GLOBAL REVISION

          In the rapidly evolving field of computer science, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged with generative art programs like Midjourney, Dall-e, and Stable Diffusion. These programs can outshine the artistic capabilities of human creators when creating digital art. The resulting ethical implications of AI-generated art have become a hot topic because they raise questions about how existing intellectual property laws should be applied when human and machine authorship is blurred. The ethical problems of AI art are portrayed in many conflicting ways by both news and general discourse. This analysis will investigate two recently published artifacts to show how AI art's ethical issues are represented by exploring how rhetorical strategies shape the representation of these issues. 

          One noteworthy media artifact contributing to this discourse is Wired's online article “Why This Award-Winning Piece of AI Art Can’t Be Copyrighted” by Kate Knibbs. This artifact centers around Matthew Allen's Théâtre D’opéra Spatial, an AI-generated masterpiece that won first place at a state fair. The article underscores the challenges artists face when navigating the current legal hurdles. Knibbs employs pathos to convince readers that AI-generated art should be copyrightable. Knibbs uses Allen's artwork to demonstrate the requirements of human authorship for US copyright. The author posted the Théâtre D’opéra Spatial artwork as its central image in the article. This image, which is an impressive and visually appealing piece of art, is large and the first thing the reader sees. The footnote of the image indicates that Knibbs is posting the image in the article because lawmakers decided it could not be copyrighted because it is the result of an AI-generative program. Therefore, it is considered public domain art available for anyone to use without restrictions. While the article appears informative, the author attempts to persuade the readers to believe AI art should be copyrightable solely to the artist and omit AI as a factor that goes against current criteria. 

          On a different note, the second artifact,  the video “AI Art Copyright Law EXPLAINED (Midjourney + SD),” by Samson Vowles, adopts an informative approach. Vowles uses ethos and logos in his video to educate viewers on working within current copyright laws while advocating for updated criteria that consider new technology. The video creator highlights that the authorship put into AI art is valuable; however, he suggests to the audience that artists should meet the current specifications for their art to be copyrightable (Vowles). The video also focuses on the legal hurdles of cases such as the comic book "Zarya of the Dawn, " illustrated with AI-generated art. The courts ruled that the included art itself could not be copyrighted, but the composition of the pieces of art within the story could be copyrighted as a whole, as they had human authorship. Therefore, the work was copyrighted as a completed comic book with AI-generated art, but the pictures individually were not protected. Vowles advocates for artists to follow current copyright regulations. He also called for updated criteria that acknowledge new technological realities. This video caters to an audience that is well-versed in the professional digital art industry and is using AI as a tool for creative expression.

          With this in mind, the Wired article relies on pathos as it tries to humanize the artist and make the audience empathize with how much work he put into the art piece, which he is not allowed to own. The author further attempts to elicit concern from the reader by discussing the obstacles and unfairness of going through a time-consuming process of using imagination and intelligence to create all the correct inputs and multiple trials to get the desired outcome. The article highlights the impact of AI copyright issues, focusing on how it can negatively impact artistic freedom and an artist’s financial livelihood. The author further attempts to motivate action against lawmakers denying copyright approvals. 

          Conversely, the YouTube video takes a different approach in its rhetorical strategies. Vowles implements ethos as the speaker relies on many sources for his explanations. By citing specific cases, such as the AI-generated comic book "Zarya of the Dawn," he establishes credibility and expertise in his field. Additionally, Vowles uses logos as he explains the implications the court’s decisions may have on current and future artists who utilize AI. Through logical reasoning, he guides the audience in understanding the complexities of AI copyright law and how it intersects with human authorship.

          Moreover, the Wired article is written somewhat formally and uses language that paints the artist as a victim of the court’s decision by saying things such as, “Allen was dogged in his attempt to register his work” (Knibbs). The use of the word dogged creates an impression that the artist faced an onslaught of challenges and obstacles that he had to overcome to protect his intellectual creation. The video, on the other hand, is presented factually. It attempts to help people avoid complicated copyright issues. Vowles takes an informative approach by laying out the current laws and how the courts interpret them. He then goes further in-depth by explaining how artists can use the court rulings and existing regulations to benefit them in their attempt to copyright their own AI art. 

          Furthermore, both artifacts are very straightforward with their information. There is little nuance, and both articles’ messages are explicit. Knibbs’ article developed her argument by creating an emotional buildup that leaves the reader feeling that artistic rights are being stripped from artists. The video, however, starts and ends as an informational approach and an “it is what it is” mentality with advice on overcoming the hurdles of AI copyright laws. The video artifact engages its audience because it comes across as unbiased while also trying to help artists navigate the specific challenges of AI copyright.

          Whereas the written article merely displays the image of the artwork, the video contains visuals that help convey the message throughout. The video goes even further by showing images of the references that Vowles quotes. It offers an example of an AI art piece being customized by the artist’s inputs and a piece of AI art being edited in Photoshop (Vowles). The video is more effective than the written article because it uses nonbiased, credible, and factual sources while maintaining an informal tone. The effect of watching the video created a more immersive experience that allowed the audience to contemplate and accept what was being stated. While shorter and more easily consumed, the emotional component of the written article would be a red flag for any intelligent reader aware of the media’s tactics to elicit an emotional response. The article also could have given more attention to the other side of the argument.

          By exploring the rhetorical strategies used by Knibbs, it is clear that an emotional appeal is a powerful tool in shaping public opinion. However, it is important to decide whether an emotional narrative may overlook certain aspects in the evolving field of AI art. The emotional tone, while effective in gaining empathy, may overshadow the need for balanced perspectives that acknowledge both the potential benefits as well as the downsides of integrating AI-generative programs into the creative process.

          Alternatively,  the rhetorical strategies used by Vowles, with its reliance on ethos and pathos, bring a more measured and reasonable approach to the discussion. By citing specific cases and providing a clear breakdown of the legal landscape, Vowles engages viewers in a rational explanation of the challenges and opportunities created by AI-generated art programs. Because of this strategy, the video can sometimes be dull and less engaging than Knibbs' article. Adding a layer of human connection to his video could increase engagement and allow the video to feel less like an analytical presentation.

          Overall, each artifact successfully achieves the goal of audience engagement. Both use distinct rhetorical strategies to shape public opinion on the ethical dilemmas of AI-generative programs. The Wired article appeals to emotions, emphasizing the human aspect, while the YouTube video focuses on credibility and information delivery to a more informed audience. Analyzing these artifacts gives valuable insight into how different rhetorical strategies are successfully used to shape public opinion regarding the ethical aspects of AI-generated art copyright laws.

Work Cited:

Knibbs, Kate. “Why This Award-Winning Piece of Ai Art Can’t Be Copyrighted.” Wired, Conde  Nast, 6 Sept. 2023, www.wired.com/story/ai-art-copyright-matthew-allen/.

Vowles, Samson. “AI Art Copyright Law Explained (Midjourney + SD).” YouTube, YouTube, 7  June 2023, www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyZXxLO7rSI.