AI Isn't Copyrightable -- But Does It Matter?
A new ruling has recently come out identifying that the art Jason Allen and Midjourney's A.I. generated is not copyrightable. However, fights over A.I. copyright protection ignore a MUCH larger economic issue about AI generated content.
Anybody who has ever stared into the eyes of a figure in a remarkable painting, or gazed with wonder at a truly great work of art might be able to understand what makes great work of art great: originality, quality/value, and scarcity.
Andy Warhol toyed with the concept of scarcity and originality in art when he mass-produced silk-screen prints of Campbell's Soup Cans and popular iconic figures. He himself became an iconic figure who had reproductions of himself made in millions of circulated magazines. In many ways his rise and challenge to the world of art presaged the current AI copyright fight. His works challenged both originality and scarcity. His silkscreen method of producing artwork, even when it hung in a museum was controversial. Many questioned its overall value because it could be produced in almost unlimited quantity. Valid question.
The Foundation of Copyright
Copyright has always existed on the economic foundation that the cost of an original production will be higher than the cost of a reproduction. Example: the original cost to produce “The Thinker” by Rodin was relatively high. It took Rodin YEARS of training, multiple trials and errors, and practice on many other works before he finally produced this piece. Many people throughout the world saw something they liked in this piece. I had value for them. And because Rodin could control who made copies of his work, he was able to charge what he felt was a fair price for authorized copies of his work. Those copies now exist throughout the world and bring people joy and contemplation.
All of copyright law is basically premised on this foundational economic relationship between both:
领英推荐
This is why the copy-rights exist, it literally defines how the rights to make copies of works people find useful and valuable. Everything from novels, to movies, to plays, to assembly instructions depends on this relationship.
But what happens if the central economic premise of copyrights suddenly doesn’t apply anymore – what happens when the cost to produce a “valuable original” work is almost equivalent to the cost of making a reproduction? We’ve never really lived in a world like that before.
Maybe the central problem of AI not being discussed widely enough is this:
if the cost of producing “valuable and original” content is very close to the cost of reproducing original content then where does that leave the purpose of the copyright system? Also, where does that leave the creators of valuable original content?
Now that AI exists such that it can potentially create almost unlimited amounts of “valuable original content” at extremely low cost, how much is "valuable original content" now worth now that it is no longer scarce -- and what does this economic shift mean for a society full of creators of "valuable original content"?
#ai #copyright #art #economics