Licensing for AI that trains on copyrighted works is necessary to protect creative workers.

The Graphic Artists Guild position on AI generative technology is grounded on the fundamental rights of artists: credit for the work we do, our consent for the use of our work, and compensation for the tremendous value we bring. For our visual culture to continue to develop, the artists need to be respected and valued. These are individuals who have invested in their education and careers, who put up with harsh criticism and the risk of professional failure, and who have the tenacity and the drive to develop their craft and their careers. AI image generative technology would not be where it is today without having leveraged the labor of artists. They should be recognized, compensated, and protected.

The Guild’s position on generative AI is a live document that will be revised as the technology and policies developed around it evolve.

Last edited June 10, 2023

The use of imagery in datasets

The scraping of images into datasets for the purposes of machine learning generative technology does not fall under fair use and is a copyright infringement. The resulting technology does not constitute a transformative use of those works.

Artists should be compensated for the unremunerated use of their copyrighted works, used without permission or credit, in the datasets used for the development of AI generative technologies.

Any use of copyrighted works for the purposes of training artificial intelligence/ machine learning systems (AI/ML), used without the permission of the copyright holder either in writing or through express licensing, is a copyright infringement.

Legislation and policy on AI image generators

The primacy of human endeavor in the creation of original works must be recognized as the driving force in the development of culture. The creative professions and the ability of human creators to derive a livable income and prosper should be protected by policy decisions and legislation crafted to regulate the development of AI/ML generative technologies.

As AI/ML image generative technology advances, the Copyright Office should maintain the policy that only the elements of human authorship in AI/ML generated works are copyrightable. Works created solely via AI image generators, with no input of human-created artwork into the generative process, do not constitute works of human authorship.

Elements created by the human artist in the course of using an AI image generator may be copyrightable, such as original datasets, original scripts, and other original works created by the artist.

Congress should consider legislation providing for the remuneration of artists for the use of their works in datasets for machine learning via collective licensing. A collective licensing scheme would permit AI image generators to bulk license works of visual art to be used in datasets for machine learning. This would permit AI image generators to access datasets of new, highly valuable materials legally, while compensating participating artists from the revenues generated by their platforms.

The copyright management information, including embedded metadata, must be preserved in creative works. The development of licensing schemes for image datasets and procedures to protect artists from the unauthorized use of their works in AI generative platforms will most likely rely on metadata, and the removal of such will jeopardize works. Section 1202 of the Copyright Act prohibits the removal of copyright management information if it is knowingly done to induce or enable infringement. This carve-out has permitted online platforms, such as social media websites to routinely strip out the metadata of uploaded images. Section 1202 should be amended to prohibit the removal of copyright management information, including metadata, whether or not the removal was knowingly done to induce or enable infringement.