There is nothing new about the concept and creation of ‘artificial intelligence art’ or ‘generative art’. However, discussion of its legal and ethical or societal implications (both intended and unintended) hit the headlines last week.

     Boris Eldagsen refused his Sony World Photography Award 2023 prize in the creative open category on the basis that his entry was the product of artificial intelligence. Mr Eldagsen himself has sparked the latest debate by claiming that “AI is not photography” and that the rationale for entering the Awards with the work in question was “…to find out if the competitions are prepared for AI images to enter. They are not”.

     The reaction of the World Photography Organisation (running the Sony Awards) has been to acknowledge the need for an element of human involvement, which is the crux of the debate: “While elements of AI practices are relevant in artistic contexts of image-making, the Awards always have been and will continue to be a platform for championing the excellence and skill of photographers and artists working in this medium”.

     […]

     The conventional (and long assumed) approach has been to recognise the importance of the human hand to an artwork. The question then is: to what extent is the human creator or inputter the ‘artist’ as opposed to the generative system or is the system merely representing the human creator or inputter’s artistic idea? Flowing from that question is what that might then mean in terms of the ownership and value of such works. The debate looks set to continue in this particular context of imagery creation and reproduction coinciding with the increasing availability and use of consumer-grade AI image generation programmes, and the natural inclination of artists to continue to create.

Adapted from https://www.rosenblatt-law.co.uk/insight/generative-art-whats-real/