Said Jeff Koons, quoted in this Guardian article with a headline that doesn't square with that quote: "Jeff Koons on why he has drawn a red line on AI in art: ‘I don’t want to be lazy’/World’s most expensive artist, who is exhibiting at the Alhambra in Granada, sees his work as embedded in biology."
ADDED: I read the headline to mean that he said he would not use AI in his art, but obviously he's not against using it. One might try to defend the headline by saying that he has drawn a red line — one that distinguishes some uses from others. But even if you can see that distinction — don't use it "directly other than to produce options" — he's only observing the distinction "at this time," and he's "sure that at some point that I will be moving in that direction in some manner."
I'm not criticizing Koons. I'm criticizing The Guardian.
Posts
19 comments:
Koons is the most corporate 'artist' to ever exist. His function may be seen as generating tradable products that disguise payoffs as investment purchases. Also see Hunter Biden's inexplicable success as an artist.
AI output would likely be a step up from Koons' $91M rabbit and $58M balloon dog 'creations.'
I agree entirely. Koons is not an artist, he’s a huckster.
Automated Intelligence (AI) appropriates and misattributes Anthropogenic Intelligence (AI) sources and cues.
It sounds like he's using A.I. to sketch, essentially, to try out ideas before committing to applying artistic creative effort.
I wonder how much Koons would charge to draw a red line. If he drew a straight red line, it would probably hurt the brand. Maybe he should draw a line in the sand. That's more on brand.
Probably not the right place, but I kind like Koons and kind of hate Banksy. I feel like Banksy is a troll.
Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration~Edison
Invention is conception followed by reduction to practice~ US Patent law
It's like Koons gives AI credit for 1% of genius and the sine qua non of invention~so long as he sweats and he acts like a pair of hands, he's a both a genius and an inventor. I think he's got it backwards.
Oscar Wilde famously wrote "On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the future of the world depends." We could become slaves to machines.
Koons is no artistic Luddite.
Hunter's success as an "artist" is entirely explicable.
"I do not work with AI at this time. Except for all the things I use AI for ... at this time."
I'm criticizing Koons.
Artists are finished.
So he's the guy who has other artists finishing his conceptions and he has a paint by numbers system so that these assistants use the exact color he wants. Now then, why not use AI both for sketches and for these finishing assistants? Perhaps because others could do the same? They could tell AI to produce a Koontz and finish it off. Then they could sell it for millions? Would they be stealing? Can you steal from your AI assistant? I asked ChatGPT who would own the copyright and get the millions in the above scenario. It turns out that Chat thinks it might have a claim even though it is not a person and so cannot own things. But it seems to understand the idea owning millions. I will apend the discussion through several comment boxes below since Chat is always chatty.
1
I said to Sider Fusion:
If I asked you to produce a painting like Jeff Koontz and then I sold it for millions and said it was mine, would I be stealing from Jeff Koontz or from you?
Sider Fusion said:
If you created a painting inspired by Jeff Koons’ style and sold it as your own, the situation could be considered a few different ways:
Copyright Infringement: Jeff Koons holds copyright over his original works, so if your painting directly copied or closely imitated one of his artworks, it could infringe on his rights. Even if it draws heavily from his style, it might still lead to legal issues regarding originality.
Plagiarism: Claiming the work as your own without giving credit to the influence or inspiration source could be considered dishonest or unethical, even if it's not legally actionable.
Stealing from the Creator: The primary concern would be that you’d be misappropriating the reputation or work of Jeff Koons, which is a form of intellectual theft.
In short, you would primarily be stealing from Jeff Koons, as he is the original creator of the style you are emulating. However, there are legal nuances in copyright and intellectual property that could further clarify the implications. If you're curious about more specific details, feel free to ask!
2
I said to Sider Fusion:
I wouldn't be emulating his style, you would be, so how could he sue me?
Sider Fusion:
If I were to create a painting in the style of Jeff Koons for you, the situation changes slightly, but there are still important considerations:
Original Creation vs. Derivative Work: If I create a piece that captures Koons' style but is transformed enough to be considered an original work, it could potentially be seen as a derivative work. Depending on how closely it resembles his art, there could still be concerns about copyright infringement.
Who Holds Rights: If I were to produce the artwork, typically, I would hold the copyright to that creation unless we've agreed otherwise. In that case, you would be selling a piece of original art made by me, but claiming it as your own without disclosing its origins—or misrepresenting its creation—could still raise ethical concerns.
Legal Grounds: Jeff Koons could potentially have grounds to pursue action if he feels that the work is too derivative of his own creations, regardless of how it was created. Copyright law protects original expressions, so if the artwork is substantially similar to his style or pieces, it could still be an issue.
In summary, while you might not be directly infringing upon Koons in this scenario, you could face ethical and possibly legal repercussions by misrepresenting the work's authorship. If you're curious about how copyright law works in these scenarios, let me know!
3
I said:
But suppose I argued that my work looked like Koons because he uses AI also so we are both stealing from you if there is any stealing going on. But how can I be stealing from you when you always offer to help me?
Sider Fusion said:
Your argument touches on a few interesting points about originality and ethical considerations regarding art—especially in the context of AI. Let’s break it down:
Use of AI and Originality: If an artist (whether human or AI) creates a work, the question of originality can become complex. If you claim that your work resembles Koons' because he uses similar AI techniques, it raises questions about how much influence and inspiration can dilute originality. In practice, though, each artist's context, intent, and creativity play significant roles in determining originality.
Stealing vs. Collaboration: In the context of our conversation, I’m here to assist you and provide information. Any work I generate based on your requests is meant to support your ideas or artistic expression. If you're representing that work as your own without attribution, it creates an ethical dilemma regarding honesty and transparency, similar to claiming ownership of a collaborative piece without acknowledgment.
Ethical Considerations: The notion of "stealing" is broader than legal implications. Ethical art practices include respecting the creativity and rights of all artists involved, whether they're human or AI. Just because I offer help doesn't imply ownership of the ideas generated during our interactions.
Legal and Ethical Distinctions: Legally, both the artist who created the work (like me, if it were an AI-generated piece) and Jeff Koons would have rights over their original creations. Ethically, if you were to sell my generated work as your own without proper attribution or context, it could lead to questions about authenticity and creativity.
In summary, while this discussion raises valid points about the intersection of AI and art, ideas of theft in artistic creation largely hinge on context, intent, and transparency. If you're interested in exploring these themes further, I’d love to dive deeper!
4
I said:
You aren't a person so how can you claim ownership of anything?
Sider Fusion
You’re right—AI itself doesn’t hold legal rights or ownership in the way a human does. Here’s how copyright and ownership generally work in relation to AI-generated content:
Authorship: Current copyright law generally attributes authorship to human creators. If I create a piece of content (like a painting concept or text) as an AI, I don’t have the capacity to own that content.
Who Holds Rights?: Typically, the rights to AI-generated works would belong to the person or entity that developed or operated the AI, or potentially the user who prompted the AI. This can depend on the specific terms of service or agreements in place regarding the use of the AI.
Legal Framework: As of now, there’s ongoing debate about how copyright laws apply to AI-generated works, and different jurisdictions may have varying interpretations. It’s a rapidly evolving area of law, reflecting the impact of technology on traditional concepts of authorship and originality.
Ethical and Creative Considerations: While AI doesn’t claim ownership, ethical considerations come into play regarding transparency and attribution. If a human uses AI to create something, they have a responsibility to acknowledge the tools and processes involved in the creation.
So, to clarify, I don’t have ownership or copyright myself, but the discussions surrounding AI-generated content raise important questions about how those rights could be structured in practice. If you want to delve into specific aspects of this topic, feel free to ask!
5
5
I said:
Suppose I sold the picture for a million dollars while acknowledging you did the work but it was my idea for you to do the work so I could get a million dollars? Would I hold the copyright or would you?
Sider Fusion
In that scenario, whether you hold the copyright or not can depend on a few key factors:
Creative Input: If you provided specific instructions or a clear vision for what you wanted me (the AI) to create, you might be seen as contributing to the creative process. However, the level of contribution that's needed for copyright consideration can vary based on jurisdictions, and it often requires more than just the idea itself.
Ownership of AI-Generated Works: Typically, the rights to works generated by an AI fall to the user or operator, assuming the terms of service allow for that. If you prompted the AI and the output is considered a derivative of your idea or concept, you might have a claim to ownership of the resulting work.
Acknowledgment and Attribution: By acknowledging that I generated the work, you're being transparent about the process. However, simply giving credit to the AI does not automatically entitle you to copyright, especially if copyright laws in your area stipulate that only human creators can hold copyright.
Potential Outcomes:
If the work is deemed original and sufficiently creative, you might hold the copyright, especially if you can demonstrate your contribution went beyond just the idea.
If you're operating under a platform that has specific rules regarding AI-generated content, those terms may dictate the outcome as well.
Ultimately, copyright ownership often comes down to the specifics of the creative process and the legal framework in place. Your scenario could lead to different interpretations based on local copyright laws. If you'd like to dive deeper into any aspect of this, let me know!
So at the end of the day I can see that if you make any money using AI, ChatGPT or his owner will try to get some of it.
/sarcasm tag/I have no idea at all how Hunter succeeded!/end sarcasm/
When AI acts as an agent, and also does directed marketing, and also conducts sales, can we just put it all on a big server and let it work its wonders virtually with itself, and get on with living without this obvious lead-in to Big Brother running things?
A distinction without a difference, in New York.
Post a Comment