Art has always been a powerful tool for shaping society, challenging norms, and evoking emotions. It carries the unique stamp of human creativity and expression, reflecting the author’s imagination and experiences. But what happens when artificial intelligence (AI) enters the realm of creativity?
AI has made significant advancements in imitating human cognitive functions such as pattern recognition and analysis. However, the question remains: can AI truly imitate human creativity and the essence of the human “spirit”? While AI systems can produce outputs that closely resemble works of art, they lack the capacity for emotions, imagination, and personal experiences that contribute to the unique elements of human-created art.
In recent years, we have witnessed AI systems producing remarkable “lookalikes” of famous works of art. From “The Next Rembrandt,” a painting generated by an AI that analyzed thousands of Rembrandt’s works, to the first AI-generated musical album “Hello World” by SKYGGE, these creations push the boundaries of what AI can achieve. However, it is essential to recognize that these AI systems still rely on human guidance and input.
In the case of the “Portrait of Edmond de Belamy,” the AI artwork sold at Christie’s, a group of researchers and artists called “Obvious” were behind the creation. Similarly, SKYGGE’s AI album was a collaborative effort between the human artist and the AI technology. In these instances, the human authorship over the AI-assisted output is clear.
Determining the extent of human involvement necessary to consider AI as a mere tool in the creative process is challenging. There is no definitive answer, as it is a case-dependent situation. Furthermore, there is a question of which human actor should be awarded authorship in the creation process. Is it the AI developer, the designer, or the trainer? All these individuals contribute to the AI system’s development and outcomes.
Copyright protection has always been centered around human creators who make creative choices and imbue their works with their personal touch. The European Union’s copyright legislation and case law emphasize the importance of originality, personal creativity, and expression in determining copyright protection for works of art. These qualities are inherently human and cannot be replicated by machines.
Ultimately, while AI systems can produce remarkable outputs that resemble works of art, they fall short of being true works of art themselves. The human element, with its unique abilities for creativity, emotions, and personal experiences, remains at the heart of intellectual property. As technology continues to advance, it is crucial to reevaluate and redefine the role of AI within the framework of intellectual property.
Q: Can AI imitate human creativity?
A: AI can imitate cognitive functions of the human brain, but it is questionable whether it can truly imitate human creativity and the human “spirit.”
Q: Are AI-generated artworks considered true works of art?
A: While AI systems can produce outputs that closely resemble works of art, they lack the emotional depth, imagination, and personal experiences that contribute to human-created art.
Q: Who should be credited as the author when AI is involved in the creative process?
A: The human authorship over AI-assisted output belongs to the individual who explores and uses AI as a tool in the creative process.
Q: What factors determine copyright protection for works of art?
A: Copyright protection is determined by factors such as originality, personal creativity, and expression, all of which stem from human creators.
Q: How should the role of AI be reevaluated in intellectual property?
A: As technology advances, it is essential to reevaluate and redefine the role of AI within the framework of intellectual property, considering the unique contributions and limitations of AI systems.