# Case study: generative AI and copyright ### AI and art

"1960's art of cow getting abducted by UFO in midwest", generated with DALL E, August 2022
Encik Tekateki, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

{% embed url="" %}

Chen, Min. 2023. “Artists and Illustrators Are Suing Three A.I. Art Generators for Scraping and ‘Collaging’ Their Work Without Consent.” Artnet News (blog). January 24, 2023.
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/class-action-lawsuit-ai-generators-deviantart-midjourney-stable-diffusion-2246770.

### AI and copyright

Rosenberg, Louis. 2022. “I Used Generative AI to Create Pictures of Painting Robots, but I’m Not the Artist — Humanity Is.” Big Think (blog). September 9, 2022. https://bigthink.com/high-culture/generative-ai-pictures-humanity-artist/.

#### Who is the artist and author in generated artwork? > every person who contributed to the billions of creative artifacts that generative AI systems are trained upon. — Louis Rosenberg \+ everyone who shared, commented on or upvoted it #### Who should be compensated for such artwork? > *It’s reasonable to consider a “humanity tax” on generative systems trained on massive datasets of human artifacts. It could be a modest fee on transactions, maybe paid into a central “humanity fund” or distributed to decentralized accounts using blockchain. I know this sounds like a strange idea but think of it this way: **If a spaceship full of entrepreneurial aliens showed up on Earth and asked humanity to contribute our collective works to a database** so they could generate derivative artifacts for profit, **we would likely ask for compensation**.*\ > — Louis Rosenberg {% embed url="" %}

Coles, Cameron. 2023. “11% of Data Employees Paste into ChatGPT Is Confidential.” Cyberhaven (blog). February 28, 2023. https://www.cyberhaven.com/blog/4-2-of-workers-have-pasted-company-data-into-chatgpt/.

### AI and plagiarism {% embed url="" %}

Shane, Janelle. 2020. “Facts about Whales.” AI Weirdness (blog). July 13, 2020.
https://www.aiweirdness.com/facts-about-whales-20-07-13/.

> *...then I started googling individual sentences. It turns out most of them are near word-for-word reproductions of Wikipedia sentences. **If the AI were a student, it would be flunked for plagiarism.*** \ > — Janelle Shane ## The referential reality of synthetic content * is constructed and determined by a (human) judge comparing their expectations to the outcome (**output**) * if the result meets expectations — ‘whale facts’ are correct, or the opinion piece is satisfactory in style and content — the judging editor may state that the text is ‘about external reality’, and publish it * If the result is incorrect, insufficient or inconsistent with the respective possible world (fictional or non-fictional) — e.g., the requested whale facts contain statements such as ‘dolphins also live in the desert’ (Shane 2020) or other statements that are false or nonsensical in relation to the external reality, the judgement may evaluate that the text is ‘about nothing’. — Viidalepp, Auli. 2022. “The Semiotic Functioning of Synthetic Media.” *Információs Társadalom* 22 (4): 109–18. .
--- # Agent Instructions: Querying This Documentation If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question. Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter: ``` GET https://nextbook.technosemiotics.eu/contemporary-ai-case-studies/case-study-generative-ai-and-copyright.md?ask= ``` The question should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language. The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation. Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.