ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF AI GENERATED ART
Abstract
Purpose: The study sought to explore the ethical, legal, and professional implications of AI-generated artwork, using the cases of Théâtre D’opéra Spatial and Portrait of Edmond de Belamy as key examples.
Methodology: The study adopted a qualitative review approach, analyzing literature from academic, legal, and professional sources. Scholarly perspectives on perception, attribution, copyright, and bias in AI-generated art were examined. The research also considered how cultural background and artistic expertise influence the acceptance of AI-generated artwork, while identifying gaps in current regulatory and ethical frameworks.
Results: Findings indicate that AI-generated art challenges conventional ideas of originality, fairness, and creative labor. Public and expert perceptions vary, with non-experts showing less bias against AI art. However, concerns persist regarding transparency, job displacement, bias, and the devaluation of human-made art. Legal ambiguities around authorship and copyright further complicate the acceptance of AI in the art world.
Unique Contribution to Theory, Policy and Practice: This study highlights the need for ethical guidelines, legal reforms, and professional standards to govern the use of AI in creative industries. It advocates for separate recognition categories for AI-generated art, transparency in creation processes, and protections for human artists. These measures are essential for fostering a balanced and ethically responsible artistic environment that integrates technological advancement with human creativity.
Keywords: AI ethics, Art ownership, Creative rights, AI-generated art
References
Chamberlain, R., Mullin, C., Scheerlinck, B., & Wagemans, J. (2018). Putting the art in artificial: Aesthetic responses to computer-generated art. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12(2), 177.
Conway, P., & Gawronski, B. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: a process dissociation approach. Journal of personality and social psychology, 104(2), 216.
Epstein, Z., Levine, S., Rand, D. G., & Rahwan, I. (2020). Who gets credit for AI-generated art?. Iscience, 23(9).
Felländer, A., Rebane, J., Larsson, S., Wiggberg, M., & Heintz, F. (2022). Achieving a data-driven risk assessment methodology for ethical AI. Digital Society, 1(2), 13.
Gangadharbatla, H. (2022). The role of AI attribution knowledge in the evaluation of artwork. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 40(2), 125-142.
Gu, L., & Li, Y. (2022). Who made the paintings: Artists or artificial intelligence? The effects of identity on liking and purchase intention. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 941163.
Greene, J. D., Morelli, S. A., Lowenberg, K., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2008). Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition, 107(3), 1144-1154.
Hammond, P. J. (1988). Consequentialist foundations for expected utility. Theory and decision, 25, 25-78.
Kenig, N., Echeverria, J. M., & Vives, A. M. (2023). Human beauty according to artificial intelligence. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery–Global Open, 11(7), e5153.
Liang, C., Wu, X., Hua, Y., Zhang, J., Xue, Y., Song, T., ... & Guan, H. (2023). Adversarial example does good: Preventing painting imitation from diffusion models via adversarial examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04578.
Mittelstadt, B. (2019). Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nature machine intelligence, 1(11), 501-507.
Zheng, X., Bassir, D., Yang, Y., & Zhou, Z. (2022). Intelligent art: the fusion growth of artificial intelligence in art and design. International Journal for Simulation and Multidisciplinary Design Optimization, 13, 24.
Zhou, K. Q., & Nabus, H. (2023). The ethical implications of DALL-E: Opportunities and challenges. Mesopotamian Journal of Computer Science, 2023, 17-23.
