From the perspective of using AI, as an artist represented by an AMA member, here are the AI models that we find most acceptable for use based on the way those models were trained and therefore the comfort level we have in ensuring the work generated by those AI models is not inherently infringing on other artist's Copyright.

*This information is being provided for educational purposes. The AMA is not promoting these companies.

View more

As it currently stands, work created using AI alone cannot be copyrighted, thus the ability to license it to a commissioning party and receive usage fees for use of the work is difficult if not impossible. Additionally, no system exists to compensate artists for work that has been ingested by LLMs without consent.

• U.S. Copyright Office's Stance: The U.S. Copyright Office has explicitly stated that it will not register works generated solely by AI. They emphasize that copyright law protects only "original works of authorship" created by humans. 

• Lack of Human Authorship: The core issue is the absence of a human author in the creation process of AI-generated art. While AI can be used to generate images, the creative input and decision-making process is attributed to the AI, not a human.

• Public Domain: Consequently, AI-generated works without sufficient human input are considered to be in the public domain, meaning no one can claim copyright ownership.

Based on the current Administration’s AI Action Plan and the recent remarks by the President, we cannot foresee how these regulations may change but the Administration, in its attempt to push AI dominance, is in favor of de-regulation and does not appear to support artists’ right so our expectation is that any guardrails that may have been enacted to protect copyrighted materials and the ability for artists to obtain a copyright on newly created AI generated work with both be eliminated.

While federal and state regulations are murky, non-existent or changing, there are ways to protect artists' work, AI-generated or not, directly with clients. Parameters around modification by AI models or other technology to create new assets, consent before work is used by LLM and stipulations on fees and usage for any generated assets can be addressed in agreements.

New York’s Fashion Workers Act requires that agreements with models include specific language disclosing when and how AI will be used if the client intends to create a digital replica of the model.

If a Client asks for specificity around your and your artist’s use of AI, you can also consider asking the Client to specify how they use AI.

Do not be deterred from asking questions of your clients. We have found that clients tend to ask for more just to cover themselves. You can push back if requests feel too broad. Consider adding your own language to agreements and estimates.

One of the most common uses of AI in our industry is its integration into Photoshop. Adobe has powered its Creative Suite with more and more AI tools, as have other editing software companies, which means AI may be used for image and video editing without the knowledge or consent of all parties. In many instances, that will not be any cause for concern, but as contracts become more and more detailed around the use of AI, it is important to note and discuss with clients, photographers, retouchers, and editors so that all are aligned.

In an attempt to keep up with the constant changes in both technology and legal implications, we have compiled some frequently asked questions.

Read more