringement caused by AI may have devastating consequences or new regulations may be implemented in the future. It is possible that the concept of copyright may become obsolete. In response, there may be two extremes. One approach is open source, whereby everything is made transparent to demonstrate authenticity. On the other hand, some artists may choose to keep their creations secret in order to prevent AI from accessing them.

The artists Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan and Karla Ortiz are suing AI image generators is a news need to keep an eye on. Maybe a pause in AI development to buy us some time to figure out all of these as many scholars have suggested recently.

How modern copyright laws reshape our moral intuition

Moral intuition refers to strong, stable, and immediate moral beliefs that are held with confidence and resist counter-evidence, although they can be overturned by strong enough counter-evidence. The moral intuition that underlies copyright laws is rooted in the belief that individuals have a natural right to the fruits of their labor. This creates an intuition that creators should have the ability to control the use and benefit of their work according to copyright law.

However, if copyright is a basic moral intuition, why does copyright law have a relatively short history? The background of copyright dates back to the early privileges and monopolies granted to printers of books. In England, the Stationers' Company was given the power to require all lawfully printed books to be entered into its register in the 16th century. Compared to the long history of human making artworks and performing arts, copyright was added due to capitalism very late in history. Capitalism has had a significant impact on copyright law, as the system is based on the principles of private property, profit motive, and market competition, which turned art into a commercial product. The dominance of capitalism brought this concept along with colonialism to the whole world, where copyright directly translates to commercial value, becoming a new moral intuition of the public. Artists make money from their works, and art dealers and buyers gain revenue when they buy and resell them. Capital gain becomes the whole intrinsic value of human authorship.

A return of the intrinsic value of art or craft

The instance problem of copyright has been shown as art becoming detached from the general public. To demonstrate this problem, we have to look back to the fundamental value of art. According to McCarthy, Ondaatje, Zakaras, & Brooks (2005), the major intrinsic benefits of arts include growth in individual capacities and benefits that accrue largely to the public. Immediate benefits come from engaging in arts experiences, such as pleasure and captivation. It is the growth in individual capacities that can occur through cumulative arts experiences, such as enhanced empathy for other people and cultures, powers of observation, and understanding of the world. Art can serve as a function that accrues largely to the public, such as the social bonds created among individuals when they share their arts experiences through reflection and discourse, and the expression of common values and community identity. McCarthy’s core concept of arts is not only for personal enjoyment but also for the interconnection of the individuals in society. It echoes Small’s idea of musicking, which means any activity involving or related to music performance. The process is inclusive for the general public in society.

The open-source idea has been one of the most influential movements in the internet era. The idea of open-source software has shown that people can create amazing things and collaborate without being motivated by money. Open-source software is a type of computer software in which source code is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software to anyone and for any purpose. This type of software is often developed in a decentralized and collaborative way, with contributions from individuals and organizations around the world. The open-source movement has been driven by passion, with people working together to create amazing things that benefit the community as a whole. This idea has expanded beyond just software and has been applied to other areas such as hardware, education, and even art. The open-source philosophy emphasizes the importance of collaboration, community, and sharing, which can be a refreshing change from the traditional capitalist mindset of competition and profit.

How copyright creates the cultural hierarchy

The problem is that copyright grants the holder total control of the usage of artwork which creates an obstruction of the general public assessing the arts. The copyright can select who can access the artwork with control of the distribution of the artwork. It creates a cultural hierarchy by separating those who can expose to it from those who cannot. The most direct mean is who can financially afford it. For example, abstract art is often displayed in prestigious galleries and museums with high admission fees or expensive concert tickets, scores or recordings which can exclude those who cannot afford to attend. The other way is the price tag on the artwork at an auction. This hierarchy is created by the way art is presented and discussed in the art world, which can often be inaccessible and exclusive. In the worst-case scenario as a lot of artworks are coldly stored in someone's vault or safe rather than sharing it to the general public. This creates a cultural hierarchy where those who can access art are seen as more sophisticated and cultured than those who cannot. This hierarchy can be seen as a form of cultural capital, which is used to signal and reinforce social status and distinction.

The benefit of demonopolizing copyright would allow artists to create and distribute their work more freely, without being hindered by financial or legal constraints. Artists can return to the original motivation of creating art from passion and self-expression, rather than for profit. Rather than using copyright to make money, it should be altered to ensure artists are honest about their work and are properly credited for their hard work. This will return us to the most original moral intuition of human art-making. To reverse the situation of people being left out, everyone should have access to different types of artwork. This is different from the old communist approach of forcing artists to create artwork for the working class. A society that ensures everyone can access different types or forms of art maximizes opportunities for general access to art. Artists who experiment with creating new art have a higher chance of being appreciated by a wider audience. At the same time, they do not have the temptation of copying existing art styles in order to generate revenue, since the risk of creating old things and new things is the same. Ultimately, this would benefit both artists and the public, as it would create a more vibrant and accessible artistic culture.

AI technology causes a sudden disruption of copyright laws

In the recent AI debate, many people have lost their jobs and artists are concerned about being replaced by AI. Some are even considering quitting their studies in art due to future career concerns. Those worries are based on the capitalist point of view and it teaches the public that the moral intuition of art is making money. Those who enjoy the process of creating artwork or collaborating with others are not as worried about AI. AI cannot replace the happiness and sense of achievement that comes with creating art.

Although copyright currently has become an integral part of the art world, it is important to recognize that it is not a necessary component of the intrinsic value of making art. Human authorship involves two main stages: the process of making the artwork and the treatment of it at the end of the creation. Copyright works as the treatment of the created artwork. With the rise of AI-generated images and music, copyright has become increasingly difficult to define. AI force everyone the demonopolizing copyright so it causes a sudden pain since we have been so used to the capitalist moral intuition. The sudden arrival of AI technology may shock everyone unexpectedly but the future is optimistic.

Art-making serves as both a means and an end in itself, allowing artists to engage in self-actualization and creative expression. The purpose of creating art is not solely to produce a marketable product or to generate revenue, but rather to explore and express the artist's unique perspective and vision.

Of course, this is not to say that artists should not be compensated for their work or that copyright laws should be abolished altogether. Rather, it is important to recognize that copyright is just one aspect of the art world and should not be viewed as the sole measure of an artist's success or the value of their work. We should prioritise the intrinsic value of art-making and recognizing the diverse expressions of creativity.

The arrival of universal basic income

As the intrinsic value of art-making is emphasized, it is important to note that artists should not be expected to work for free or solely for personal enjoyment. In cases where artists cannot make a profit from their copyrighted work, universal basic income (UBI) can support their life and allow them to continue creating. The idea behind UBI is to provide a basic level of financial security for all citizens, regardless of their employment status or income level. By providing this basic income, artists and creators would have more freedom to create without the worry of financial instability. This would allow them to focus on the intrinsic value of their work, rather than solely on the financial gain that can be obtained through copyright. Demonetizing copyright and UBI would create a more diverse and accessible artistic culture for the public to enjoy.

The Basic Income for the Arts (BIA) pilot scheme in Ireland aims to support artists and creative arts workers by providing a payment of €325 per week. The pilot scheme is designed to address the financial instability faced by many working in the arts. The BIA pilot scheme will run over a three-year period, from 2022 to 2025, and will be open to eligible artists and creative arts sector workers.

Is this the future of the art scene? The responsibility of supporting artistic activity lies with society as a whole, since art itself is for everyone. Will educating the public on the importance of art lead to a return to a state of moral intuition? If the whole society supports art, it will reinforce the idea that art should be accessible to everyone. This could encourage the public to participate in art activities, knowing that they have contributed through their taxes. Furthermore, if the program expands, and people no longer need to dedicate their entire lives to earning a living, we may become more enthusiastic about attending or creating art.

References:

McCarthy, K.F., Ondaatje, E.H., Zakaras, L., & Brooks, A. (2005). Reframing the Debate About the Value of the Arts. RAND Corporation, RB-9106-WF. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7249/RB9106

U.S. Copyright Office (2023).Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence [online] Federal Register. Available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05321/copyright-registration-guidance-works-containing-material-generated-by-artificial-intelligence [Accessed 12 Apr. 2023].