The concept of art holds immense power, as it has the ability to shape societies, challenge norms, and evoke a range of emotions. This power stems from the fact that art is created by humans, who possess unique cognitive functions, creativity, and personal experiences. While artificial intelligence (AI) can imitate certain cognitive functions, it is questionable if it can truly replicate human creativity and the human “spirit” that goes into artistic creations.
The creative choices made by human authors are deeply influenced by their imagination, emotions, personality traits, and life experiences. These are elements that AI systems cannot possess, limiting their ability to truly produce works of art. While AI-generated outputs may closely resemble works of art, they are merely imitations lacking the depth and intentionality of human creations.
There have been notable examples of AI-generated artworks, such as “The Next Rembrandt” and the “Portrait of Edmond de Belamy,” which have gained attention in the art world. However, it is important to note that these works were not created autonomously by AI systems. Behind these creations, there were human researchers and artists who utilized AI as a tool to explore its creative potential. In cases where AI is used as a tool by human authors, the authorship of the AI-assisted output belongs to the human creator.
Determining the extent of human involvement necessary to consider AI as a mere tool in the creation process is challenging. There is no definitive threshold, as it depends on the specific circumstances of each case. Additionally, the question of which human actor should be awarded authorship in AI creation arises. This could include the owner, developer, or user of the AI system. The complexity of these issues reflects the central role of human creativity in the production of works of art.
Copyright law, both in the European Union and its member states, takes an anthropocentric approach by emphasizing the importance of human creativity, originality, and personal touch. The Court of Justice of the European Union specifies that copyright protection applies to subject matter that reflects the author’s intellectual creation, personality, and free and creative choices. These qualities are inherent to natural persons and cannot be attributed to AI systems, which lack legal personhood.
In conclusion, AI may produce outputs that resemble works of art, but they ultimately lack the unique qualities and creativity brought by human authors. Authorship and copyright protection are rooted in the individuality and creative choices of human creators, making it necessary to maintain a human-centric approach in the realm of art and copyright.
By Candice Clark
Follow: musai.io, Ethical AI for creators: DIGITAL ETHICAL STUDIES WITH AI FOR CREATIVE INDUSTRIES: salesLatam@musai.io
The nature of A.I. art:
Human Creativity and Authorship.
The concept of art holds immense power, as it has the ability to shape societies, challenge norms, and evoke a range of emotions. This power stems from the fact that art is created by humans, who possess unique cognitive functions, creativity, and personal experiences. While artificial intelligence (AI) can imitate certain cognitive functions, it is questionable if it can truly replicate human creativity and the human “spirit” that goes into artistic creations.
The creative choices made by human authors are deeply influenced by their imagination, emotions, personality traits, and life experiences. These are elements that AI systems cannot possess, limiting their ability to truly produce works of art. While AI-generated outputs may closely resemble works of art, they are merely imitations lacking the depth and intentionality of human creations.
There have been notable examples of AI-generated artworks, such as “The Next Rembrandt” and the “Portrait of Edmond de Belamy,” which have gained attention in the art world. However, it is important to note that these works were not created autonomously by AI systems. Behind these creations, there were human researchers and artists who utilized AI as a tool to explore its creative potential. In cases where AI is used as a tool by human authors, the authorship of the AI-assisted output belongs to the human creator.
Determining the extent of human involvement necessary to consider AI as a mere tool in the creation process is challenging. There is no definitive threshold, as it depends on the specific circumstances of each case. Additionally, the question of which human actor should be awarded authorship in AI creation arises. This could include the owner, developer, or user of the AI system. The complexity of these issues reflects the central role of human creativity in the production of works of art.
Copyright law, both in the European Union and its member states, takes an anthropocentric approach by emphasizing the importance of human creativity, originality, and personal touch. The Court of Justice of the European Union specifies that copyright protection applies to subject matter that reflects the author’s intellectual creation, personality, and free and creative choices. These qualities are inherent to natural persons and cannot be attributed to AI systems, which lack legal personhood.
In conclusion, AI may produce outputs that resemble works of art, but they ultimately lack the unique qualities and creativity brought by human authors. Authorship and copyright protection are rooted in the individuality and creative choices of human creators, making it necessary to maintain a human-centric approach in the realm of art and copyright.
Follow: musai.io, Ethical AI for creators: DIGITAL ETHICAL STUDIES WITH AI FOR CREATIVE INDUSTRIES: salesLatam@musai.io
Recent Post
Marketing agencies response with ai tools in the war in advertising on social networks.
octubre 13, 2023Avoid three fatal mistakes in content creation with predictive AI.
octubre 12, 2023The nature of A.I. art:
septiembre 13, 2023Categories