Minnesota artists consider what’s next in AI copyrights

Listen to this article

Khanh Tran is an appreciator of and an advocate for local art — no matter the form or style.

“We appreciate any forms of art, really. I know I do,” said Tran, owner of Dow Art Gallery and Picture Framing in St. Paul. “The same thing’s been done over and over again. I’m kind of looking forward to what is new out there.”

In terms of the new, artificial intelligence (AI) is generating questions and curiosity among artists, and its implications are intersecting into the legal realm.

In fact, it was a significant sticking point between the Writers Guild of America and Hollywood production studios, which approved an agreement Tuesday, signaling the end of a months-long strike.

And one looming legal question — should AI hold a copyright for its created work — was answered in August when the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in Thaler v. Perlmutter that work generated by AI solely cannot hold a copyright.

The decision was not surprising to copyright experts like Tom Cotter, the University of Minnesota Law School’s associate dean of research and Taft Professor of Law, but what happens next is not clear.

“The judge’s ruling was affirming the copyright office. [It’s] consistent with longstanding U.S. practice and U.S. cases,” Cotter said. “It remains to be seen exactly what the implications will be.”

However, Cotter described the judge’s ruling as “narrow,” explaining that Thaler listed AI — not a human — as the creator of the work, thus creating precedent for a specific instance.

In the future, Cotter believes authors and artists may be mindful of how much representation they give to a tool, like AI.

If AI were to become a prevalent artistic tool, Tran explained that the deciding factor for a copyright should be based on where the creation was born.

“Who is the brain behind that?” Tran said. “If it’s the artist that’s creating the AI to create the art, I mean I think that person should be able to copyright.”

Zoe Cinel, a Minnesota-based multimedia artist and an educator at Metropolitan State University and Carleton College, has not personally worked with AI to create art, but she does know Minnesota artists who have embraced it.

“I think it’s really interesting, artwork made using AI,” Cinel said.

Cinel’s artistic interests include multimedia installations with tools such as screens and projectors, as well as augmented reality. She is interested in exploring AI, but she expressed the value of having protections for where and how AI accesses the information it uses to create works.

To illustrate this, Cinel drew parallels to questions raised by the copyright access in the production of collages, which involves piecing together a new creation with already existing work — a process similar to how AI creates.

Currently, artists who make collages must get a license to use copyrighted materials.

While these questions remain speculative, the extent of human involvement to make a work viable for copyright is a decision that may need to be made quickly.

“It’s all moving very rapidly,” Cotter said.

And because art and technology are global, future implications of AI’s legal claim could vary across the globe. For instance, India allowed a book, “Suryast,” to be copyrighted with AI listed as the co-author.

Tran explained that in his work with local artists he has not encountered many artists who are concerned with machine-generated art copyright issues.

However, when it comes to what’s next for AI legalities, Cotter expects uncertainty.

“I think there’s going to be some period of time when it is uncertain what level of effort must be shown,” Cotter said.