Laypeople's Egocentric Perceptions of Copyright for AI-Generated Art
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper examines how laypeople (non-experts) perceive the copyright implications of AI-generated art.
- The researchers conducted a series of experiments to understand people's views on who owns the rights to AI-generated artwork.
- The findings provide insights into the public's understanding of the legal and ethical complexities surrounding AI and copyright.
Plain English Explanation
When AI systems generate artworks, it's not always clear who owns the rights to those creations. This paper explores how everyday people, without legal expertise, perceive the copyright issues around AI-generated art.
The researchers conducted experiments to see how laypeople think about ownership and attribution when it comes to AI-generated artwork. For example, they asked participants questions like "If an AI system creates a painting, who do you think owns the copyright to that painting?" The goal was to better understand the public's views on this complex topic.
The findings reveal that most people have an "egocentric" perspective - they tend to think the person who created the AI system that generated the art should own the copyright. This suggests the general public may not fully grasp the nuances of how copyright law applies to AI-generated creative works.
Understanding public perceptions on this issue is important as AI becomes more advanced and integrated into creative processes. Policymakers and legal experts can use these insights to develop thoughtful frameworks that balance the rights of AI developers, artists, and the public.
Technical Explanation
The researchers conducted a series of experiments to examine laypeople's perceptions of copyright ownership for AI-generated art. In one study, participants were shown AI-generated artworks and asked questions about who they thought owned the copyright.
The results indicated that most participants believed the person or company that created the AI system should own the copyright, rather than the AI system itself or the person who provided the prompts to generate the artwork. This "egocentric" perspective suggests that many people don't fully grasp the legal complexities around AI-generated creativity and ownership.
Another experiment explored how people's views might change based on the level of human involvement in the creative process. For example, participants were more likely to attribute ownership to the human prompt provider when they were informed the human had carefully curated the prompts used to generate the artwork.
Overall, the findings highlight the public's limited understanding of the uncertain boundaries around copyright for AI-generated art, as described in this paper. The researchers argue these insights are important as policymakers and legal experts work to develop frameworks that balance the rights of AI developers, artists, and the public.
Critical Analysis
The researchers acknowledge several limitations to their studies. For instance, the experiments used hypothetical scenarios and participants may have responded differently in real-world situations. Additionally, the studies focused on laypeople's perspectives, so the findings may not fully reflect the views of legal experts or policymakers.
One potential issue the paper doesn't address is how people's perceptions might differ based on the type or complexity of the AI-generated artwork. Participants may have different attributions of ownership for a simple illustration versus a highly detailed, photorealistic painting.
The researchers also don't explore how factors like the commercial success or artistic merit of the AI-generated work might influence people's views on copyright. These nuances could be worth investigating in future research.
Overall, the paper provides valuable insights, but there is still much to understand about the public's evolving attitudes towards AI, creativity, and intellectual property rights. Continued multidisciplinary collaboration, as suggested in this related paper, will be crucial as these complex issues are addressed.
Conclusion
This study sheds light on how laypeople perceive the copyright implications of AI-generated art. The findings indicate that most people have an "egocentric" view, tending to attribute ownership to the AI system's creator rather than the AI itself or the human prompt provider.
These insights are important as policymakers and legal experts work to develop frameworks that balance the rights of AI developers, artists, and the public. Understanding public perceptions is a crucial step in crafting policies and laws that are both technically sound and align with societal values.
As AI continues to advance and become more integrated into creative processes, further research will be needed to track how public attitudes evolve. Ongoing collaboration between technologists, legal scholars, and social scientists, as advocated in this related paper, will be vital to navigate the complex and uncertain boundaries of AI, creativity, and copyright.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Laypeople's Egocentric Perceptions of Copyright for AI-Generated Art
Gabriel Lima, Nina Grgi'c-Hlav{c}a, Elissa Redmiles
Recent breakthroughs in generative AI (GenAI) have fueled debates concerning the status of AI-generated creations under copyright law. This research investigates laypeople's perceptions ($N$ = 424) of AI-generated art concerning factors associated with copyright protection. Inspired by prior work suggesting that people show egocentric biases when evaluating their own creative outputs, we also test if the same holds for AI-generated art. Namely, we study the differences between the perceptions of those who have something to gain from copyright protection -- creators of AI-generated art -- and uninvested third parties. To answer our research questions, we held an incentivized AI art competition, in which some participants used a GenAI model to generate images for consideration while others evaluated these submissions. We find that participants are most likely to attribute authorship and copyright over AI-generated images to the users who prompted the AI system to generate the image and the artists whose creations were used for training the AI model. We also find that participants egocentrically favored their own art over other participants' art and rated their own creations higher than other people evaluated them. Moreover, our results suggest that people judge their own AI-generated art more favorably with respect to some factors (creativity and effort) but not others (skills). Our findings have implications for future debates concerning the potential copyright protection of AI-generated outputs.
Read more7/16/2024
0
An Economic Solution to Copyright Challenges of Generative AI
Jiachen T. Wang, Zhun Deng, Hiroaki Chiba-Okabe, Boaz Barak, Weijie J. Su
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems are trained on large data corpora to generate new pieces of text, images, videos, and other media. There is growing concern that such systems may infringe on the copyright interests of training data contributors. To address the copyright challenges of generative AI, we propose a framework that compensates copyright owners proportionally to their contributions to the creation of AI-generated content. The metric for contributions is quantitatively determined by leveraging the probabilistic nature of modern generative AI models and using techniques from cooperative game theory in economics. This framework enables a platform where AI developers benefit from access to high-quality training data, thus improving model performance. Meanwhile, copyright owners receive fair compensation, driving the continued provision of relevant data for generative model training. Experiments demonstrate that our framework successfully identifies the most relevant data sources used in artwork generation, ensuring a fair and interpretable distribution of revenues among copyright owners.
Read more9/10/2024
🤖
0
Foregrounding Artist Opinions: A Survey Study on Transparency, Ownership, and Fairness in AI Generative Art
Juniper Lovato, Julia Zimmerman, Isabelle Smith, Peter Dodds, Jennifer Karson
Generative AI tools are used to create art-like outputs and sometimes aid in the creative process. These tools have potential benefits for artists, but they also have the potential to harm the art workforce and infringe upon artistic and intellectual property rights. Without explicit consent from artists, Generative AI creators scrape artists' digital work to train Generative AI models and produce art-like outputs at scale. These outputs are now being used to compete with human artists in the marketplace as well as being used by some artists in their generative processes to create art. We surveyed 459 artists to investigate the tension between artists' opinions on Generative AI art's potential utility and harm. This study surveys artists' opinions on the utility and threat of Generative AI art models, fair practices in the disclosure of artistic works in AI art training models, ownership and rights of AI art derivatives, and fair compensation. Results show that a majority of artists believe creators should disclose what art is being used in AI training, that AI outputs should not belong to model creators, and express concerns about AI's impact on the art workforce and who profits from their art. We hope the results of this work will further meaningful collaboration and alignment between the art community and Generative AI researchers and developers.
Read more5/16/2024
🤖
0
Prompting the E-Brushes: Users as Authors in Generative AI
Yiyang Mei
Since its introduction in 2022, Generative AI has significantly impacted the art world, from winning state art fairs to creating complex videos from simple prompts. Amid this renaissance, a pivotal issue emerges: should users of Generative AI be recognized as authors eligible for copyright protection? The Copyright Office, in its March 2023 Guidance, argues against this notion. By comparing the prompts to clients' instructions for commissioned art, the Office denies users authorship due to their limited role in the creative process. This Article challenges this viewpoint and advocates for the recognition of Generative AI users who incorporate these tools into their creative endeavors. It argues that the current policy fails to consider the intricate and dynamic interaction between Generative AI users and the models, where users actively influence the output through a process of adjustment, refinement, selection, and arrangement. Rather than dismissing the contributions generated by AI, this Article suggests a simplified and streamlined registration process that acknowledges the role of AI in creation. This approach not only aligns with the constitutional goal of promoting the progress of science and useful arts but also encourages public engagement in the creative process, which contributes to the pool of training data for AI. Moreover, it advocates for a flexible framework that evolves alongside technological advancements while ensuring safety and public interest. In conclusion, by examining text-to-image generators and addressing misconceptions about Generative AI and user interaction, this Article calls for a regulatory framework that adapts to technological developments and safeguards public interests
Read more6/19/2024