​

​

AI as a watershed moment for artistic spheres.

Ethical & Legal quandaries that may be addressed by

the Enactment of Polina Prianykova’s Scientific & Academic Doctrines on AI:

Adoption of AI Constitution,

Implementation of AI into the Worldwide Legislation

and Establishment of  State Monopoly on AI

​

​

Multifarious occupations pertaining to the art domain have been engraved into the pages of the world’s perennial history, seeming unshakable and inviolable. Howbeit, Artificial Intelligence (henceforth referred to as ‘Artificial Intelligence’ or ‘AI’) of the latest generation has the potential to subvert the conventional paradigm stated afore and possesses a sui generis nature that sparks questions even among the elaborators thereof. While the relevant worldwide legislation on Artificial Intelligence has not been developed and enacted yet, myriads of professions are already jeopardized, particularly in terms of the stability, safety and demand of the artistic vocations this academic article is devoted thereto.

​

Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, AI, AI regulation, AI legislation, artistic professions, labour law, labour rights, civil law, civil rights, civil liability, intellectual property rights, state AI, AI Constitution, Polina Prianykova’s Scientific and Academic Doctrines on AI.

​

Formulation of the relevance of this academic paper. 

​

In compliance with the ‘Future of Jobs Report 2023’ the data thereof has been recently compiled by the World Economic Forum, ‘more than 75% of companies are looking to adopt these technologies [big data, cloud computing and Artificial Intelligence] in the next five years.’ [1] Furthermore, being cognizant of the fact that the deployment of power storage technology, distributed ledger technologies and robots (which, in their turn, may represent Artificial Intelligence innovations in certain cases) rank lower on the list, we may presume that the expansion of AI in the virtual spheres may become burgeoning and even rampant in the next five years.

​

Unequivocally, newly found modern realities are highly likely to entail the creation of occupations as well as considerable destruction effects may be anticipated. As it is stated ‘technological advancement through increased adoption of new and frontier technologies and increased digital access are expected to drive job growth in more than half of surveyed companies, offset by expected job displacement in one-fifth of companies.’[1] And, while the three put forward main factors that may lead to net job destruction are  ‘slower economic growth, supply shortages and the rising cost of inputs, and the rising cost of living for consumers,’ the adoption of innovative technological products is claimed to remain a critical determinant in business transformation in the next five years; and these considerable alterations in business may be phantasmagorically divergent.

​

The organizations that have taken part in this comprehensive survey expressed polarized opinions pertaining to the situation in the labour market: while 50% of organizations expect AI to create job growth, 25% of respondents expect AI to create job losses. A pivotal aspect we have also given unparalleled attention to in our previous academic articles in particular lies in fairly humane traits forefront technologies have commenced acquiring – ‘reasoning, communicating and coordinating’ – that are supposed to be ‘more automatable’ later on [1, 2, 3]. 

​

Considerable changes that may overtake the skills of jobholders have also undergone certain changes. While, in accordance with the aforementioned report, analytical thinking, as well as creativity, remain of paramount importance for workers this year, a specific detail that may be recognized by virtue of major tacit implications of the deployment of novel technologies is an increasing role of curiosity and life-long learning. These features have been stipulated in terms of the critical role of the workers’ ability ‘to adapt to disrupted workplaces.’ Thus, the inference can be drawn that the acute issue lies not in the general significance of these features, but in the critical need for such traits that was indicated by the unregulated and unmitigated job recession – the rectification of such a predicament attests to the pertinence of this academic work as well as solving the issue of creation of favorable conditions for the encapsulation and development of artistic professions in the era of AI that, alas, have not been given due consideration yet. 

 

What is more, six in ten workers are presumed to require training before 2027, but only 50% of workers are claimed to seem to have access to respective training opportunities these days – this fact allows us to corroborate the notion that immediate governmental support with ‘a granular approach’ applied is intrinsically vital nowadays with an aim to encourage businesses to incorporate novel training programs for their employees as well as to establish well-defined borders for the percentage of the workforce that may be automated and an adamantine number that may be not – specifically this notion is one of the constituents of Polina Prianykova’s Scientific and Academic Doctrines in the sphere of labour law and labour relations: adoption of AI Constitution, implementation of AI into the worldwide legislation, and establishment of the state monopoly on AI.

 

Primary segment of the research paper. 

​

Mass deployment of AI has a certain tendency to be argued by an increased level of efficiency provided, however, scrutinizing this thesis, it is salient to point out the notion we share expressed by Gary Marcus, an emeritus professor of psychology and neural science at New York University and an AI entrepreneur himself, who highlighted that ‘Efficiency, to me, isn’t higher on the list of things to pursue than human flourishing.’ [4] 

​

At the same time, in a recent ‘New York Times’ interview, Dr. Hinton, who has also been referred to as ‘The Godfather of AI’ and who instrumentally contributed to the neural networks, seems to have reevaluated his perspective on the economic impact of AI in particular [5,6]. While in 2018 the scientist claimed that AI ‘will remain for the most part myopic in its understanding of the world’ and‘is not going to replace you’ in terms of employment, these days, in May 2023, the scholar voiced serious apprehensions concerning the job market, such as an upheaval of the job market, alleging that ‘it [AI] takes away the drudge work, it might take away more than that.’ Furthermore, a substantial numeral of 26 million – a number of job redundancies by 2027 in only Record-Keeping and Administrative roles which was predicted by surveyed organizations in the study of the ‘World Economic Forum’ – could be the tip of the iceberg the vessels of the global economy in concert with the global welfare may collide with [1].

    

And, while Dr. Hinton is assumed to no longer paraphrase the quote of “Robert Oppenheimer, who led the U.S. effort to build the atomic bomb: ‘When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it,”’  as well as he claims that the global regulation that may stop the global AI race is conceivably impossible to implement and the best hope may be laid on scientists to willingly control the technology [5], we do believe that the global regulation is feasible and the legislators together with non-indifferent individuals, may chart a new civilized course for AI.

 

Hence, we propose to delve into the subject of the potential avenues of approach pertaining to the protection of artistic vocations in terms of the novel trail for AI which may directly mold the sculpture of the future of human beings, our future.

​

Providing a respective outlook on the state of the global art market, which was dramatically impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, it has expanded as a whole despite particular volatility in the wider economy. Although, according to the recent Report prepared by ‘Art Basel’ & ‘UBS’, ‘a closer look, however, reveals a mixed picture: while the larger dealer segments grew, sales for the smallest dealers, and many parts of the auction market contracted,’ overall, the market was elevated even higher than it was in the pre-pandemic period in 2019 [7]. One of the paramount reasons for such robust growth has been identified as ‘the event-driven cycle of art fairs, gallery openings, and auctions resuming its customary rhythm.’ It is noteworthy to emphasize that in spite of the recognized pattern of reduction in e-commerce shares in 2022, ‘digital developments also continue to open up the market.’ However, a burning question for 2023 lies in the artworks of whose creation may be displayed, taking into account the sophistication with which AI is gaining momentum. 

​

One of the first major outbursts of backlash concerning AI-generated artworks happened in 2022 at the Colorado State Fair’s annual art competition, when an exhibit in the category of ‘digital art/digitally manipulated photography’ that was submitted under the name ‘Jason M. Allen via Midjourney’ took the first place [8]. Thus, it may be assumed that the creator openly stated the fact that the work was created together with novel technology. However, a wave of alarmism and debate sparked on social media when more people became aware of the innovation standing behind ‘Midjourney.’ As a result, individuals relatively divided into two camps – those who were claiming that it was a real calamity for artistic endeavors and those who supported Jason, claiming that such work may be compared with other pieces elaborated by virtue of other digital image-manipulation tools which still do require imagination to generate award-winning prompts. The spokeswoman and the organizers didn’t express certain controversy pertaining to the results as the category’s rules allow any ‘artistic practice that uses digital technology as part of the creative or presentation process’ as well as, although the judges were not aware of the fact that ‘Midjourney’ was an AI program, still elaborated on that they would not have changed their decision even if they had known about the usage of AI [8].

​

The polarizing legal and ethical aspect in this cluster of relations lies in the quandary concerning the degree of uniqueness of AI-generated artworks. 

​

Having been claimed to generate these pieces from the vast analysis of images from an open web, particular AI programs were already blamed for having been ‘explicitly trained on current working artists’ as well as accused by a visual media company Getty Images (US), Inc. for the use of its stock photos [8,9].

​

The last issue pertains to the case where the Defendant represents Stability AI, Inc., claiming to have perpetrated a ‘brazen infringement of Getty Images’ intellectual property on a staggering scale’ [9]. 

​

In provision 8 of the Nature of Action, the Plaintiff states the following: ‘Rather than attempt to negotiate a license with Getty Images for the use of its content, and even though the terms of use of Getty Images’ websites expressly prohibit unauthorized reproduction of content for commercial purposes such as those undertaken by Stability AI, Stability AI has copied at least 12 million copyrighted images from Getty Images’ websites, along with associated text and metadata, in order to train its Stable Diffusion model’.

​

The Claim has been alleged under ‘the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §101 et seq., the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq., and Delaware trademark and unfair competition laws to bring an end to Stability AI’s blatantly infringing conduct and obtain redress for Stability AI’s callous disregard for its intellectual property rights’ [9].

Another case of a similar nature in terms of copyright infringement on behalf of AI image generators that have been called ‘21st-century collage tools that violate the rights of millions of artists’ is a consolidated litigation put forth by a group of artists in January 2023 [10]. Indicatively, the Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit on behalf of the ‘Class’ which may presume a broader group of individuals rather than only the individuals who are similarly situated to the name ‘Plaintiff.’

​

The Defendants represented in the Claim have been accused of ‘direct and vicarious copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501; violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201–1205 (the “DMCA”); violation of Plaintiffs’ statutory and common law rights of publicity, Cal. Civ. Code section 3344; violation of Unfair Competition law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.; and declaratory relief.’

​

The Plaintiffs, in their turn, ‘seek to end this blatant and enormous infringement of their rights before their professions are eliminated by a computer program powered entirely by their hard work.’

​

On behalf of one of the Defendants stated in the Claim, Stability AI Ltd. and its parent company, Stability AI, Inc. stated to ‘respectfully request that this Court grant their motion to dismiss’, one of the arguments thereof pertained to the notion that ‘Plaintiffs’ claims fail on the pleadings’ [11].

​

As the technologies started burgeoning exponentially since the beginning of 2023, we may presume that claims regarding the controversy the claimants provided insights thereinto are within the realm of possibility in the near term.

​

Furthermore, computer science professor Ben Zhao stated that ‘artists are afraid of posting new art’ and that novel AI technology ‘shuts down their business model’ [12]. That is one of the rationales why the professor with a team of researchers at the University of Chicago elaborated a tool called ‘Glaze’ that aims to thwart AI models from acquiring the artist’s style. 

​

One of the artists that supported the idea to start using the aforementioned application has already experienced a dilemma when his artwork style has been presumably used for AI training. This aspect was iterated by the fact that the name of the artist – Greg Rutkowski – became shorthand whenever the users wanted to generate dreamy and fanciful images in his distinctive style. As an adverse repercussion for an artist, despite a supposition that the name of the creator may be popularized worldwide by its multiple usages in prompts, after a month of his name’s growing popularity, Mr. Rutkowski gave the following comment: ‘What about in a year? I probably won’t be able to find my work out there because [the internet] will be flooded with AI art. That’s concerning’ [13]. And, although in November 2022, when a new version of ‘Stable Diffusion’ was released, the company’s chief executive Emad Mostaque noted that ‘the prompt “Greg Rutkowski” no longer worked to get images in his style, nevertheless, we may assume the fact that such an approach to the screening of possible training data is point-like and may scarcely be applied globally, however, its precedential character should not be neglected.

 

It is also salient to shed light on the possibility of establishing copyright for AI-created artworks. 

​

This issue has already been acknowledged by the case we will call ‘Zarya of the Dawn’ – the title of the comic book consisting of eighteen pages, one of which is a cover [14]. The creator of this work is Kristina Kashtanova, from the U.S., who used ‘Midjourney’ as an ‘assistive tool’ in the words of her attorney, Mr. Van Lindberg. Notwithstanding the fact that the advocate stated that ‘portions of the work are registrable because the text was authored by Ms. Kashtanova and the Work is a copyrightable compilation due to her creative selection, coordination, and arrangement of the text and images,’ Ms. Kashtanova has been entitled to a copyright for the ‘text as well as the selection, coordination, and arrangement of the Work’s written and visual elements’ by the United States Copyright Office. Withal, ‘images in the Work that were generated by the Midjourney technology are not the product of human authorship.’  

​

Hence, although in this case the claimant provided information that the Supreme Court says that authorship ‘involves originating, making, producing, as the inventive or master mind, the thing which is to be protected,’ and ‘the author is the [person] who really represents, creates, or gives effect to the idea, fancy, or imagination,’ Ms. Kashtanova obtained a ‘more limited registration.’ An additional clinching point for such a decision that was asserted by the United States Copyright Office was the following: ‘the fact that Midjourney’s specific output cannot be predicted by users makes Midjourney different for copyright purposes than other tools used by artists.’

​

Perhaps, this case may become a cornerstone or a prerequisite for further discussions on the protection of AI-generated works. On behalf of ‘Midjourney’, its general counsel Max Sills commented on the decision as ‘a great victory for Kris, Midjourney, and artists.’ What is more, the United States Copyright Office is ‘clearly saying that if an artist exerts creative control over an image generating tool like Midjourney…the output is protectable.’ [15]

 

It is also noteworthy to mention the point of one of the winners of the Colorado State Fair’s annual art competition – Jason M. Allen, whose renowned artwork created in concert with ‘Midjourney’ sparked debates on social media. In March 2023, Mr. Allen published a so-called ‘C.O.V.E.R. Protest Statement: Protecting the Expressive Rights of AI-Assisted Artists.’ In his opinion, ‘the refusal of the United States Copyright Office (USCO) to register copyright for AI-generated art is a discriminatory and unjust practice that undermines the creative expression and financial opportunities for those in the AI art community.’ [16] 

​

In order to show the protest, the applicants express the idea for the AI artist Community to watermark images with the acronym ‘COVER’, which stands for ‘Copyright Obstruction Violates Expressive Rights.’

​

What is more, a novel notion expressed by Mr. Allen lies in ‘equal protection of artist under the law’ which is ‘regardless of the tools used’ for their artworks. Thus, by acknowledging that AI-created works are ‘the fruits of the intellectual labor’ that are conventionally protected under the copyright law, AI artists may ensure the safety of ‘their creative input in the form of prompts or other instructions that guide the AI system to produce original artwork.’

​

Among the possible economic implications, Mr. Allen outlines that ‘AI-generated art, like other forms of art, has the potential to generate income for the artists who create it. By denying copyright protection, the USCO is hindering the ability of artists to benefit from their work, and potentially stifling innovation in the field of AI-assisted art’. The notion he encapsulated is significant to take into consideration, but the images each sophisticated AI system has been trained on arise a substantial number of questions about whether the content of humane creators is recognizable as well as the rights to the intellectual property of the companies-developers of AI technologies themselves. Hence, legal quandaries become more explicit and intensify, leading to increased dissatisfaction with the perceived injustice.

​

Enlightening the subject of intellectual property rights, it is noteworthy to mention the fact that the Modelling industry is also undergoing a sea change these days and gaining novel forms in Metaverses. An evocative case study may be represented by a ‘VOGUE Business’ article stating that a supermodel Eva Herzigová ‘has participated in an elaborate process to digitise her likeness and movements, allowing her to extend her career and appear in never-before-possible projects.’ [17] The venture was brought to life with virtual production studio ‘Dimension Studios’ and the agency ‘Unsigned Group’ and, unequivocally, Eva Herzigová who described the process that felt like ‘giving birth to herself.’

​

This ‘metahuman’ format may open the doors of opportunities for the developers and creators to style the model in advertising campaigns as well as various projects. The project is one of a kind for its creators, however, the studio plans ‘to develop a new digital roster of personalities,’ according to its co-founder and co-CEO Simon Windsor. The agency plans to charge commissions for the avatar’s application ‘based on joint intellectual property between Herzigová, Unsigned and Dimension.’

​

Nonetheless, the navigation of considerations appertaining to the usage of such advanced avatars based on the images of real human beings is a particularly vexed question owing to the fact that the ethical issues are substantial and not given respective considerations thereto. For instance, if an unscrupulous individual decides to deploy a virtual avatar of a real person into an undignified or reputation-undermining environment, the image of this person as well as the ‘metahuman’ has to be protected while a perpetrator would have to be liable for these actions. 

​

Since ad-hoc legislation the heart thereof is an AI Constitution encapsulated within Polina Prianykova’s Scientific and Academic Doctrines on AI has not been enacted yet, the aggrieved party may have an opportunity to exercise the right to pursue legal action, seek injunctive relief as well as file a complaint with regulatory authorities in particular. However, as the legal lacunas and, hence, certain ambiguity arises when it comes to cutting-edge innovative tools, it may be highly likely that such incidents would be particular ‘black boxes’ for the legislators as well as the representatives of the government globally. In order to ensure the compliance of law decisions with the fundamental human rights and freedoms, the legal sphere has to undergo significant changes likewise.

​

Due to the imminent pitfalls mentioned afore, some brands are claimed ‘to have intentionally created fictional personalities to inhabit ad campaigns and projects, because it can be more creative (and controllable) than hiring human personalities.’ Withal, ‘Unsigned’ CEO Gavin Myall gives a counterargument to this tendency, stating that ‘it’s interesting to create another stream of what we do and challenge ourselves with talent representation in this new world.’

 

The element in this article that indicatively sparked our attention relates to the perception the supermodel shared: ‘I would imagine that eventually, I will — she [Eva’s ‘metahuman’ twin] will – kind of create her own persona. Maybe if it lives within a [digital] universe with a persona, I can accept that and she can exist there,’ – that was Eva Herzigová’s response to the perplexing idea that her avatar may be controlled by someone else. And that is ‘her own persona’ that draws our interest and raises even more complex issues on ‘metahumans’ gaining sanity with the implementation of AI technology.

 

POTENTIAL COURSES OF ACTION

 

– Permanent injunctive relief for the creator’s works and compensation. When the infringement of an artist’s rights occurs, presuming the non-consensual use of an individual’s works of art, it is essential to obtain a permanent injunction to preserve the integrity of the artist’s works. Ergo, in order to safeguard the creator’s intellectual property rights and guarantee their ongoing capacity to manage and profit from their creations, permanent injunctive relief, which lies in requesting a court an order to prevent the AI systems or anyone else from using the artist’s works in that way again, as well as the compensation for the potential damage to the artist’s reputation, harm to their future income potential, or distort of the original meaning or intent of their work are significant.

​

Such a measure is aimed at sending a strong message to potential infringers, including those utilizing AI training systems unscrupulously, that the unauthorized and non-consensual use of an artist’s work will not be tolerated, and there will be repercussions for those who engage in such practices.

 

– Training AI systems strictly by a well-defined source of data. This crucial step may help to prevent potential legal issues and disputes between creators and developers of AI tools. 

As the generations of the future, we may encapsulate the notion that art in its primeval state has been complimented by brand new forms where there is a place for AI art. However, only with the respective regulation and civilized protection of the rights of artists – both, humane and non-humane. 

    

Jeanne Fromer, a professor of intellectual property law at New York University, compared the way AI learns how to create art with the way humans do [12]. Humans, according to the professor are ‘often copying things and they’re consuming lots of existing artwork and learning patterns and pieces of the style and then creating new artwork. And so at a certain level of abstraction, you could say machines are learning to make art the same way.’ At the same time, the professor outlined that copyright law itself is aimed at defending and fostering human ingenuity and if we are not indifferent to protecting the profession or marking art as a vital element for our society, ‘we might want to be protective of artists.’ 

 

In this matter, it is resolute to emphasize that, only by protecting the creators we may lay a sustainable groundwork to protect possible unique creations on behalf of AI in the long term as well.

​

Hence, since the open sources (AI systems may be trained on) possess a broader scope and raise controversy, an accord is salient to be reached between the creators of the visual content and the developers of AI tools which demand respective training.

 

– Official consent of the creators for using their artworks for AI training.

By entering into an agreement with AI-developing companies, creators may voluntarily come to an agreement in their favor with the aforementioned party.

 

Possible interests of the creators to cooperate with these companies may lie in:

• certain funding for the artists for the deployment of their pieces into the training process: it can be a one-time payout or the disbursement of funds depending on the number of prompts where the users selected the artist’s distinctive style etc.;

• promotion of their image; creators may also express their wish to cooperate in order to become some kind of a Coach or an AI trainer in the art realm.

    

By formalizing an agreement through a contract, AI-developing companies, in their turn, may prevent legal conflicts and make sure that they are complying with the regulations of copyright law.

    

– By forming verified databases AI systems may be trained on, we shape the future for unique AI creations that may be protected under the copyright law, incorporating the term of ‘electronic personhood’ into the global legislation as well as including the most advanced AI tools into potential actors in this legal relation in particular [18]. Emergent properties of AI having been trained on a large scale of data pose a real mystery for its developers [19]. Withal, by establishing proper legal and ethical red lines and ensuring that the technology functions in a civilized way, it may be anticipated that AI would have to be protected in a centralized way as well, endowing it with certain rights, including the right to the results of its work, inter alia creative endeavors.

 

– Urgent adoption of an AI Constitution that would establish a resilient and robust fundament for the protection of human beings as well as sophisticated innovations under the state monopoly on AI prescribed by Polina Prianykova’s Scientific and Academic Doctrines. At the moment, the power to release something novel is claimed to be substantial with the companies [4]. This tendency has to be altered and centrally supervised.

 

Synthesizing the findings and discussions presented, it can be deduced that the radical transformations the artistic domain is facing these days are the only beginning of the initially materialized repercussions of the 4th Industrial Revolution which is critically divergent in its scale and character and takes away an indispensable element of the equation for the formation of a professional – time. 

​

Our current state of affairs where AI has already started taking people’s jobs and has not been tamed as the fire that may give the light and warmth is concerning; AI’s nature when being unregulated is becoming feral and has a full potential to get its triumph in performing basic tasks in miscellaneous spheres of human work. As the ‘evaluation of work experience’ has been claimed to be a near-universal priority for companies to assess the skills of employees when hiring [1], an intrinsic interconnection with the fact that novice workers may not have an opportunity to gain beginner’s experience in any sphere becomes more and more conspicuous. Meanwhile, real professionals may presumably ‘stay afloat’, but it is still a matter of time before it may become virtually impossible for the majority of individuals to compete with various AI systems that may also develop jeopardizing and mercurial features due to the fact that the ethical principles therefor have not been enacted worldwide.

​

What is more, the quandary of possible repercussions lies in the perplexity to count the global number of artists itself in miscellaneous spheres as these vocations are creative, resourceful and imaginative and there are many hidden talents that may start germinating at any age. Nonetheless, in view of the state of affairs when AI is being unmanaged, it jeopardizes the enabling environment for the progress in human-friendly artistic sphere – starting from the discovery of talents and inspiration to cultivate this gift and continuing this life journey by sharing this aptitude with others and supporting the family financially. 

​

Withal, in an effort to stay on par with AI, people may start involuntarily alienating from art for the reason that this sphere may become less lucrative and sought-after; people advance their intelligence and gain experience in a drastically different way in comparison with AI and an eclipse of humane ability to create may not lead to healthy competition as it runs counter to the ideas immortalized for centuries in this realm – while AI systems may be excellence-driven,  the notion that is noteworthy to elucidate was expressed by a prominent artist and inventor Leonardo da Vinci: ‘art is never finished, only abandoned’ [20]. 

​

Curiosity, life-long learning, critical thinking, the ability to think outside the box, compassion, humanness – all these aspects the list thereof is not exhaustive have been encapsulated in the Cradle of Humankind’s Morality and View to Life, Vision of history as well as the maintained bond therewith – Art.

​

Hence, we put forth our viewpoint regarding an urgent requisite for the government to become more resolute in the provision and implementation of relevant AI legislation which has to be initiated in a centralized fashion – by the AI Constitution, which will serve as the ground and specific pillar for the essential changes in the worldwide legislation, introduction of a system of state AI and monopoly thereon: this will enable the government to exercise control and supervision over the legality of AI usage.