\n<\/p>\n
In 2022, James Allen filed a copyright application for an image titled \u201cTh\u00e9\u00e2tre D\u2019op\u00e9ra Spatial,\u201d or \u201cSpace Opera Theater.\u201d While the picture had the look of a detailed sci-fi painting, Allen had actually created it through painstaking experimentation in the AI image generator Midjourney;\u00a0he described using over 600 prompt variations to get the look he wanted. But the US Copyright Office wasn\u2019t impressed. In a series of decisions, Allen\u2019s work became one of the first copyright requests rejected specifically for using AI tools \u2014 and an example of how these tools are raising new copyright conundrums at virtually every turn.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Generative AI programs \u2014\u00a0particularly image generators like Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, and DALL-E \u2014 have raised fundamental questions about how far artists\u2019 rights to their work extend. Many are trained on huge datasets that include copyrighted works without artists\u2019 consent, and in the US, a series<\/a> of<\/a> lawsuits<\/a> could determine whether the applications fall under the framework of exceptions known as fair use. Meanwhile, the US Copyright Office holds that a computer program can\u2019t make copyright-protected art, frustrating people who see DALL-E or Stable Diffusion as tools akin to Photoshop.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Copyright exists to encourage the production of art, but copyright law also recognizes that most art draws on work that came before it \u2014 that\u2019s why exceptions like fair use exist. There\u2019s a constant balancing act in play, and when a new technology appears, it can require renegotiating that balance. Where will it fall in the case of AI? So far, nobody knows for sure.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n