More than 5,600 artists signed an open letter protesting the auction, saying that the works used AI models that are trained on copyrighted work.
A representative for Christie’s shared a statement about the issue. “From the beginning, two things have been true about the art world: one, artists are inspired by what came before them, and two, art can spark debate, discussion, and controversy,” the statement reads. “The discussions around digital art, including art created using AI technology, are not new and in many ways should be expected. Many artists – Pop artists, for example – have been the subject of similar discussions. Having said that, Christie’s, a global company with world-class experts, is uniquely positioned to explore the relatively new and ever-changing space of digital art: the artists, collectors, market and challenges.”
This isn’t true. You should read the latest guidance by the United States Copyright Office.
The CO didn’t say AI generated works were copyrightable. In fact, the second part of the report very much affirmed their earlier decisions that AI generated content is necessarily not protected under copyright. What you are probably referring to is the discussion the Office presented about joint works style pieces–that is, where a human performed additional creative contributions to the AI generated material. In that case, the portions such that they were generated by the human contributor are protected under copyright as expected. Further, they made very clear that what constitutes creative contribution and thus gets coverage is determined on a case by case basis. None of this is all that surprising, nor does it refute the rule that AI generated material, having been authored by something other than a human, is not afforded any copyright protection whatsoever.
But they do, explicitly:
Yes, this is what I said. Situations where a work can conceivably considered co-authored by a human, those components get copyright. However, whether that activit constitutes contribution and how is demarcated across the work is a case by case basis. This doesn’t mean any inpainting at all renders the whole work copyright protected–it means that it could in cases where it is so granular and directly corresponds to human decision making that it’s effectively digital painting. This is probably a higher bar than most expect but, as is not atypical with copyright, is a largely case by case quantitative/adjudicated vibes-based determination.
The second situation you quoted is also standard and effectively stands for the fact that an ordered compilation of individually copyrighted works may itself have its own copyright in the work as a whole. This is not new and is common sense when you consider the way large creative media projects work.
Also worth mentioning that none of this obviates the requirement that registrations reasonably identify and describe the AI generated components of the work (presumably to effectively disclaim those portions). It will be interesting to see a defense raised that the holder failed to do so and so committed a fraud on the Copyright Office and thus lost their copyright in the work as a whole (a possible penalty for committing fraud on the Office).
You’re moving the goalposts. Your original reply made no mention of co-authorship by a human, it was just one sweeping statement.