December 7, 2025 • 59 mins
Photographer credit for Anja Neubauer: self-portrait created with an AI tool.
Show Notes:
2:30 Prof. Tim McFarlin’s focus on copyright and authorship
3:30 Dr. Caterina Moruzzi’s philosophical/design perspective / focus on authenticity
5:00 Dr. Anja Neubauer's focus on global AI/copyright framework
5:50 Artist Lisa Lebofsky’s perspective on AI as a nomadic painter
8:45 “Authenticity Unmasked”–looking at the artistic process not the product
9:55 “Authenticity Unmasked” insight-centrality of human perspective
12:00 Neubauer–redefinition of terms like originality in light of emerging tech
13:30 Getty v. Stability finding outputs are not copies so not infringements
14:55 McFarland–genAI’s scale and redefining understanding of terms
17:05 US state and federal laws
19:00 need for unified global protection
19:50 Alan Robershaw – UK Getty decision’s technical focus on the process
21:40 Defining originality
22:10 Getty opinion at 601 v. AI models are memorizing/making copies
24:00 Robertshaw - one step away from judicial definition of consciousness
24:40 McFarland – scale is the concern
25:35 Lebofsky – how prior claims of infringement fit into AI/appropriation of artists’ works
26:20 McFarland – ‘substantially similar’ takings are prima facie infringement subject to fair use defense
27:10 consideration of outputs flooding the market harm
29:25 Lebofsky – use of AI through tools like AI Charm Lab app
31:00 Lebofsky’s view of threats to her style and her language
32:45 human requirement for ‘authorship’ and consumer trends
35:55 Moruzzi – human effort to value the process
37:15 Process visible in generative AI circa 2015 v. current genAI’s less visibility and thus less authenticity
38:30 Anthroprocentric – human need for authorship
40:20 Robershaw - Monkey-selfie case; animal versus machine personhood
43:15 McFarland – Arkansas statute on AI
44:40 Gould – UK Section 9(3) - limited copyright for output in person who organized the output
45:00 Neubauer – issue of term “equipment” for tools
46:50 Gould – current copyright legislation is not fit for purpose
48:35 Distinction between camera use and AI model training
49:05 Copyright Criminals documentary regarding music sampling
50:00 Sampling case involving Kraftwerk
51:35 Moruzzi – response to consultations
53:00 McFarland – extent of law v. parallel tracks to copyright or other alternatives to preserve and protect human creativity
54:00 Stefania Salles Bruins–solutions outside the law
54:40 Copyright not fit for purpose
55:20 Neubauer - Shift in definition of artwork
55:45 Lebofsky – how to establish boundaries
57:25 Robertshaw re: Lebofsky’s paintings
58:00 Salles Bruins – Lebofsky’s coding that cannot be replicated
Please share your comments and/or questions at stephanie@warfareofartandlaw.com
Music by Toulme.
To hear more episodes, please visit Warfare of Art and Law podcast's website.
To leave questions or comments about this or other episodes of the podcast and/or for information about joining the 2ND Saturday discussion on art, culture and justice, please message me at stephanie@warfareofartandlaw.com.
Thanks so much for listening!
© Stephanie Drawdy [2025]
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_00 (00:01):
The law is powerful and also implementations.
SPEAKER_07 (00:07):
Welcome to Warfare of Art and Law, the podcast that
focuses on how justice does ordoesn't play out when art and
law overlap.
Hi everyone, it's Stephanie, andthat was Professor Tim Harlan
from a recent AI and IT panel inwhich we discuss the extent of
the law's ability to addressissues raised by merchant cats
(00:29):
in the arts.
This panel also featured artistsLisa Lebowski, Dr.
Katarina Morutsky, and Dr.
Anya Noiver.
What follows is the discussionof this panel in which they
bring their diverse perspectiveto the query around whether
originality, authenticity,authenticity, need to need to be
(00:54):
redefined, given what you have.
(01:18):
Welcome to Warfare Heart andSecond Saturday.
Thank you all so much for beinghere.
It's such a delight to introducethis diverse panel of
professionals to our approachingAI usage in the arts from
academic, artistic, legal, andphilosophical perspective.
(01:39):
We have Professor Tim McFarlandwith Stamford University's
Cumberland School of Law.
Tim, thank you so much for beinghere.
Dr.
Katerina Maruzzi, Chancellor'sFellow at Edinburgh College of
Art, Institute for DesignInformatics.
Thank you so much, Katerina, forbeing here.
SPEAKER_05 (01:58):
Yes, hi everyone.
SPEAKER_07 (02:00):
Dr.
Anya Neubauer, attorney andconsultant at the intersection
of emerging tech and copyright.
Anya, thank you so much forbeing back on the podcast.
SPEAKER_03 (02:11):
Thank you so much for having me.
SPEAKER_07 (02:13):
And we will also be joined by Lisa Lubowski, a
nomadic planaire painter.
So to begin, Tim, if you couldstart us and everyone can give
an introductory comment abouttheir approach to AI, what
brought them to it, and theirperspective.
SPEAKER_00 (02:30):
Sure.
Thanks, Stephanie.
So I'm an intellectual propertyand most specifically a
copyright law-focused lawprofessor and legal practitioner
before becoming a full-timeteacher.
And I write uh in the area ofauthorship uh primarily in my
(02:50):
scholarship so far, and uh thethe issue of authorship and uh
the you know credit andcopyright ownership or lack
thereof uh in uh AI-generatedand AI-assisted works is of
particular interest to me, andI've written a paper recently
about that, and also thinkingabout uh the ownership of AI
(03:14):
generated creations uh withregard to functional creativity
and patents.
And so that's where I'm uhcoming to the subject currently
and uh would love to chat aboutthat and and other things that
you all would like to uhdiscuss.
SPEAKER_07 (03:29):
Thanks so much, Tim.
Katerina, would you like to gonext?
SPEAKER_02 (03:33):
Yes, of course.
Yeah, so hi everyone.
Uh I'm Caterina and I mostlywork now on creativity and
artificial intelligence from aphilosophical and and design
perspective.
But the way in which I got intoworking and researching in the
field of AI and creativity uhwas not uh straightforward, but
(03:54):
it was actually it was reallythe topic of authenticity that
got me interested on AI andcreativity.
So my background is inphilosophy and classical uh
piano.
So I was trained as a classicalpianist, and I was really
interested in the technology ofthe instrument and how the
affordances that historicalinstruments like early keyboards
(04:18):
have and how they shape howcomposers and composers compose
their music and how performersperform what the composers have
written.
So I started thinking aboutauthenticity, the concept of
authenticity, and how technologychanges the way in which
perceive we perceive what isauthentic and what is not
authentic.
(04:39):
And then uh generative AI cameand changed all the rules, and
then I I gradually startedworking more on how these new
technologies are changingperceptions of creativity, but
yes, with authenticity as one ofthe key topics that I'm
interested in.
SPEAKER_07 (04:57):
Thank you.
SPEAKER_03 (04:59):
Anyway, um yes, um thank you again for having me.
Um I'm a lawyer for 25 years inGermany, and I'm specialized
mostly on copyright law, and Ijust finished my PhD on AI and
authorship redefined towards aglobal copyright framework for
(05:20):
commerce and human originality,and I did a um comparison
between uh UK US and German law,and uh try to make um a
cross-sectional evaluation withthe stakeholder views about um
AI and copyright.
So this is my part.
(05:41):
Actually, we are all verysimilar, I see.
SPEAKER_07 (05:45):
Thank you, Anya.
And Lisa.
SPEAKER_06 (05:49):
Hi, um I'm an artist in a very remote area, so
technology wants me.
You know, I uh it's interestingbeing invited onto this because
I don't I actually don't workwith AI, but it falls my way a
lot because I do work with a lotof artists and uh and I've
actually been interviewed interms of an app that is being
(06:11):
developed to uh be a tool forartists to use for AI.
So um uh and how it can behelpful and not not something to
be so feared.
Um, but yes, so I am a nomadicpainter and uh uh happy to be
here on this panel.
SPEAKER_07 (06:27):
Well, I definitely want to circle back and hear
more about the app.
And we had kind of emailed backand forth about how AI wasn't
necessarily in your practice,but if you have any initial
thoughts that you want to shareabout the benefits or risks that
have immediately come to you inthe last few years of the
generative AI boom, even forsure, for sure.
SPEAKER_06 (06:49):
I mean, the concern I think a lot of artists have is
that it's going to somehowreplace them.
And the thing is this I just I Ireally truly believe in the
human uh desire to see humanlike other people excel.
Like we love seeing sports, welove seeing people accomplish
things that like there's justnothing that that that will ever
(07:10):
replace that.
And AI still is of people, soit's it's how we utilize it.
I think it can be very helpful.
Uh, I see this as probablysimilar conversations that were
happening when photography camearound in the 1800s and they
said, that's it, no morepainting.
People are gonna take photos.
But you know, even today, Imean, yeah, I have access to a
(07:31):
camera.
Well, first of all, painting'sstill around, clearly.
People are still doing it.
I don't think you can ever takeaway from the want of people to,
you know, put mud on cave, youknow, the inside of cave walls
and express themselves.
Uh, that's you know, that's theheart of painting.
It's the heart of humanity.
But uh, you know, with even withphotography and all the advances
in it, I people are stillpainting.
(07:52):
I can take pictures if I wantedto, but I'm a terrible
photographer.
So just because the tool existsdoesn't mean you you can utilize
it.
You sometimes still need thepeople behind it to be able to
make it progress in the way andbe useful in the way that you
need it to be.
So there's I just don't see thatyou can segregate the people
from the from the tool.
SPEAKER_07 (08:10):
Yeah, yeah.
And uh that prompts me somethingI'd heard about the project that
Katarina is doing, AuthenticityUnmasked, where they talk a lot
about the process, which is kindof what I'm hearing from you a
bit too, like the importance ofthat human being in part of the
process.
So thank you, Lisa.
And perhaps maybe we segue intoa little bit more about
(08:33):
Katarina, the project thatyou've recently been working on,
this authenticity unmasked andthe the focus on the the
authenticity as a term and andwhat it means.
SPEAKER_02 (08:44):
Yes, of course, yes, thanks.
And yeah, I think it's a reallynice segue because uh, like when
Lisa was talking, she wastalking a lot about the process
and in my research oncreativity, I I look at the
process rather than the product,and I think even more so now
with AI, it's important to payattention at what the process is
because just how good thetechnology is at the moment,
(09:08):
just looking at the productdoesn't tell us much about uh
who has created it and withwhich technology.
So, yes, with this project, soAuthenticity and Mast is uh uh
was an art commission that uhculminated into an art
exhibition this summer as partof the Edinburgh Arts Festival.
And uh we commissioned threeartists uh to create uh original
(09:31):
work that engaged with thequestion how is AI changing our
perception of authenticity, butalso the way in which you as an
artist approach the process ofcreativity with authenticity in
mind.
So, what does authenticity meanto you?
And really what came out of thisprocess of collaborating with
(09:54):
the artists and looking at theirfinal artworks, really what
emerged is the centrality of thehuman perspective.
It it was a project about uh AIand reflecting on technology,
but that's really what uh thekey uh insight that also people,
visitors who came at the exhibitwere gaining from interacting
(10:17):
with these works.
So the works um uh are verydiverse.
It's uh one is an installation,other two are like video art
pieces, uh and they addressedthe concept of authenticity from
very different perspectives.
One from a more geographical andgeopolitical side, so how is
(10:38):
technology changing also theperception of borders and how
borders, geographical borders,are uh considered and presented.
Uh the other one from the sideof hallucinations, so this
nonsensical output that uh theAI technologies many times uh
(10:58):
giving us in return to ourinput.
And the last one was all aboutembodiment and the relevance of
embodiment for um the authenticprocess of creation and what
happens if we take embodimentaway from the process.
Uh so I I started the projectwith the idea that authenticity
(11:18):
is not one but many, uh, andreally this project and this
process of uh going through thisconcept and reflecting with the
artist confirmed my assumptionthat it's very difficult, if not
impossible, to define whatauthenticity is because it's
such a diverse and complexconcept and also very
(11:41):
context-dependent.
SPEAKER_07 (11:44):
Thank you, Katerina.
Shifting over perhaps to you,Anya, just to talk about like
also how in your work you wereand perhaps still are
questioning how certain termsneed to be redefined in light of
the emerging tech that we'reseeing.
Do you want to speak to that?
SPEAKER_03 (12:03):
Yeah, um, so that's a very interesting point.
Uh it's it's almost uhimpossible, as Katarina just
said, um, to define whatoriginality really is.
But um I I try to to look at itfrom another kind of perspective
in my work.
So um there was one veryinteresting uh work um that uh
(12:31):
compared or that explored how AIreally works, so that it not
only um consumes the syntax ofdata but also the semantics, and
from the semantic definition inuh the technical way, you could
also try to define originality,which I couldn't do in my work,
(12:55):
otherwise it would have beenover a thousand pages.
So I left it with that.
But this is this is my point inmy work.
We needed to change thedefinition of work in order to
uh cope not only with thesyntactic but also with the
semantic part of an artwork, andthen we could have a possibility
(13:19):
to cope with that.
So uh my question goes to Tim aswell.
Did you read already um uh GettyImages versus stability?
It came out last week, theruling.
So the judge in this in thiscourt decision said, well, it's
not a copy, and so thereforeit's not an infringement.
Although you see in the in thein the outcome of stability, the
(13:45):
almost exact photograph, butonly almost, and it also had the
watermark in it, and she saidit's not a direct copy.
I think partly she's wrong, andon the other hand side, partly
um if we would change thedefinition of the law in some
way, if we had a framework, aninternational framework that
(14:06):
could agree to this certainpoint, that we have to to to get
together a definition for umsyntax and semantics in the
definition of work, then wecould cope with such problems.
I think.
So I'm very eager to to discussthis with you because it's it's
(14:29):
very complex, and I'm alwaysinterested.
What do you think about it?
SPEAKER_07 (14:33):
And we're referring to the voluminous opinion that
came out of the UK court on thethe get because there's also a
Getty suit pending in the US,but this is a decision in the UK
that you are referring to, Anya.
So if anyone has any thoughts orcomments on the Getty decision
or anything that Anya was justsharing, please feel free to
jump in.
SPEAKER_00 (14:52):
I would just say generally, because yeah, I have
not digested that full uhdecision, but I think that this
is yeah, this is the crux thatwe're getting to uh on the
infringement side, and then onthe uh authorship ownership side
is you know what on theinfringement side, what is a uh
(15:13):
what would what constitute aninfringing copy?
And are we needing to changethat definition, that sense, uh
given the scale of this new uhand quickly advancing AI
technology?
And then on the front end, youknow, with authenticity to
connect it to Katarina, are weneeding to adjust our
(15:37):
understanding of what it meansto be humanly authentic and
original, to capture copyrightuh in, you know, and and
patents, other intellectualproperty rights in what we are
generating using thistechnology?
And I do think that that uh it'sa it's a fascinating and
(15:59):
oftentimes frustrating time whenyou have these new technologies
like the like photography, likethe printing press, like AI,
like like books going furtherback uh to to to visit this.
So we're in exciting times,which is a blessing and a curse,
perhaps.
SPEAKER_07 (16:19):
And I would just point out that point you made,
Tim, about the scale of it, thatshould we be looking at these
terms again due to the scale andLisa's point about how artists
and their process and what theybring to the table will ever be
replaced.
But this concerning part aboutthe vast scale at which emerging
tech can work versus a humanartist is really kind of a crux
(16:43):
of the concern.
One of the points I would askbetween Tim, your work with this
idea of state copyright versusAnya, you are looking at an
international framework and howto have harmonization across
borders.
Curious to hear the perspectiveof the two of you on that.
SPEAKER_00 (17:06):
Yeah, I mean, I think there's I would just say
initially, what really interestsme the more I think about it is
if there is a possibility for inthe United States state law
protection or state lawcoverage, if you don't like the
word protection, of AI-generatedcreations uh when federal law
presently is denying them, atleast at some level, uh it
(17:29):
becomes it really highlights thenature of the United States, the
the federal system, that thatit's it's a collection, it's
both one nation and a collectionof of you know 50 nation states
plus territories, and you havethen this potential for
copyright and patent-like rightsto develop uh across 50 many
(17:55):
countries within the UnitedStates, in the way that
trademark law and right ofpublicity law uh did uh you know
had had further time to do thatin the United States history,
whereas with federal andcopyright, uh federal copyright
federal patent, because the theUS Constitution was was ratified
(18:16):
so early in the US, and then thethe first Congress passed both
uh comprehensive federal, fairlycomprehensive federal copyright
and patent law, you didn't havethe chance for that to happen.
And what I'm seeing is thepotential for this to occur, you
know, what we're thinking aboutworldwide, we can also think
about nationwide within theUnited States.
SPEAKER_03 (18:35):
That's what I found out in my research as well.
So there are differentprotections in different states,
which is awkward.
If you imagine in uh California,for example, you might be better
protected if NIAI steals yourvoice than it is in Oklahoma.
I don't know uh that precise.
(18:56):
I'm sorry.
So so this is why I'm so keen inuh trying to make a framework
that is working worldwide.
Because we also need somethingto protect Indian perspectives,
South African perspectives,Brazilian perspectives, Chinese,
Japanese perspectives of uhcopyright infringement.
(19:19):
Because we have artists all overthe world.
I think creation is the languagethat is spoken worldwide, and
all these artists are really um,yeah, I think the poorer they
are, the more they are at therisk of getting bankrupt because
(19:40):
the AI is now able to cover alltheir works.
And this is really a shame, justmy opinion.
SPEAKER_01 (19:49):
I thought it was interesting in the Getty case
that the judge, and I don't knowif there's a sort of English way
of looking at things, but Ithought the judge did it.
It was a really technicalapproach where she seemed to
focus really on the processrather than the outcome.
And it was like, well, and itseemed like a very tick-box-y
technical thing, like, well,technically speaking, you didn't
(20:11):
do this at this stage, and youdidn't do that, and you didn't,
but when you all add it uptogether, and she is wrong at
some points with the techniques,she's wrong, actually.
I'm sorry, I just said to No,it'd be interesting to see
because obviously I think thiswill go to appeal just because
of the scale of the parties andand and the precedent.
I think you know, one side willwant the precedent overturning,
(20:31):
the other one will want theprecedent firming up.
So I think we've not seen the,but it reminds me of this idea,
and it's I thought it was reallyinteresting what you were saying
about work, because I'm a bigfan of transformative art and
appropriation art if you put theeffort in.
So, you know, it's the old thingabout that the girl who she did
pencil drawings of photographs,but hyper accurate ones where
(20:54):
they you couldn't tell it wasthe photograph or the pencil
drawing.
So technically that's anabsolute copy, but it was still
to me a work of art becausesomebody had done it in that
particular way.
And it seems to be that thejudge is now saying, if I ask
all you people to pop off to aplay and say, I want you to go
off to a play, take somenotebooks, if you can want to
(21:17):
sketch the set design, ifthere's any memorable phrases or
anything, and tell me, and youall get back and say, right,
tell me what your experiencewas.
What was your did you think ofthe story?
What was your favorite line?
And then I reproduce that and Imanage to reproduce the original
play, then it seems that thisjudge would say, Yeah, that's
fine, because of how you did it.
SPEAKER_03 (21:38):
You're completely right.
So we have to make a definitionwhat originality really is.
So it's it's not only making acopy, it's just the way how you
do it.
And this is concerning thesemantic part of a work
definition, if you would say so.
And I have to completely have toagree completely what you just
(21:59):
said.
Uh, she she like uh ticked boxesin her um uh decision.
I just popped it up again, it'sin number 601, if you want to
follow later on.
And she said such aninterpretation uh precludes the
potential for an article whowhich has never contained a copy
(22:21):
of uh to be capable of being aninfringing copy.
And this is completely wrong.
And she and she goes ahead andon.
Um it's it's completely wrong.
It's it's making copies.
AI is making copies.
It's it's really um there therewere a lot of scientists who
agreed already, and there aretheses and lectures about it.
(22:45):
Uh, the AI memorizes parts ofthat, what she learned.
And it depends, it's betweenfive to fifteen percent that it
not memorizes this, but sheremembers it and that at a
hundred percent.
So it would also be possible uhto program um an AI to reproduce
(23:11):
a hundred percent if it's uhmemorizable in that amount of
pictures, for example.
So saying that um it's not acopy because uh it's it it's uh
it was uh like um listening tosomething and then it went out
again, it's memorized.
And there was a proof in it inthis in this court decision,
(23:35):
there was the proof becauselater on she says, okay, it
might be uh then um a trademarkinfringement because you see the
logo, and in the end it's not atrademark infringement because
it was not used in a multipleway.
So this was her opinion at theend.
So, which is it?
(23:55):
Is it recognizable of somethingor is it not?
And I think it was.
SPEAKER_01 (24:01):
We were sort of like one step away from getting a
judicial definition ofconsciousness, it seemed to me,
because that's it was you know,what what's memory, what's
processing?
Do machines do it differently?
Is it any different that if Iwent, you know, if I went and
saw work of art and memorized itand then got home and sketched
it, would that be aninfringement?
You know, but of course, becauseme machines are doing it, we're
(24:24):
starting to get into is themachine thinking or is it just a
recording device?
And it you know, it throws upall sorts of issues like that.
So it'll be interesting to see,you know, how this and it it's
like Tim was saying, it's reallyinteresting to see how different
jurisdictions deal with this,you know, just different
underlying philosophies.
SPEAKER_00 (24:41):
And I think scale is what is really causing us to be
concerned and think more deeplyon it because yeah, as
traditionally, if if I looked atthe at the painting in the art
gallery and then I was inspiredby it to create something that
was reminiscent of it, but notsubstantially similar, I
(25:05):
wouldn't be infringing by justseeing the the art.
Uh, you know, I'm not infringingin my mind, but if the machine
does it, and the machine does itat at such a large scale, now we
have to rethink that and say, isthere a different rule for
robots?
Or do we need to rethink alsohow we did the, you know, how we
(25:29):
effectively did the rules forfor human inspiration before?
SPEAKER_06 (25:32):
So I'm curious, because I'm not familiar with
the suits that are happening,but there is a huge history of
suits uh for artists that have,uh, for example, their images
have been taken by bigcorporations and just printed on
blankets and uh you know,completely out of control
because they just grab theirimage off the internet.
And then of course you go backand there's Warhol using stock
(25:54):
photography and recreating art,and there's Shepherd Ferry,
using the photo from um uh thethe Associated Press for the
Obama Hope poster.
Um, so is any of this being tiedin with any of this this uh new
law that's that's beingdiscussed around around AI and
its appropriation of artists'works?
SPEAKER_00 (26:14):
I think the short answer is yes, in the sense that
if there is a if there is asubstantially similar, and this
is that's the the key fuzzy termuh in US law at least, then it
then it goes, then you say,well, yes, that is a prima facie
infringement subject to fair usedefenses, like what were raised
(26:36):
in the the Warhol Goldsmithcase.
But the what AI is causing us todo now, I think, is to is to
say, well, if if the if copieswere fed in at the input and
training stage, even if whatcomes out on the back end is
different enough to not besubstantially similar, do we
still do we still think thatthat was that that was illegal
(26:59):
infringing because we used thethe human work to train it, and
now what is coming out is atsuch a scale that it potentially
competes uh to the disadvantageof you know it floods the
market, it dilutes the market,as you hear this language for
human authors, uh, even thoughthese, you know, so even though
(27:21):
they're these works are in thesame genre perhaps, um, but
they're they're not infringingin the ways that we
traditionally thought of.
But maybe we need to rethink howwe've worked infringement
because of the potential fordriving humans out of business.
SPEAKER_07 (27:36):
And even in the states, we've seen decisions
where that kind those kinds offactors are being looked at very
differently.
Like one judge in NorthernDistrict of California views
market dilution as veryimportant and another less so.
So these are definitely eventhese kinds of elements of the
(27:58):
fair use conversation are arekind of evolving in real time.
I would just bring it back toyou, Lisa, and ask if you wanted
to share more about that appthat you uh referenced earlier.
I'm curious about the AI aspectof it and what the implications
for that are for outputs.
(28:18):
Would you want to share?
SPEAKER_06 (28:20):
Yeah, sure.
Um, and it it is interestingbecause it, I mean, in the
surface, dipping up my toes inthe conversations around AI, it
does seem like there's there'stwo concerns of uh, I mean,
obviously for artists, it's itis you know copyright
infringement, you know,ownership of what we do.
But I I've personally, I thinkevery artist is constantly a
(28:42):
threat with that, with theamount of people that do copy
and do recreate and you know,just seeing my stuff out there
without my permission.
I mean, it's happened to artistsconstantly.
Um, but again, you know, I doagain, I believe in that, you
know, the Walter Benjamin, uh,you know, the unique aura of the
work of art, you know, the thein the age of mechanical
reproduction, like people stillwant to have the physical
(29:02):
object.
And that's as someone's pointwith um, you know, somebody did
a perfect drawing rendering of aphoto.
And what's and it's not the samebecause it has the human hand in
it.
Like that's it's just acompletely different object at
the point because there is thisphysical attachment.
I just don't think we're evergonna lose that desire.
Hopefully, that's a world Ican't even imagine.
Um, but in terms of the app, soI think the other side of AI is
(29:25):
how it can be very usefulinstead of a threat.
Um, and I always like to try togo to the more hopeful because
there is so much in the worldthat is terrifying and hopeless.
So um and uh so what these thisartist is doing is um uh they
are they're they're it's stillin production.
They uh it's a it's a softwareengineer and an artist couple
(29:47):
who are who are coming up withthis product called uh AI Charm
Lab.
And uh I think they've gonefrom, you know, they're still in
research and developments, fromwhat I understand, but for sure
moving into the development ofaway from research.
But they they, you know,canvassed many artists to see,
well, in your vision of what AIis, how can it be?
Something that's more of a muse,something that's more
(30:08):
collaborative, something thatcan help you have more time in
the studio to create.
So, you know, it could beanywhere from helping to come up
with a composition to catalogingof imagery, something that's
just, you know, again, a toolthat another tool that an artist
may be able to use.
SPEAKER_07 (30:24):
It sounds like perhaps it would be labeled
under that assistive AIcomparison, or would there be
generative aspects of it?
SPEAKER_06 (30:33):
Um they, I'm actually reading, I just pulled
up their thing.
It says uh they're exploring howAI can act less like a generator
and more like a creativecollaborator, helping artists
test ideas, find new visuallanguage, extend their
expressive range.
So uh, and I mean it could evencome down to like the thematics
of you know, mixing out yourpalette.
Like there's so much in therethat uh, you know, can really be
(30:54):
delineated that way.
Yeah.
SPEAKER_07 (30:57):
And what are your thoughts on uh purely the idea
of copyright on its own?
Because there are some artiststhat don't really value
copyright and some value it verymuch.
I was just curious where youcome in on that.
SPEAKER_06 (31:12):
It's there's just so because that you know, I've had
people completely mimic my styleand you know what what I do and
even some of my language outthere.
And I've even had galleries pickup artists like that who are
priced at a lower point, so Iessentially got pushed out.
Um, and you know, at the end ofthe day, I mean, no one's gonna
(31:34):
make a Lisa Lebowski paintings.
And, you know, I I have notdealt with the horrors of my
work showing up, you know, youknow, completely factory mass
produced on a blanket.
I've had first, I'm just usingthat as an example, but I've had
many artist friends that arelike printed as posters and
available at Target orsomething.
I've had many friends havethings like this happen.
(31:55):
Um, and you know, I could benervous about putting my stuff
out on the internet.
I mean, that was a huge fear forartists at one point.
Don't put your stuff on theinternet or have a watermark or
do something, but that's so umobtrusive to the creative
process that I just, you know,I'm like, I'm just gonna put my
head down and keep creating.
Because if I'm sitting here and,you know, shoring up every
(32:16):
possible uh threat to mycreative practice, I'd never get
anything done.
So the end result, you know,just keep making, just keep
producing.
It's what we do.
And as as uh tools and andthings that are developed around
us with threats arise, like justkeep being who you are and be
excellent at what you do.
SPEAKER_07 (32:35):
Yeah, yeah.
Knowing that you're based in theUS, I was just curious too about
your perspective on the humanauthorship aspect as a
requirement in the US and otherjurisdictions.
Some I've heard in the creativesector say that's very important
to keep that and not allowgenerative AI works to be
copyrighted in order to protectthat human authorship.
(32:58):
And I was just curious if youhad thoughts on that also.
SPEAKER_06 (33:01):
Yeah, I I know this is especially a topic of
conversation in um Hollywood,uh, with actors being replaced
by complete rips of them.
And I do think that that'sreally disturbing.
Um, I mean, I guess it reallyspeaks to who would want to
consume that kind of material.
Um, but it's the same thing, youknow, like a lot of the art, you
(33:22):
know, there's a lot ofappropriation art, which just
isn't good.
So uh but this still gets youknow noticed because it's it's
it's trendy or what have you.
Or something with the whole NFTthing.
It's you know, people are like,oh, this is a trend of
something, and it had meaningfor a minute there.
But um, you know, there's thelongevity of humanity, um, which
I think usually is is the grandequalizer of of all of this.
(33:44):
Uh in terms of it, you know,it's it's up to who's consuming
it.
I mean, obviously, as acreative, as somebody who
creates, I want to see the humanhand in things.
I appreciate the human hand.
I collect art, you know, I don'tcollect digital art, you know,
but there's some people that isthat is their interest and they
want to have more of that.
They're like being on thecutting edge of what's, you
(34:06):
know, what we're breakingthrough on.
So um, you know, I don't, Ijust, I just again, I just don't
think that people can be, I justdon't think we want to see us
get completely replaced.
And I think it's a matter of uhof just seeing how how we can
move forward, understanding thatthis exists, but how can both
(34:27):
exist at the same time?
And uh, you know, I I alwaysjoke, having once been married
to a lawyer, it's you know,people people don't like lawyers
until they need one.
And this is where I really dovalue, you know.
So this is, you know, I and I'mlike, let it play out in the
courts and let's see whathappens and let people, you
know, like you know, have havepeople make their cases and so
(34:50):
forth.
So it's um it's I, you know, I'mI'm curious.
Uh again, I personally don'twant to see the hand go away.
I don't want to see a AI person,you know, a non-person who's
filling in for an actual actor.
It's not impressive to me.
It's impressive to see a persondo something.
Uh, but also understanding thatit's a person behind this
(35:13):
technology that's it's just it'sgetting its information from
people.
So it's it's also, I don't know.
I it's like I'm just reallycurious to see how this is all
going to progress.
SPEAKER_07 (35:23):
Yeah.
And it what you're saying toomakes me think of one of the
artists, uh, Katerina, in yourproject uh that you were
referencing before, AuthenticityUnmasked, is Georgia Gardner.
I had heard an interview whereshe talked about how it's that
human error and the performanceanxiety, uh, those kinds of
(35:43):
elements that change and impacta performance, a musical
performance, uh was is what shewas referring to.
So do you want to share a bitabout your thoughts on that,
Katarina?
SPEAKER_02 (35:54):
Yes, of course.
I think it also um links it backto one concept that came up
before in the conversation,which is the concept of effort,
of making an effort through theprocess, and and it it is
through this effort that we alsovalue the process, not just as
creators, but also as asaudiences.
So as Lisa was saying, we we wewe appreciate seeing the actor
(36:18):
and maybe knowing about uh thebackground that the actor has
and the history behind it, andit's not all just about the
final product.
Um so yeah, I think in whentalking about authenticity in
respect to artificialintelligence, there is an
assumption that the moreaccurate these um models can be,
(36:42):
the more authentic they willbecome.
Uh but I I think that actuallythe opposite is true, the the
more they are indistinguishablefrom um, or uh yeah, that we
cannot really understand what'sgoing on behind um the process
just because it's so complex andand and and so developed now,
(37:06):
the the less authentic it feels.
Um so when I started working onAI and creativity, it was 2015
and it was when generativeadversarial networks first
started to be developed.
And it's this still a generativeAI technology, but uh less
developed just because it was 10years ago, and through that
artist used to create likeglitchy art and exploring the
(37:31):
boundaries of the technologywhere it went wrong, and and
that was so fascinating becauseyou could actually see the
process and and get behind thecurtain uh and understand what
was going on.
So the more flawless the eyebecomes, the more accurate it
gains.
I think it doesn't necessarilylead to more authenticity that
(37:52):
can actually lead to yeah uhdiminishing the feeling of of
authenticity in that.
So yes, I think authenticity inthe end is very much tied to the
the process, the the effort,that the subjectivity that is
behind a um a process, andthat's very insightful also for
(38:16):
when we are talking aboutauthorship, I think.
Um because the concept of anauthor that we have in in our
legislation, at least is in theWest in the Western world, at
least the ones that I'm morefamiliar with, is very much tied
to it it's anthropocentric inthe end.
An author is a human uh person.
(38:38):
Uh so I think yeah, there isthis both the the philosophical
and and the more the assumptionthat we have about what an
author is, and then thelegislative part uh which is has
been developed from that, thatshapes the way in which we
consider authorship and considerauthenticity, which is hard to
(39:00):
get past and uh and just acceptthat uh also something that is
non-human can be considered anauthor.
So yeah, that's why I think I'mI'm I'm totally on board with
trying to question at least theconcepts that we are using and
seeing if if they are really thebest and most useful concepts
(39:22):
that there are, or if instead weshould just consider them.
SPEAKER_07 (39:27):
Thank you.
I am curious unless anyone hasany follow-ups on that.
Lisa had mentioned a moment ago,I believe, was the idea of just
letting it go through thecourts, which we've we've talked
a bit here about the idea ofwhat court decisions are out
there.
But as far as even your work,Katarina, where you are looking
(39:50):
at and pulling empirical dataabout artists and their ability
or role in shaping these kindsof terms going forward, like
authenticity, the role of theartist versus the legislator
versus the courts in shapingwhat's going forward and
protecting and bolstering artistrights.
(40:12):
I'm curious uh if anyone has anythoughts and wants to jump in
about that.
SPEAKER_01 (40:17):
This just all reminds me of the um monkey
selfie case.
But had that monkey come across,let's say the monkey comes
across, finds a camera, andstarts playing with it and
starts messing with thesettings, the focal length, or
something like that.
It's digital, messes with thecolour balance, and takes a
photograph, and people go, Oh,that's still a really good
photograph.
Does that remove the idea?
(40:37):
Because the photographer who setthe camera up, that photograph
now is not the product of hiseffort, it's it's the monkey's
effort.
I'm sorry, no, because I do alot of animal rights stuff, so
animal personhood, I follow themachine personhood things
because of the potential fordeep.
SPEAKER_03 (40:59):
This is the the argument actually that a creator
can never be a computer, italways has to be a human being.
As um particularly it's it's uhsaid in the German law, in the
British law, and uh in the US aswell, it will be treated like
this because of this case.
(41:20):
This is what even the copyrightoffice says.
Because of this uh analogybetween this Naruto versus
Slater case between AI.
SPEAKER_07 (41:31):
Well, Alan, you were adding a little tweak to it
though, weren't you?
Like putting a little bit moreof the monkeys uh interactive.
SPEAKER_01 (41:38):
Yeah, because the whole point of normal IP law
with photographs is it's unlessit's a commission, it's the
person who took the photographbecause they're doing all the
creativity.
And in that case, they said heput the camera there.
So the mere fact that the youknow the monkey pressed the
button doesn't matter.
But had that monkey done so likemove the camera, so all of a
sudden you've got a really nicebit of framing in the background
(42:01):
and mess some of the settings,so all of a sudden, you know, oh
I said it's much better withthat ISO, you know, something
like that focal length.
So the photograph that the endresult, and we're looking back
to what Anya was saying aboutthe other case where it's all
about end result, the end resultis a product that's nothing to
do with the person who owns,they just own the camera now.
(42:23):
They've done nothing to createthat photograph other than
introduce the camera into theenvironment.
I mean, if I left a cat loads ofcameras around the street and
just left people take picturesand it all fed back over the
web, you know, I'd still own thecopyright there, I think.
But is it the fact that sorry, Iwouldn't own the copyright?
Sorry, I wouldn't own thecopyright there because somebody
(42:43):
else had done everything.
I'd merely uh given them thecapability to do it.
So then you get an interestingthing because they'll say, well,
the animal can't hold the IPrights because it you know it
doesn't have personhood, but youcan't have the IP rights because
you've done nothing.
So does that mean all of asudden they're like
Bonavicantier and just floatingout there?
(43:05):
And all of a sudden you've got acopyright free piece of work.
SPEAKER_00 (43:09):
I think that's that's seemed to be the position
of the you know, the themajority position of folks who
analyzed it is that yeah, it'sthis is public domain.
It seemed like that wasWikipedia's position, which I
think was maybe what sparked thedispute to begin with.
You know, one of the things thatI'm thinking about with with
(43:30):
this analogy in my in my paperis in if it happened in uh the
US, so if this was you know inthe the hills of Arkansas, uh
and and the and you know animalwas was a bear uh as opposed to
a monkey in the wild there, I Ithink there's there's an
argument to say, well, no,you're not an author uh by
(43:53):
merely putting your camera upthere.
But is there then, so you can'tit can't be federal copyright,
but is there an argument forsome common law, or potentially
now in Arkansas, you know, underthe the statute they passed with
speaking to AI technologyspecifically, that there is some
type of state law ownershiptheory that is not tied to
(44:15):
authorship, but is tied to a alabor right or a moral right.
Hey, it's my equipment.
I put the camera out there, Ishould have exclusive rights to
this, not because I'm an author,but because there is no
authorship here and it was myequipment.
And I think that by analogycould could apply in these AI,
(44:36):
in the AI scenarios, uh, butit's yet to be tested.
SPEAKER_04 (44:40):
The UK right for copyright, a limited copyright
in computer generated work, it'sthe person who has made that
possible, facilitated it, paidfor it, organized it.
SPEAKER_00 (44:53):
And you have that in the UK, you don't have it in the
US yet, but I'm my theory is youcould have that at a state level
potentially.
SPEAKER_03 (45:01):
But I don't feel comfortable with the idea to
call it equipment.
Uh, compared to AI, you wouldsay that all the artist tree,
all the artwork that has beensucked in for feeding and
programming the AI would be justequipment.
It's not equipment, it'scopyrightable artwork.
And there has no has been nolicensing, and that's the point.
(45:25):
So comparing it to equipment, sothis is uh a camera of May, but
somebody else took the photo, sotherefore he's a copyright
holder, and I just provided someinstrument for it.
No, it's not an instrument.
I think we really should beprecise at this special point,
because this is why the art workworld is suffering right now.
(45:49):
Because there are artists allover the world, books, for
example.
I think as um artistry, uhphysical work, it's not the
problem.
It's the digitalizable works weare talking about.
It's about photographs, it'sabout books, it's about
(46:09):
programming, and all thesethings works in total have been
sucked in just for learning.
And so the outcome, of course,is uh free domain.
It's it doesn't belong toanybody, but it's something that
is reproduced at what extent isthe question because AI just
(46:32):
it's like the human brain, itgets in and it gets out, but it
memorizes it.
And so therefore, it's notexactly the same, except I
program the AI that the outputwill be the same.
But just comparison with thecamera as an equipment, I think
(46:52):
it would not be far enough as weneed it here in the discussion,
I think.
SPEAKER_04 (46:57):
And I think that gets us back to Stephanie's
question about um, you know, thehow do we move forward?
Uh, do we just leave things tobe sorted out by the courts and
litigation, or are we at a stagewhere in order to protect those
creatives, we do need somelegislation because the
(47:17):
copyright legislation we havealmost all over the world, I
would hazard a guess, isn't fitfor purpose to provide the
protections um that are needed.
And you know, what whether thisis worked out through sort of
collective licensing schemes orum you know however we end up, I
(47:38):
think um, you know, I think it'sit's not going to work
adequately under currentsystems.
And I think perhaps to go backto the um Getty instability
case, where Anya, you weresaying, I mean, I I'm not
technically uh adept enough tobe able to read that judgment
(47:59):
and know that the judge waswrong.
To me, from what I've seen sofar, it sort of seemed to make
sense.
As I say, in accordance with thelegislation as it is at the
moment.
Um yeah, maybe work with thisnew environment that you know we
need to we need to address that.
And I actually think it will beaddressed in the UK um in the
(48:23):
next parliament.
I think we will get somelegislation in the case.
SPEAKER_03 (48:26):
Please Emily, don't get me wrong.
It's it's perfectly correct withthe with the law, but she she
didn't apply it correctly.
SPEAKER_00 (48:34):
And Anya, I I say uh point well taken about the
difference between the thecamera scenario and the
training.
I think in order to use thecamera as as potentially a
useful analogy, you either haveto presume that the training is
found to be non-infringingbecause of fair use or fair
dealing, etc., or that in afuture it will be licensed.
(48:55):
And then I think you then thenit's potentially a useful thing
to think about.
Uh the other the other thingthat this conversation makes me
think about is uh there's agreat documentary called uh
copyright criminals, where uhmusic producer Steve Albini, I
think he produced some uhrecords by Nirvana, other rock
groups are talking about musicsampling, and he said, you know,
(49:15):
I look, I have a I'm entitled toan opinion.
I don't think music sampling iscool, but I don't think we need
to get the law involved.
The law is involved too muchalready.
And and I think there's there'ssomething to be said for that
that that what I don't know theanswer to this, but something
I've been thinking about a lotis are are artists better served
to other types of collectiveaction to establish to advertise
(49:40):
human authenticity and and andwork in that regard and and not
rely on the law and the courtsto solve this because I don't
know that it will.
SPEAKER_03 (49:49):
Yeah, exactly.
And so sampling is somethingeven in Europe we really can't
consider what it's really like.
Because do you know the thegroup Kraftwerk?
Yes.
So there is a case going on over10 years right now, and last
time the the the oppositeopinion said, well, okay, uh
(50:11):
it's sampling.
So it's uh it's uh it's notMarsh.
And the court judges said, Well,okay, we need to give it to the
upper court, uh, European courtto make a decision whether this
is a prestige or not.
So this prestige decision wouldhave been a possibility to make
a definition.
So what is still a copy orcopyrightable part of something
(50:37):
or something else?
I don't know.
But everybody was waiting forthis decision, and then I went
like, oh well, we can't decide,we have to give it to the
European court.
And I went like, what?
We needed it.
So we have to wait approximatelyanother three years, but maybe
then we are ready to preciselydefine whether the output of an
(50:59):
AI is a prestige or somethingelse.
I don't know.
So this would have been soimportant.
SPEAKER_07 (51:07):
Well, as we are approaching the top of the hour,
I would ask if anyone who wouldlike to share closing thoughts
about what we've discussed, butalso the idea of potential
injustices that have been or arebeing prompted by the use of
emerging tech in the art sector.
(51:28):
Any thoughts about that or howto best approach bringing a
little bit more justice to theperspective and the approach
going forward?
SPEAKER_02 (51:36):
Stephanie, yes, uh well, maybe one thing to say, I
think also in response to yourprevious question.
So, like what is maybe also whatis the power that we have as
individuals or also as artists,as individuals without
necessarily going uh through thecourt in trying to influence
this space.
Uh well, one way is to respondto consultations.
(51:59):
Uh not everyone knows that wehave this this possibility, like
the UK government has openedthis consultation back in
January on copyright and AI, andit received thousands of
responses.
It was uh yeah, unprecedentedthe amount of responses that it
received.
Hopefully they will listen, uh,but uh that that's something
(52:22):
that is in our hands.
And I'll just post a link in thechat because there is uh another
consultation open at the momentof from the UN on on the right
to develop and and AI.
Um so this is something that weall can do and and to try and
make our voice heard, and alsoin uh in in trying to surface
(52:43):
some of uh the injustices or orbiases that uh this this
technology is bringing out.
SPEAKER_07 (52:51):
Thank you.
Thank you, Kalerina.
Thank you.
Anyone else that might like togive some closing thoughts on
that, Tim?
SPEAKER_00 (53:01):
Well, I yeah, I think uh that to me, I'm really
I really enjoyed hearing uheveryone's perspective and the
mix of us talking from a legalperspective and and an artist's
perspective, uh that to whatextent does the law have have a
(53:22):
role here?
And you know, and are therealternatives, are there parallel
tracks, are there all or isthere a better alternative than
to try to use copyright law topreserve and protect human
creativity?
(53:43):
Uh and I think to me that's themaybe one of the core, if not
the core, question that we'reall grappling with.
And it's conversations likethese that will help us along.
SPEAKER_07 (53:56):
Stefania?
SPEAKER_05 (53:58):
I really enjoyed everything I've heard, and it
was very informative, but Ireally like where Tim was going
with like the outside of the lawuh solutions to this, because I
wonder, like, we're all lookingwithin like a lifetime, usually,
right, in our perspective.
But like if we zoom out, thereal issue is like how children
these days will be educated tolook at art and whether they
(54:18):
will look at AI art as art orlike distinguish between that
and like historical painting,you know, the history of
painting and like man-made art.
And so I think that um like whenthose children grow up and are
in power, that's gonna make allthe difference.
So, like, how do we shiftthings?
(54:38):
Because the law is really drivenby the case.
Like the Getty K.
It's literally a hugecorporation pushing that.
Uh, even existing copyright, wetalk about copyright not being
fit for purpose for AI, butexisting copyright facetiously,
right, is defined by Disney.
Like Mickey Mouse definescopyright length as the sort of
it, as I as I recall.
(54:59):
Um, so like you know, how do youknow how how do we solve the
issue at its root, I think,rather than relying on justice,
which is led by money, right?
To put it.
So I like what you look at.
I'd like to see more solutions.
SPEAKER_07 (55:19):
Thank you, Sarah.
SPEAKER_03 (55:20):
Anya?
My closing argument would bethat we definitely need a
definition to change for the forfor artworks.
That the definition of art isdefinitely something semantic
and syntactical in both.
And only this way we can protecteverything.
SPEAKER_07 (55:42):
Lisa, did you have closing thoughts?
SPEAKER_03 (55:44):
I mean, this was this was great.
SPEAKER_06 (55:47):
Yeah, I mean, uh just in digesting a lot of this
because you know, I it's true.
I mean, I I'm like, yeah, let itplay on the courts, but it it
there's so many people thatdon't have access to that as an
option.
And and then also the the factthat it does take a long time
hearing about the that case, thethe sampling case, which took,
(56:08):
you know, people were waitingfor now, it's kicked off another
three years.
And so in time, sometimes wedon't have the luxury of time.
So I am I'm actually verycurious now, what does it look
like in establishing theboundaries of uh you know AI
generated um art versus humangenerated art and and you know
maintaining the respect of thehuman generated in the in the as
(56:31):
this all develops?
You know, how how does that, howdo we establish that outside of
a court of law?
I don't know.
I'm gonna ask you all.
And I'm curious to to keepfollowing this.
SPEAKER_07 (56:42):
It's definitely a conversation that prompts more
questions than answers.
And so I appreciate, thank you,Lisa, for your perspective
today.
Thank you, each of thepanelists, Anya, Katerina, Tim,
and everyone else who hasjoined.
I really appreciate it.
It's such a compellingconversation.
It's uh definitely vexing attimes.
(57:03):
So thank you for bringing yourperspectives.
Is there any other closingthought?
SPEAKER_01 (57:07):
I'd just like to say thanks to your panel.
Uh, because it's given so muchto think about.
And what's reassuring is all thelittle worries I've had in my
head about this subject, thatthere are people who actually
understand it addressing it.
Because it's you, you know, it'snice other people actually
understand the technical side ofit.
And also, Lisa, just to say,it's really funny because when
you said, Oh, I'm not a goodphotographer, I went, but your
(57:30):
stuff, your photographs aregreat.
And then checked your websiteagain, I just realized they're
paintings.
So that that in itself brings upa whole issue.
So Jerry's just I got Lisa'sstuff.
It's just like I don't love itin Cornwall down here.
There's loads of great placeswhere you can take photographs
of the sea.
But anyway, and I was wonderinghow you'd managed to catch some
of it.
Oh, look at that.
(57:51):
Maybe you could just put likeand they're painting.
Yeah, I just assumed you werejust waiting for that perfect.
Like, just wait for that wave tobreak.
Click.
I've done it now.
Oh well, anyway, it's reallynice.
But it's lovely to uh seeeverybody tonight.
SPEAKER_05 (58:06):
Well, and maybe that's the thing, right?
That's where all the coding isin there.
It's just no one can access thatcoding, like the rest of the
thing.
Maybe the outcome, but neverlike the outcome.
SPEAKER_07 (58:41):
Thank you so much for the member.
Injusters, anywhere, is it fineto
The law is powerful and also implementations.
SPEAKER_07 (00:07):
Welcome to Warfare of Art and Law, the podcast that
focuses on how justice does ordoesn't play out when art and
law overlap.
Hi everyone, it's Stephanie, andthat was Professor Tim Harlan
from a recent AI and IT panel inwhich we discuss the extent of
the law's ability to addressissues raised by merchant cats
(00:29):
in the arts.
This panel also featured artistsLisa Lebowski, Dr.
Katarina Morutsky, and Dr.
Anya Noiver.
What follows is the discussionof this panel in which they
bring their diverse perspectiveto the query around whether
originality, authenticity,authenticity, need to need to be
(00:54):
redefined, given what you have.
(01:18):
Welcome to Warfare Heart andSecond Saturday.
Thank you all so much for beinghere.
It's such a delight to introducethis diverse panel of
professionals to our approachingAI usage in the arts from
academic, artistic, legal, andphilosophical perspective.
(01:39):
We have Professor Tim McFarlandwith Stamford University's
Cumberland School of Law.
Tim, thank you so much for beinghere.
Dr.
Katerina Maruzzi, Chancellor'sFellow at Edinburgh College of
Art, Institute for DesignInformatics.
Thank you so much, Katerina, forbeing here.
SPEAKER_05 (01:58):
Yes, hi everyone.
SPEAKER_07 (02:00):
Dr.
Anya Neubauer, attorney andconsultant at the intersection
of emerging tech and copyright.
Anya, thank you so much forbeing back on the podcast.
SPEAKER_03 (02:11):
Thank you so much for having me.
SPEAKER_07 (02:13):
And we will also be joined by Lisa Lubowski, a
nomadic planaire painter.
So to begin, Tim, if you couldstart us and everyone can give
an introductory comment abouttheir approach to AI, what
brought them to it, and theirperspective.
SPEAKER_00 (02:30):
Sure.
Thanks, Stephanie.
So I'm an intellectual propertyand most specifically a
copyright law-focused lawprofessor and legal practitioner
before becoming a full-timeteacher.
And I write uh in the area ofauthorship uh primarily in my
(02:50):
scholarship so far, and uh thethe issue of authorship and uh
the you know credit andcopyright ownership or lack
thereof uh in uh AI-generatedand AI-assisted works is of
particular interest to me, andI've written a paper recently
about that, and also thinkingabout uh the ownership of AI
(03:14):
generated creations uh withregard to functional creativity
and patents.
And so that's where I'm uhcoming to the subject currently
and uh would love to chat aboutthat and and other things that
you all would like to uhdiscuss.
SPEAKER_07 (03:29):
Thanks so much, Tim.
Katerina, would you like to gonext?
SPEAKER_02 (03:33):
Yes, of course.
Yeah, so hi everyone.
Uh I'm Caterina and I mostlywork now on creativity and
artificial intelligence from aphilosophical and and design
perspective.
But the way in which I got intoworking and researching in the
field of AI and creativity uhwas not uh straightforward, but
(03:54):
it was actually it was reallythe topic of authenticity that
got me interested on AI andcreativity.
So my background is inphilosophy and classical uh
piano.
So I was trained as a classicalpianist, and I was really
interested in the technology ofthe instrument and how the
affordances that historicalinstruments like early keyboards
(04:18):
have and how they shape howcomposers and composers compose
their music and how performersperform what the composers have
written.
So I started thinking aboutauthenticity, the concept of
authenticity, and how technologychanges the way in which
perceive we perceive what isauthentic and what is not
authentic.
(04:39):
And then uh generative AI cameand changed all the rules, and
then I I gradually startedworking more on how these new
technologies are changingperceptions of creativity, but
yes, with authenticity as one ofthe key topics that I'm
interested in.
SPEAKER_07 (04:57):
Thank you.
SPEAKER_03 (04:59):
Anyway, um yes, um thank you again for having me.
Um I'm a lawyer for 25 years inGermany, and I'm specialized
mostly on copyright law, and Ijust finished my PhD on AI and
authorship redefined towards aglobal copyright framework for
(05:20):
commerce and human originality,and I did a um comparison
between uh UK US and German law,and uh try to make um a
cross-sectional evaluation withthe stakeholder views about um
AI and copyright.
So this is my part.
(05:41):
Actually, we are all verysimilar, I see.
SPEAKER_07 (05:45):
Thank you, Anya.
And Lisa.
SPEAKER_06 (05:49):
Hi, um I'm an artist in a very remote area, so
technology wants me.
You know, I uh it's interestingbeing invited onto this because
I don't I actually don't workwith AI, but it falls my way a
lot because I do work with a lotof artists and uh and I've
actually been interviewed interms of an app that is being
(06:11):
developed to uh be a tool forartists to use for AI.
So um uh and how it can behelpful and not not something to
be so feared.
Um, but yes, so I am a nomadicpainter and uh uh happy to be
here on this panel.
SPEAKER_07 (06:27):
Well, I definitely want to circle back and hear
more about the app.
And we had kind of emailed backand forth about how AI wasn't
necessarily in your practice,but if you have any initial
thoughts that you want to shareabout the benefits or risks that
have immediately come to you inthe last few years of the
generative AI boom, even forsure, for sure.
SPEAKER_06 (06:49):
I mean, the concern I think a lot of artists have is
that it's going to somehowreplace them.
And the thing is this I just I Ireally truly believe in the
human uh desire to see humanlike other people excel.
Like we love seeing sports, welove seeing people accomplish
things that like there's justnothing that that that will ever
(07:10):
replace that.
And AI still is of people, soit's it's how we utilize it.
I think it can be very helpful.
Uh, I see this as probablysimilar conversations that were
happening when photography camearound in the 1800s and they
said, that's it, no morepainting.
People are gonna take photos.
But you know, even today, Imean, yeah, I have access to a
(07:31):
camera.
Well, first of all, painting'sstill around, clearly.
People are still doing it.
I don't think you can ever takeaway from the want of people to,
you know, put mud on cave, youknow, the inside of cave walls
and express themselves.
Uh, that's you know, that's theheart of painting.
It's the heart of humanity.
But uh, you know, with even withphotography and all the advances
in it, I people are stillpainting.
(07:52):
I can take pictures if I wantedto, but I'm a terrible
photographer.
So just because the tool existsdoesn't mean you you can utilize
it.
You sometimes still need thepeople behind it to be able to
make it progress in the way andbe useful in the way that you
need it to be.
So there's I just don't see thatyou can segregate the people
from the from the tool.
SPEAKER_07 (08:10):
Yeah, yeah.
And uh that prompts me somethingI'd heard about the project that
Katarina is doing, AuthenticityUnmasked, where they talk a lot
about the process, which is kindof what I'm hearing from you a
bit too, like the importance ofthat human being in part of the
process.
So thank you, Lisa.
And perhaps maybe we segue intoa little bit more about
(08:33):
Katarina, the project thatyou've recently been working on,
this authenticity unmasked andthe the focus on the the
authenticity as a term and andwhat it means.
SPEAKER_02 (08:44):
Yes, of course, yes, thanks.
And yeah, I think it's a reallynice segue because uh, like when
Lisa was talking, she wastalking a lot about the process
and in my research oncreativity, I I look at the
process rather than the product,and I think even more so now
with AI, it's important to payattention at what the process is
because just how good thetechnology is at the moment,
(09:08):
just looking at the productdoesn't tell us much about uh
who has created it and withwhich technology.
So, yes, with this project, soAuthenticity and Mast is uh uh
was an art commission that uhculminated into an art
exhibition this summer as partof the Edinburgh Arts Festival.
And uh we commissioned threeartists uh to create uh original
(09:31):
work that engaged with thequestion how is AI changing our
perception of authenticity, butalso the way in which you as an
artist approach the process ofcreativity with authenticity in
mind.
So, what does authenticity meanto you?
And really what came out of thisprocess of collaborating with
(09:54):
the artists and looking at theirfinal artworks, really what
emerged is the centrality of thehuman perspective.
It it was a project about uh AIand reflecting on technology,
but that's really what uh thekey uh insight that also people,
visitors who came at the exhibitwere gaining from interacting
(10:17):
with these works.
So the works um uh are verydiverse.
It's uh one is an installation,other two are like video art
pieces, uh and they addressedthe concept of authenticity from
very different perspectives.
One from a more geographical andgeopolitical side, so how is
(10:38):
technology changing also theperception of borders and how
borders, geographical borders,are uh considered and presented.
Uh the other one from the sideof hallucinations, so this
nonsensical output that uh theAI technologies many times uh
(10:58):
giving us in return to ourinput.
And the last one was all aboutembodiment and the relevance of
embodiment for um the authenticprocess of creation and what
happens if we take embodimentaway from the process.
Uh so I I started the projectwith the idea that authenticity
(11:18):
is not one but many, uh, andreally this project and this
process of uh going through thisconcept and reflecting with the
artist confirmed my assumptionthat it's very difficult, if not
impossible, to define whatauthenticity is because it's
such a diverse and complexconcept and also very
(11:41):
context-dependent.
SPEAKER_07 (11:44):
Thank you, Katerina.
Shifting over perhaps to you,Anya, just to talk about like
also how in your work you wereand perhaps still are
questioning how certain termsneed to be redefined in light of
the emerging tech that we'reseeing.
Do you want to speak to that?
SPEAKER_03 (12:03):
Yeah, um, so that's a very interesting point.
Uh it's it's almost uhimpossible, as Katarina just
said, um, to define whatoriginality really is.
But um I I try to to look at itfrom another kind of perspective
in my work.
So um there was one veryinteresting uh work um that uh
(12:31):
compared or that explored how AIreally works, so that it not
only um consumes the syntax ofdata but also the semantics, and
from the semantic definition inuh the technical way, you could
also try to define originality,which I couldn't do in my work,
(12:55):
otherwise it would have beenover a thousand pages.
So I left it with that.
But this is this is my point inmy work.
We needed to change thedefinition of work in order to
uh cope not only with thesyntactic but also with the
semantic part of an artwork, andthen we could have a possibility
(13:19):
to cope with that.
So uh my question goes to Tim aswell.
Did you read already um uh GettyImages versus stability?
It came out last week, theruling.
So the judge in this in thiscourt decision said, well, it's
not a copy, and so thereforeit's not an infringement.
Although you see in the in thein the outcome of stability, the
(13:45):
almost exact photograph, butonly almost, and it also had the
watermark in it, and she saidit's not a direct copy.
I think partly she's wrong, andon the other hand side, partly
um if we would change thedefinition of the law in some
way, if we had a framework, aninternational framework that
(14:06):
could agree to this certainpoint, that we have to to to get
together a definition for umsyntax and semantics in the
definition of work, then wecould cope with such problems.
I think.
So I'm very eager to to discussthis with you because it's it's
(14:29):
very complex, and I'm alwaysinterested.
What do you think about it?
SPEAKER_07 (14:33):
And we're referring to the voluminous opinion that
came out of the UK court on thethe get because there's also a
Getty suit pending in the US,but this is a decision in the UK
that you are referring to, Anya.
So if anyone has any thoughts orcomments on the Getty decision
or anything that Anya was justsharing, please feel free to
jump in.
SPEAKER_00 (14:52):
I would just say generally, because yeah, I have
not digested that full uhdecision, but I think that this
is yeah, this is the crux thatwe're getting to uh on the
infringement side, and then onthe uh authorship ownership side
is you know what on theinfringement side, what is a uh
(15:13):
what would what constitute aninfringing copy?
And are we needing to changethat definition, that sense, uh
given the scale of this new uhand quickly advancing AI
technology?
And then on the front end, youknow, with authenticity to
connect it to Katarina, are weneeding to adjust our
(15:37):
understanding of what it meansto be humanly authentic and
original, to capture copyrightuh in, you know, and and
patents, other intellectualproperty rights in what we are
generating using thistechnology?
And I do think that that uh it'sa it's a fascinating and
(15:59):
oftentimes frustrating time whenyou have these new technologies
like the like photography, likethe printing press, like AI,
like like books going furtherback uh to to to visit this.
So we're in exciting times,which is a blessing and a curse,
perhaps.
SPEAKER_07 (16:19):
And I would just point out that point you made,
Tim, about the scale of it, thatshould we be looking at these
terms again due to the scale andLisa's point about how artists
and their process and what theybring to the table will ever be
replaced.
But this concerning part aboutthe vast scale at which emerging
tech can work versus a humanartist is really kind of a crux
(16:43):
of the concern.
One of the points I would askbetween Tim, your work with this
idea of state copyright versusAnya, you are looking at an
international framework and howto have harmonization across
borders.
Curious to hear the perspectiveof the two of you on that.
SPEAKER_00 (17:06):
Yeah, I mean, I think there's I would just say
initially, what really interestsme the more I think about it is
if there is a possibility for inthe United States state law
protection or state lawcoverage, if you don't like the
word protection, of AI-generatedcreations uh when federal law
presently is denying them, atleast at some level, uh it
(17:29):
becomes it really highlights thenature of the United States, the
the federal system, that thatit's it's a collection, it's
both one nation and a collectionof of you know 50 nation states
plus territories, and you havethen this potential for
copyright and patent-like rightsto develop uh across 50 many
(17:55):
countries within the UnitedStates, in the way that
trademark law and right ofpublicity law uh did uh you know
had had further time to do thatin the United States history,
whereas with federal andcopyright, uh federal copyright
federal patent, because the theUS Constitution was was ratified
(18:16):
so early in the US, and then thethe first Congress passed both
uh comprehensive federal, fairlycomprehensive federal copyright
and patent law, you didn't havethe chance for that to happen.
And what I'm seeing is thepotential for this to occur, you
know, what we're thinking aboutworldwide, we can also think
about nationwide within theUnited States.
SPEAKER_03 (18:35):
That's what I found out in my research as well.
So there are differentprotections in different states,
which is awkward.
If you imagine in uh California,for example, you might be better
protected if NIAI steals yourvoice than it is in Oklahoma.
I don't know uh that precise.
(18:56):
I'm sorry.
So so this is why I'm so keen inuh trying to make a framework
that is working worldwide.
Because we also need somethingto protect Indian perspectives,
South African perspectives,Brazilian perspectives, Chinese,
Japanese perspectives of uhcopyright infringement.
(19:19):
Because we have artists all overthe world.
I think creation is the languagethat is spoken worldwide, and
all these artists are really um,yeah, I think the poorer they
are, the more they are at therisk of getting bankrupt because
(19:40):
the AI is now able to cover alltheir works.
And this is really a shame, justmy opinion.
SPEAKER_01 (19:49):
I thought it was interesting in the Getty case
that the judge, and I don't knowif there's a sort of English way
of looking at things, but Ithought the judge did it.
It was a really technicalapproach where she seemed to
focus really on the processrather than the outcome.
And it was like, well, and itseemed like a very tick-box-y
technical thing, like, well,technically speaking, you didn't
(20:11):
do this at this stage, and youdidn't do that, and you didn't,
but when you all add it uptogether, and she is wrong at
some points with the techniques,she's wrong, actually.
I'm sorry, I just said to No,it'd be interesting to see
because obviously I think thiswill go to appeal just because
of the scale of the parties andand and the precedent.
I think you know, one side willwant the precedent overturning,
(20:31):
the other one will want theprecedent firming up.
So I think we've not seen the,but it reminds me of this idea,
and it's I thought it was reallyinteresting what you were saying
about work, because I'm a bigfan of transformative art and
appropriation art if you put theeffort in.
So, you know, it's the old thingabout that the girl who she did
pencil drawings of photographs,but hyper accurate ones where
(20:54):
they you couldn't tell it wasthe photograph or the pencil
drawing.
So technically that's anabsolute copy, but it was still
to me a work of art becausesomebody had done it in that
particular way.
And it seems to be that thejudge is now saying, if I ask
all you people to pop off to aplay and say, I want you to go
off to a play, take somenotebooks, if you can want to
(21:17):
sketch the set design, ifthere's any memorable phrases or
anything, and tell me, and youall get back and say, right,
tell me what your experiencewas.
What was your did you think ofthe story?
What was your favorite line?
And then I reproduce that and Imanage to reproduce the original
play, then it seems that thisjudge would say, Yeah, that's
fine, because of how you did it.
SPEAKER_03 (21:38):
You're completely right.
So we have to make a definitionwhat originality really is.
So it's it's not only making acopy, it's just the way how you
do it.
And this is concerning thesemantic part of a work
definition, if you would say so.
And I have to completely have toagree completely what you just
(21:59):
said.
Uh, she she like uh ticked boxesin her um uh decision.
I just popped it up again, it'sin number 601, if you want to
follow later on.
And she said such aninterpretation uh precludes the
potential for an article whowhich has never contained a copy
(22:21):
of uh to be capable of being aninfringing copy.
And this is completely wrong.
And she and she goes ahead andon.
Um it's it's completely wrong.
It's it's making copies.
AI is making copies.
It's it's really um there therewere a lot of scientists who
agreed already, and there aretheses and lectures about it.
(22:45):
Uh, the AI memorizes parts ofthat, what she learned.
And it depends, it's betweenfive to fifteen percent that it
not memorizes this, but sheremembers it and that at a
hundred percent.
So it would also be possible uhto program um an AI to reproduce
(23:11):
a hundred percent if it's uhmemorizable in that amount of
pictures, for example.
So saying that um it's not acopy because uh it's it it's uh
it was uh like um listening tosomething and then it went out
again, it's memorized.
And there was a proof in it inthis in this court decision,
(23:35):
there was the proof becauselater on she says, okay, it
might be uh then um a trademarkinfringement because you see the
logo, and in the end it's not atrademark infringement because
it was not used in a multipleway.
So this was her opinion at theend.
So, which is it?
(23:55):
Is it recognizable of somethingor is it not?
And I think it was.
SPEAKER_01 (24:01):
We were sort of like one step away from getting a
judicial definition ofconsciousness, it seemed to me,
because that's it was you know,what what's memory, what's
processing?
Do machines do it differently?
Is it any different that if Iwent, you know, if I went and
saw work of art and memorized itand then got home and sketched
it, would that be aninfringement?
You know, but of course, becauseme machines are doing it, we're
(24:24):
starting to get into is themachine thinking or is it just a
recording device?
And it you know, it throws upall sorts of issues like that.
So it'll be interesting to see,you know, how this and it it's
like Tim was saying, it's reallyinteresting to see how different
jurisdictions deal with this,you know, just different
underlying philosophies.
SPEAKER_00 (24:41):
And I think scale is what is really causing us to be
concerned and think more deeplyon it because yeah, as
traditionally, if if I looked atthe at the painting in the art
gallery and then I was inspiredby it to create something that
was reminiscent of it, but notsubstantially similar, I
(25:05):
wouldn't be infringing by justseeing the the art.
Uh, you know, I'm not infringingin my mind, but if the machine
does it, and the machine does itat at such a large scale, now we
have to rethink that and say, isthere a different rule for
robots?
Or do we need to rethink alsohow we did the, you know, how we
(25:29):
effectively did the rules forfor human inspiration before?
SPEAKER_06 (25:32):
So I'm curious, because I'm not familiar with
the suits that are happening,but there is a huge history of
suits uh for artists that have,uh, for example, their images
have been taken by bigcorporations and just printed on
blankets and uh you know,completely out of control
because they just grab theirimage off the internet.
And then of course you go backand there's Warhol using stock
(25:54):
photography and recreating art,and there's Shepherd Ferry,
using the photo from um uh thethe Associated Press for the
Obama Hope poster.
Um, so is any of this being tiedin with any of this this uh new
law that's that's beingdiscussed around around AI and
its appropriation of artists'works?
SPEAKER_00 (26:14):
I think the short answer is yes, in the sense that
if there is a if there is asubstantially similar, and this
is that's the the key fuzzy termuh in US law at least, then it
then it goes, then you say,well, yes, that is a prima facie
infringement subject to fair usedefenses, like what were raised
(26:36):
in the the Warhol Goldsmithcase.
But the what AI is causing us todo now, I think, is to is to
say, well, if if the if copieswere fed in at the input and
training stage, even if whatcomes out on the back end is
different enough to not besubstantially similar, do we
still do we still think thatthat was that that was illegal
(26:59):
infringing because we used thethe human work to train it, and
now what is coming out is atsuch a scale that it potentially
competes uh to the disadvantageof you know it floods the
market, it dilutes the market,as you hear this language for
human authors, uh, even thoughthese, you know, so even though
(27:21):
they're these works are in thesame genre perhaps, um, but
they're they're not infringingin the ways that we
traditionally thought of.
But maybe we need to rethink howwe've worked infringement
because of the potential fordriving humans out of business.
SPEAKER_07 (27:36):
And even in the states, we've seen decisions
where that kind those kinds offactors are being looked at very
differently.
Like one judge in NorthernDistrict of California views
market dilution as veryimportant and another less so.
So these are definitely eventhese kinds of elements of the
(27:58):
fair use conversation are arekind of evolving in real time.
I would just bring it back toyou, Lisa, and ask if you wanted
to share more about that appthat you uh referenced earlier.
I'm curious about the AI aspectof it and what the implications
for that are for outputs.
(28:18):
Would you want to share?
SPEAKER_06 (28:20):
Yeah, sure.
Um, and it it is interestingbecause it, I mean, in the
surface, dipping up my toes inthe conversations around AI, it
does seem like there's there'stwo concerns of uh, I mean,
obviously for artists, it's itis you know copyright
infringement, you know,ownership of what we do.
But I I've personally, I thinkevery artist is constantly a
(28:42):
threat with that, with theamount of people that do copy
and do recreate and you know,just seeing my stuff out there
without my permission.
I mean, it's happened to artistsconstantly.
Um, but again, you know, I doagain, I believe in that, you
know, the Walter Benjamin, uh,you know, the unique aura of the
work of art, you know, the thein the age of mechanical
reproduction, like people stillwant to have the physical
(29:02):
object.
And that's as someone's pointwith um, you know, somebody did
a perfect drawing rendering of aphoto.
And what's and it's not the samebecause it has the human hand in
it.
Like that's it's just acompletely different object at
the point because there is thisphysical attachment.
I just don't think we're evergonna lose that desire.
Hopefully, that's a world Ican't even imagine.
Um, but in terms of the app, soI think the other side of AI is
(29:25):
how it can be very usefulinstead of a threat.
Um, and I always like to try togo to the more hopeful because
there is so much in the worldthat is terrifying and hopeless.
So um and uh so what these thisartist is doing is um uh they
are they're they're it's stillin production.
They uh it's a it's a softwareengineer and an artist couple
(29:47):
who are who are coming up withthis product called uh AI Charm
Lab.
And uh I think they've gonefrom, you know, they're still in
research and developments, fromwhat I understand, but for sure
moving into the development ofaway from research.
But they they, you know,canvassed many artists to see,
well, in your vision of what AIis, how can it be?
Something that's more of a muse,something that's more
(30:08):
collaborative, something thatcan help you have more time in
the studio to create.
So, you know, it could beanywhere from helping to come up
with a composition to catalogingof imagery, something that's
just, you know, again, a toolthat another tool that an artist
may be able to use.
SPEAKER_07 (30:24):
It sounds like perhaps it would be labeled
under that assistive AIcomparison, or would there be
generative aspects of it?
SPEAKER_06 (30:33):
Um they, I'm actually reading, I just pulled
up their thing.
It says uh they're exploring howAI can act less like a generator
and more like a creativecollaborator, helping artists
test ideas, find new visuallanguage, extend their
expressive range.
So uh, and I mean it could evencome down to like the thematics
of you know, mixing out yourpalette.
Like there's so much in therethat uh, you know, can really be
(30:54):
delineated that way.
Yeah.
SPEAKER_07 (30:57):
And what are your thoughts on uh purely the idea
of copyright on its own?
Because there are some artiststhat don't really value
copyright and some value it verymuch.
I was just curious where youcome in on that.
SPEAKER_06 (31:12):
It's there's just so because that you know, I've had
people completely mimic my styleand you know what what I do and
even some of my language outthere.
And I've even had galleries pickup artists like that who are
priced at a lower point, so Iessentially got pushed out.
Um, and you know, at the end ofthe day, I mean, no one's gonna
(31:34):
make a Lisa Lebowski paintings.
And, you know, I I have notdealt with the horrors of my
work showing up, you know, youknow, completely factory mass
produced on a blanket.
I've had first, I'm just usingthat as an example, but I've had
many artist friends that arelike printed as posters and
available at Target orsomething.
I've had many friends havethings like this happen.
(31:55):
Um, and you know, I could benervous about putting my stuff
out on the internet.
I mean, that was a huge fear forartists at one point.
Don't put your stuff on theinternet or have a watermark or
do something, but that's so umobtrusive to the creative
process that I just, you know,I'm like, I'm just gonna put my
head down and keep creating.
Because if I'm sitting here and,you know, shoring up every
(32:16):
possible uh threat to mycreative practice, I'd never get
anything done.
So the end result, you know,just keep making, just keep
producing.
It's what we do.
And as as uh tools and andthings that are developed around
us with threats arise, like justkeep being who you are and be
excellent at what you do.
SPEAKER_07 (32:35):
Yeah, yeah.
Knowing that you're based in theUS, I was just curious too about
your perspective on the humanauthorship aspect as a
requirement in the US and otherjurisdictions.
Some I've heard in the creativesector say that's very important
to keep that and not allowgenerative AI works to be
copyrighted in order to protectthat human authorship.
(32:58):
And I was just curious if youhad thoughts on that also.
SPEAKER_06 (33:01):
Yeah, I I know this is especially a topic of
conversation in um Hollywood,uh, with actors being replaced
by complete rips of them.
And I do think that that'sreally disturbing.
Um, I mean, I guess it reallyspeaks to who would want to
consume that kind of material.
Um, but it's the same thing, youknow, like a lot of the art, you
(33:22):
know, there's a lot ofappropriation art, which just
isn't good.
So uh but this still gets youknow noticed because it's it's
it's trendy or what have you.
Or something with the whole NFTthing.
It's you know, people are like,oh, this is a trend of
something, and it had meaningfor a minute there.
But um, you know, there's thelongevity of humanity, um, which
I think usually is is the grandequalizer of of all of this.
(33:44):
Uh in terms of it, you know,it's it's up to who's consuming
it.
I mean, obviously, as acreative, as somebody who
creates, I want to see the humanhand in things.
I appreciate the human hand.
I collect art, you know, I don'tcollect digital art, you know,
but there's some people that isthat is their interest and they
want to have more of that.
They're like being on thecutting edge of what's, you
(34:06):
know, what we're breakingthrough on.
So um, you know, I don't, Ijust, I just again, I just don't
think that people can be, I justdon't think we want to see us
get completely replaced.
And I think it's a matter of uhof just seeing how how we can
move forward, understanding thatthis exists, but how can both
(34:27):
exist at the same time?
And uh, you know, I I alwaysjoke, having once been married
to a lawyer, it's you know,people people don't like lawyers
until they need one.
And this is where I really dovalue, you know.
So this is, you know, I and I'mlike, let it play out in the
courts and let's see whathappens and let people, you
know, like you know, have havepeople make their cases and so
(34:50):
forth.
So it's um it's I, you know, I'mI'm curious.
Uh again, I personally don'twant to see the hand go away.
I don't want to see a AI person,you know, a non-person who's
filling in for an actual actor.
It's not impressive to me.
It's impressive to see a persondo something.
Uh, but also understanding thatit's a person behind this
(35:13):
technology that's it's just it'sgetting its information from
people.
So it's it's also, I don't know.
I it's like I'm just reallycurious to see how this is all
going to progress.
SPEAKER_07 (35:23):
Yeah.
And it what you're saying toomakes me think of one of the
artists, uh, Katerina, in yourproject uh that you were
referencing before, AuthenticityUnmasked, is Georgia Gardner.
I had heard an interview whereshe talked about how it's that
human error and the performanceanxiety, uh, those kinds of
(35:43):
elements that change and impacta performance, a musical
performance, uh was is what shewas referring to.
So do you want to share a bitabout your thoughts on that,
Katarina?
SPEAKER_02 (35:54):
Yes, of course.
I think it also um links it backto one concept that came up
before in the conversation,which is the concept of effort,
of making an effort through theprocess, and and it it is
through this effort that we alsovalue the process, not just as
creators, but also as asaudiences.
So as Lisa was saying, we we wewe appreciate seeing the actor
(36:18):
and maybe knowing about uh thebackground that the actor has
and the history behind it, andit's not all just about the
final product.
Um so yeah, I think in whentalking about authenticity in
respect to artificialintelligence, there is an
assumption that the moreaccurate these um models can be,
(36:42):
the more authentic they willbecome.
Uh but I I think that actuallythe opposite is true, the the
more they are indistinguishablefrom um, or uh yeah, that we
cannot really understand what'sgoing on behind um the process
just because it's so complex andand and and so developed now,
(37:06):
the the less authentic it feels.
Um so when I started working onAI and creativity, it was 2015
and it was when generativeadversarial networks first
started to be developed.
And it's this still a generativeAI technology, but uh less
developed just because it was 10years ago, and through that
artist used to create likeglitchy art and exploring the
(37:31):
boundaries of the technologywhere it went wrong, and and
that was so fascinating becauseyou could actually see the
process and and get behind thecurtain uh and understand what
was going on.
So the more flawless the eyebecomes, the more accurate it
gains.
I think it doesn't necessarilylead to more authenticity that
(37:52):
can actually lead to yeah uhdiminishing the feeling of of
authenticity in that.
So yes, I think authenticity inthe end is very much tied to the
the process, the the effort,that the subjectivity that is
behind a um a process, andthat's very insightful also for
(38:16):
when we are talking aboutauthorship, I think.
Um because the concept of anauthor that we have in in our
legislation, at least is in theWest in the Western world, at
least the ones that I'm morefamiliar with, is very much tied
to it it's anthropocentric inthe end.
An author is a human uh person.
(38:38):
Uh so I think yeah, there isthis both the the philosophical
and and the more the assumptionthat we have about what an
author is, and then thelegislative part uh which is has
been developed from that, thatshapes the way in which we
consider authorship and considerauthenticity, which is hard to
(39:00):
get past and uh and just acceptthat uh also something that is
non-human can be considered anauthor.
So yeah, that's why I think I'mI'm I'm totally on board with
trying to question at least theconcepts that we are using and
seeing if if they are really thebest and most useful concepts
(39:22):
that there are, or if instead weshould just consider them.
SPEAKER_07 (39:27):
Thank you.
I am curious unless anyone hasany follow-ups on that.
Lisa had mentioned a moment ago,I believe, was the idea of just
letting it go through thecourts, which we've we've talked
a bit here about the idea ofwhat court decisions are out
there.
But as far as even your work,Katarina, where you are looking
(39:50):
at and pulling empirical dataabout artists and their ability
or role in shaping these kindsof terms going forward, like
authenticity, the role of theartist versus the legislator
versus the courts in shapingwhat's going forward and
protecting and bolstering artistrights.
(40:12):
I'm curious uh if anyone has anythoughts and wants to jump in
about that.
SPEAKER_01 (40:17):
This just all reminds me of the um monkey
selfie case.
But had that monkey come across,let's say the monkey comes
across, finds a camera, andstarts playing with it and
starts messing with thesettings, the focal length, or
something like that.
It's digital, messes with thecolour balance, and takes a
photograph, and people go, Oh,that's still a really good
photograph.
Does that remove the idea?
(40:37):
Because the photographer who setthe camera up, that photograph
now is not the product of hiseffort, it's it's the monkey's
effort.
I'm sorry, no, because I do alot of animal rights stuff, so
animal personhood, I follow themachine personhood things
because of the potential fordeep.
SPEAKER_03 (40:59):
This is the the argument actually that a creator
can never be a computer, italways has to be a human being.
As um particularly it's it's uhsaid in the German law, in the
British law, and uh in the US aswell, it will be treated like
this because of this case.
(41:20):
This is what even the copyrightoffice says.
Because of this uh analogybetween this Naruto versus
Slater case between AI.
SPEAKER_07 (41:31):
Well, Alan, you were adding a little tweak to it
though, weren't you?
Like putting a little bit moreof the monkeys uh interactive.
SPEAKER_01 (41:38):
Yeah, because the whole point of normal IP law
with photographs is it's unlessit's a commission, it's the
person who took the photographbecause they're doing all the
creativity.
And in that case, they said heput the camera there.
So the mere fact that the youknow the monkey pressed the
button doesn't matter.
But had that monkey done so likemove the camera, so all of a
sudden you've got a really nicebit of framing in the background
(42:01):
and mess some of the settings,so all of a sudden, you know, oh
I said it's much better withthat ISO, you know, something
like that focal length.
So the photograph that the endresult, and we're looking back
to what Anya was saying aboutthe other case where it's all
about end result, the end resultis a product that's nothing to
do with the person who owns,they just own the camera now.
(42:23):
They've done nothing to createthat photograph other than
introduce the camera into theenvironment.
I mean, if I left a cat loads ofcameras around the street and
just left people take picturesand it all fed back over the
web, you know, I'd still own thecopyright there, I think.
But is it the fact that sorry, Iwouldn't own the copyright?
Sorry, I wouldn't own thecopyright there because somebody
(42:43):
else had done everything.
I'd merely uh given them thecapability to do it.
So then you get an interestingthing because they'll say, well,
the animal can't hold the IPrights because it you know it
doesn't have personhood, but youcan't have the IP rights because
you've done nothing.
So does that mean all of asudden they're like
Bonavicantier and just floatingout there?
(43:05):
And all of a sudden you've got acopyright free piece of work.
SPEAKER_00 (43:09):
I think that's that's seemed to be the position
of the you know, the themajority position of folks who
analyzed it is that yeah, it'sthis is public domain.
It seemed like that wasWikipedia's position, which I
think was maybe what sparked thedispute to begin with.
You know, one of the things thatI'm thinking about with with
(43:30):
this analogy in my in my paperis in if it happened in uh the
US, so if this was you know inthe the hills of Arkansas, uh
and and the and you know animalwas was a bear uh as opposed to
a monkey in the wild there, I Ithink there's there's an
argument to say, well, no,you're not an author uh by
(43:53):
merely putting your camera upthere.
But is there then, so you can'tit can't be federal copyright,
but is there an argument forsome common law, or potentially
now in Arkansas, you know, underthe the statute they passed with
speaking to AI technologyspecifically, that there is some
type of state law ownershiptheory that is not tied to
(44:15):
authorship, but is tied to a alabor right or a moral right.
Hey, it's my equipment.
I put the camera out there, Ishould have exclusive rights to
this, not because I'm an author,but because there is no
authorship here and it was myequipment.
And I think that by analogycould could apply in these AI,
(44:36):
in the AI scenarios, uh, butit's yet to be tested.
SPEAKER_04 (44:40):
The UK right for copyright, a limited copyright
in computer generated work, it'sthe person who has made that
possible, facilitated it, paidfor it, organized it.
SPEAKER_00 (44:53):
And you have that in the UK, you don't have it in the
US yet, but I'm my theory is youcould have that at a state level
potentially.
SPEAKER_03 (45:01):
But I don't feel comfortable with the idea to
call it equipment.
Uh, compared to AI, you wouldsay that all the artist tree,
all the artwork that has beensucked in for feeding and
programming the AI would be justequipment.
It's not equipment, it'scopyrightable artwork.
And there has no has been nolicensing, and that's the point.
(45:25):
So comparing it to equipment, sothis is uh a camera of May, but
somebody else took the photo, sotherefore he's a copyright
holder, and I just provided someinstrument for it.
No, it's not an instrument.
I think we really should beprecise at this special point,
because this is why the art workworld is suffering right now.
(45:49):
Because there are artists allover the world, books, for
example.
I think as um artistry, uhphysical work, it's not the
problem.
It's the digitalizable works weare talking about.
It's about photographs, it'sabout books, it's about
(46:09):
programming, and all thesethings works in total have been
sucked in just for learning.
And so the outcome, of course,is uh free domain.
It's it doesn't belong toanybody, but it's something that
is reproduced at what extent isthe question because AI just
(46:32):
it's like the human brain, itgets in and it gets out, but it
memorizes it.
And so therefore, it's notexactly the same, except I
program the AI that the outputwill be the same.
But just comparison with thecamera as an equipment, I think
(46:52):
it would not be far enough as weneed it here in the discussion,
I think.
SPEAKER_04 (46:57):
And I think that gets us back to Stephanie's
question about um, you know, thehow do we move forward?
Uh, do we just leave things tobe sorted out by the courts and
litigation, or are we at a stagewhere in order to protect those
creatives, we do need somelegislation because the
(47:17):
copyright legislation we havealmost all over the world, I
would hazard a guess, isn't fitfor purpose to provide the
protections um that are needed.
And you know, what whether thisis worked out through sort of
collective licensing schemes orum you know however we end up, I
(47:38):
think um, you know, I think it'sit's not going to work
adequately under currentsystems.
And I think perhaps to go backto the um Getty instability
case, where Anya, you weresaying, I mean, I I'm not
technically uh adept enough tobe able to read that judgment
(47:59):
and know that the judge waswrong.
To me, from what I've seen sofar, it sort of seemed to make
sense.
As I say, in accordance with thelegislation as it is at the
moment.
Um yeah, maybe work with thisnew environment that you know we
need to we need to address that.
And I actually think it will beaddressed in the UK um in the
(48:23):
next parliament.
I think we will get somelegislation in the case.
SPEAKER_03 (48:26):
Please Emily, don't get me wrong.
It's it's perfectly correct withthe with the law, but she she
didn't apply it correctly.
SPEAKER_00 (48:34):
And Anya, I I say uh point well taken about the
difference between the thecamera scenario and the
training.
I think in order to use thecamera as as potentially a
useful analogy, you either haveto presume that the training is
found to be non-infringingbecause of fair use or fair
dealing, etc., or that in afuture it will be licensed.
(48:55):
And then I think you then thenit's potentially a useful thing
to think about.
Uh the other the other thingthat this conversation makes me
think about is uh there's agreat documentary called uh
copyright criminals, where uhmusic producer Steve Albini, I
think he produced some uhrecords by Nirvana, other rock
groups are talking about musicsampling, and he said, you know,
(49:15):
I look, I have a I'm entitled toan opinion.
I don't think music sampling iscool, but I don't think we need
to get the law involved.
The law is involved too muchalready.
And and I think there's there'ssomething to be said for that
that that what I don't know theanswer to this, but something
I've been thinking about a lotis are are artists better served
to other types of collectiveaction to establish to advertise
(49:40):
human authenticity and and andwork in that regard and and not
rely on the law and the courtsto solve this because I don't
know that it will.
SPEAKER_03 (49:49):
Yeah, exactly.
And so sampling is somethingeven in Europe we really can't
consider what it's really like.
Because do you know the thegroup Kraftwerk?
Yes.
So there is a case going on over10 years right now, and last
time the the the oppositeopinion said, well, okay, uh
(50:11):
it's sampling.
So it's uh it's uh it's notMarsh.
And the court judges said, Well,okay, we need to give it to the
upper court, uh, European courtto make a decision whether this
is a prestige or not.
So this prestige decision wouldhave been a possibility to make
a definition.
So what is still a copy orcopyrightable part of something
(50:37):
or something else?
I don't know.
But everybody was waiting forthis decision, and then I went
like, oh well, we can't decide,we have to give it to the
European court.
And I went like, what?
We needed it.
So we have to wait approximatelyanother three years, but maybe
then we are ready to preciselydefine whether the output of an
(50:59):
AI is a prestige or somethingelse.
I don't know.
So this would have been soimportant.
SPEAKER_07 (51:07):
Well, as we are approaching the top of the hour,
I would ask if anyone who wouldlike to share closing thoughts
about what we've discussed, butalso the idea of potential
injustices that have been or arebeing prompted by the use of
emerging tech in the art sector.
(51:28):
Any thoughts about that or howto best approach bringing a
little bit more justice to theperspective and the approach
going forward?
SPEAKER_02 (51:36):
Stephanie, yes, uh well, maybe one thing to say, I
think also in response to yourprevious question.
So, like what is maybe also whatis the power that we have as
individuals or also as artists,as individuals without
necessarily going uh through thecourt in trying to influence
this space.
Uh well, one way is to respondto consultations.
(51:59):
Uh not everyone knows that wehave this this possibility, like
the UK government has openedthis consultation back in
January on copyright and AI, andit received thousands of
responses.
It was uh yeah, unprecedentedthe amount of responses that it
received.
Hopefully they will listen, uh,but uh that that's something
(52:22):
that is in our hands.
And I'll just post a link in thechat because there is uh another
consultation open at the momentof from the UN on on the right
to develop and and AI.
Um so this is something that weall can do and and to try and
make our voice heard, and alsoin uh in in trying to surface
(52:43):
some of uh the injustices or orbiases that uh this this
technology is bringing out.
SPEAKER_07 (52:51):
Thank you.
Thank you, Kalerina.
Thank you.
Anyone else that might like togive some closing thoughts on
that, Tim?
SPEAKER_00 (53:01):
Well, I yeah, I think uh that to me, I'm really
I really enjoyed hearing uheveryone's perspective and the
mix of us talking from a legalperspective and and an artist's
perspective, uh that to whatextent does the law have have a
(53:22):
role here?
And you know, and are therealternatives, are there parallel
tracks, are there all or isthere a better alternative than
to try to use copyright law topreserve and protect human
creativity?
(53:43):
Uh and I think to me that's themaybe one of the core, if not
the core, question that we'reall grappling with.
And it's conversations likethese that will help us along.
SPEAKER_07 (53:56):
Stefania?
SPEAKER_05 (53:58):
I really enjoyed everything I've heard, and it
was very informative, but Ireally like where Tim was going
with like the outside of the lawuh solutions to this, because I
wonder, like, we're all lookingwithin like a lifetime, usually,
right, in our perspective.
But like if we zoom out, thereal issue is like how children
these days will be educated tolook at art and whether they
(54:18):
will look at AI art as art orlike distinguish between that
and like historical painting,you know, the history of
painting and like man-made art.
And so I think that um like whenthose children grow up and are
in power, that's gonna make allthe difference.
So, like, how do we shiftthings?
(54:38):
Because the law is really drivenby the case.
Like the Getty K.
It's literally a hugecorporation pushing that.
Uh, even existing copyright, wetalk about copyright not being
fit for purpose for AI, butexisting copyright facetiously,
right, is defined by Disney.
Like Mickey Mouse definescopyright length as the sort of
it, as I as I recall.
(54:59):
Um, so like you know, how do youknow how how do we solve the
issue at its root, I think,rather than relying on justice,
which is led by money, right?
To put it.
So I like what you look at.
I'd like to see more solutions.
SPEAKER_07 (55:19):
Thank you, Sarah.
SPEAKER_03 (55:20):
Anya?
My closing argument would bethat we definitely need a
definition to change for the forfor artworks.
That the definition of art isdefinitely something semantic
and syntactical in both.
And only this way we can protecteverything.
SPEAKER_07 (55:42):
Lisa, did you have closing thoughts?
SPEAKER_03 (55:44):
I mean, this was this was great.
SPEAKER_06 (55:47):
Yeah, I mean, uh just in digesting a lot of this
because you know, I it's true.
I mean, I I'm like, yeah, let itplay on the courts, but it it
there's so many people thatdon't have access to that as an
option.
And and then also the the factthat it does take a long time
hearing about the that case, thethe sampling case, which took,
(56:08):
you know, people were waitingfor now, it's kicked off another
three years.
And so in time, sometimes wedon't have the luxury of time.
So I am I'm actually verycurious now, what does it look
like in establishing theboundaries of uh you know AI
generated um art versus humangenerated art and and you know
maintaining the respect of thehuman generated in the in the as
(56:31):
this all develops?
You know, how how does that, howdo we establish that outside of
a court of law?
I don't know.
I'm gonna ask you all.
And I'm curious to to keepfollowing this.
SPEAKER_07 (56:42):
It's definitely a conversation that prompts more
questions than answers.
And so I appreciate, thank you,Lisa, for your perspective
today.
Thank you, each of thepanelists, Anya, Katerina, Tim,
and everyone else who hasjoined.
I really appreciate it.
It's such a compellingconversation.
It's uh definitely vexing attimes.
(57:03):
So thank you for bringing yourperspectives.
Is there any other closingthought?
SPEAKER_01 (57:07):
I'd just like to say thanks to your panel.
Uh, because it's given so muchto think about.
And what's reassuring is all thelittle worries I've had in my
head about this subject, thatthere are people who actually
understand it addressing it.
Because it's you, you know, it'snice other people actually
understand the technical side ofit.
And also, Lisa, just to say,it's really funny because when
you said, Oh, I'm not a goodphotographer, I went, but your
(57:30):
stuff, your photographs aregreat.
And then checked your websiteagain, I just realized they're
paintings.
So that that in itself brings upa whole issue.
So Jerry's just I got Lisa'sstuff.
It's just like I don't love itin Cornwall down here.
There's loads of great placeswhere you can take photographs
of the sea.
But anyway, and I was wonderinghow you'd managed to catch some
of it.
Oh, look at that.
(57:51):
Maybe you could just put likeand they're painting.
Yeah, I just assumed you werejust waiting for that perfect.
Like, just wait for that wave tobreak.
Click.
I've done it now.
Oh well, anyway, it's reallynice.
But it's lovely to uh seeeverybody tonight.
SPEAKER_05 (58:06):
Well, and maybe that's the thing, right?
That's where all the coding isin there.
It's just no one can access thatcoding, like the rest of the
thing.
Maybe the outcome, but neverlike the outcome.
SPEAKER_07 (58:41):
Thank you so much for the member.
Injusters, anywhere, is it fineto
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.