Last year, Kris Kashtanova typed instructions for a graphic novel into a new artificial-intelligence program and touched off a high-stakes debate over who created the artwork: a human or an algorithm. “Zendaya leaving gates of Central Park,” Kashtanova entered into Midjourney, an AI program similar to ChatGPT that produces dazzling illustrations from written prompts. “Sci-fi scene future empty New York….”
From these inputs and hundreds more emerged Zarya of the Dawn, an 18-page story about a character resembling the actress Zendaya who roams a deserted Manhattan hundreds of years in the future. Kashtanova received a copyright in September, and declared on social media that it meant artists were entitled to legal protection for their AI art projects.
In February, the US Copyright Office suddenly reversed itself, and Kashtanova became the first person in the country to be stripped of legal protection for AI art. The images in “Zarya,” the office said, were “not the product of human authorship.” She was allowed to keep a copyright in the arrangement and storyline.
Now, with the help of a high-powered legal team, the artist is testing the limits of the law once again. For a new book, Kashtanova has turned to a different AI program, Stable Diffusion, which lets users scan in their own drawings and refine them with text prompts. The artist believes that starting with original artwork will provide enough of a “human” element to sway the authorities. “It would be very strange if it’s not copyrightable,” said the 37-year-old artist.
A spokesperson for the copyright office declined to comment. Midjourney also declined to comment, and Stability AI did not respond to requests for comment.
At a time when new AI programs like ChatGPT, Midjourney and Stable Diffusion seem poised to transform human expression as they smash records for user growth, the legal system still hasn’t figured out who owns the output – the users, the owners of the programs, or maybe no one at all.
Billions of dollars could hinge on the answer. Companies could use AI to produce and own the rights to vast quantities of low-cost graphics, music, video and text for advertising or entertainment. “Copyright governing bodies are going to be under enormous pressure,” says Ryan Merkley, the former chief of Creative Commons, an organisation issuing license to allow creators to share their work.
In the US and many other countries, anyone who engages in creative expression usually has immediate legal rights to it. A copyright registration creates a public record of the work and allows the owner to go to court to enforce their rights. Courts including the US Supreme Court have long held that an author has to be a human being. In rejecting legal protection for the “Zarya” images, the US Copyright Office cited rulings denying legal protection for a selfie snapped by a monkey named Naruto and for a song that the applicant said had been composed by “the Holy Spirit.”
US-based computer scientist Stephen Thaler has maintained that his AI programs are sentient and should be legally recognized as the creators of inventions they generated. He has sued the US Copyright Office, petitioned the SC and has a patent case before the UK Supreme Court.
Many artists and companies that own creative content fiercely oppose granting copyrights to AI owners or users. They argue that because the new algorithms work by training themselves on vast quantities of material on the open web, some of which is copyrighted, the AI systems are gobbling up legally protected material without permission.
Stock photo provider Getty Images, a group of visual artists and owners of computer code have separately filed lawsuits against owners of AI programs including Midjourney, Stability AI and ChatGPT developer OpenAI for copyright infringement, which the companies deny. Getty and OpenAI declined to comment.
From these inputs and hundreds more emerged Zarya of the Dawn, an 18-page story about a character resembling the actress Zendaya who roams a deserted Manhattan hundreds of years in the future. Kashtanova received a copyright in September, and declared on social media that it meant artists were entitled to legal protection for their AI art projects.
In February, the US Copyright Office suddenly reversed itself, and Kashtanova became the first person in the country to be stripped of legal protection for AI art. The images in “Zarya,” the office said, were “not the product of human authorship.” She was allowed to keep a copyright in the arrangement and storyline.
Now, with the help of a high-powered legal team, the artist is testing the limits of the law once again. For a new book, Kashtanova has turned to a different AI program, Stable Diffusion, which lets users scan in their own drawings and refine them with text prompts. The artist believes that starting with original artwork will provide enough of a “human” element to sway the authorities. “It would be very strange if it’s not copyrightable,” said the 37-year-old artist.
A spokesperson for the copyright office declined to comment. Midjourney also declined to comment, and Stability AI did not respond to requests for comment.
At a time when new AI programs like ChatGPT, Midjourney and Stable Diffusion seem poised to transform human expression as they smash records for user growth, the legal system still hasn’t figured out who owns the output – the users, the owners of the programs, or maybe no one at all.
Billions of dollars could hinge on the answer. Companies could use AI to produce and own the rights to vast quantities of low-cost graphics, music, video and text for advertising or entertainment. “Copyright governing bodies are going to be under enormous pressure,” says Ryan Merkley, the former chief of Creative Commons, an organisation issuing license to allow creators to share their work.
In the US and many other countries, anyone who engages in creative expression usually has immediate legal rights to it. A copyright registration creates a public record of the work and allows the owner to go to court to enforce their rights. Courts including the US Supreme Court have long held that an author has to be a human being. In rejecting legal protection for the “Zarya” images, the US Copyright Office cited rulings denying legal protection for a selfie snapped by a monkey named Naruto and for a song that the applicant said had been composed by “the Holy Spirit.”
US-based computer scientist Stephen Thaler has maintained that his AI programs are sentient and should be legally recognized as the creators of inventions they generated. He has sued the US Copyright Office, petitioned the SC and has a patent case before the UK Supreme Court.
Many artists and companies that own creative content fiercely oppose granting copyrights to AI owners or users. They argue that because the new algorithms work by training themselves on vast quantities of material on the open web, some of which is copyrighted, the AI systems are gobbling up legally protected material without permission.
Stock photo provider Getty Images, a group of visual artists and owners of computer code have separately filed lawsuits against owners of AI programs including Midjourney, Stability AI and ChatGPT developer OpenAI for copyright infringement, which the companies deny. Getty and OpenAI declined to comment.