User:Itsdannycheng/Artificial intelligence art

Impact

Guidelines and Restrictions for Artist Protections

With the rise in opposition from artists towards generative art models scraping data, numerous suggestions have been brought forth to protect the rights of artists and their property. Many groups argue that despite the onset of long-term legislative change, changes to current systems can allow protection for artists who adapt to the modern use of generated art.

Numerous research groups have come forward with potential solutions. One proposed restriction outlines the use of AI as a reference tool, prohibiting the use of generated art in final drafts or products. Said guidelines would allow artists to freely use generative art as reference tools and inspiration while keeping their work within copyright guidelines. Similarly, enforcement of the usage of watermarks or digital signatures on generated art would further prevent the use of AI art in final products. These guidelines work to solve the issue of labor theft in AI art, where the act of using unauthorized materials to create a new product invalidates the use of the said product in official/professional settings. By eliminating the use of AI-generated material in finalized products or services, the unjust distribution of generated material can be reduced or eliminated.

Another proposed solution outlines the need for the explicit consent of artists before using their work for training. One of the major issues facing AI-generated art is the lack of creator consent for their works to be used in AI-model training. In order to eliminate this issue, proposals have been put forth by organizations like Arte es Ética to introduce algorithms that procure and enforce creator consent for AI art. The employment of user-identification algorithms to legitimize users consenting to their works would heavily bolster artists' ability to protect their property. In other words, to secure the legitimacy of artist-consented training data, filtering algorithms would be implemented to confirm the ownership of submitted content.

Many solutions have been pushed forward on both the legislative and company level. Great emphasis is placed on the separation of AI research and company interest, as well as legal protection for artists' intellectual property. Methods range from direct government oversight to company AI art usage policies in order to restrict the use of AI art in production settings.

Prompt Generation Impact on Artists

A common practice arising with the onset of AI-art tools like Midjourney is the use of artists' names in prompt generation, the purpose of which is to generate art mimicking the artist's style. An example of such a prompt would include "in the style of" followed by an artist's name. In doing so, the issue of "style theft" has become a heavily debated topic among proponents and opposers of AI art generation. Criticism against artists whose art has been mimicked argues that their styles are simple or easy to copy, poorly affecting the reputation of artistic individuals. Some groups are concerned that the use of style-mimicry will de-legitimize the efforts of artists in producing their works, with many artists voicing their concerns on social media.

Controversy continues to grow around the true impacts of using artists' styles in prompt generation. Some sentiments argue that the ease of use in creating art mimicking certain artists' styles could profoundly influence the popularity and prominence of certain modern artists. The increased exposure and ease of access can potentially change artist exposure, whether that be positive or negative.

Overall, the use of artist's names in prompt generation has created controversial discussions on style, property theft, and exposure. Many artists have voiced opposition to such practices, while others disagree over the negative impact of AI art generation. Regardless of opposing or supporting views, the ways in which artistic style is viewed by the public eye are changing with the onset of AI art.