Does training AI on artwork without consent of the artist breach copyright?
Yes... But in that case, maybe I do too?
How does AI use images and artwork?
This isn't going to be a technical explanation so we can get to the point. AI is trained with information so it can then manipulate that to create it's own output. For images, this 'training data' takes the form of images along with text explanations of what the image is. This training data can be basically anything, photographs, artworks, stills from movies.
To train, noise is added to the images over and over again until you basically can't see anything of the original image. The AI is trained to reverse the process.
Imaging taking a car and pulling parts off it until you just have a big pile of components. The AI is then learning how to put it back together to get the original car back. Now imagine you take millions of cars and pull them apart into a huge pile of components. Now the AI has the ability to create almost any car, or car like object.
How does AI generate images?
The AI now knows how to convert the random noise into images, based on the text. Lets say you asked for a "picture of a fox in the snow". The AI knows what snow looks like, what a fox looks like etc and will reverse the random noise to create snow like and fox like patterns.
Let's go back to our car analogy. The AI has an enormous pile of components so with a request like "A yellow car with 6 doors and one seat"... as car's go, that would be pretty odd. However from the huge pile of components, you can imagine it would be pretty easy to produce.
can AI re-produce an artwork it was trained on?
Technically, yes... but realistically, not a chance. Imagine you pulled apart 1 million different cars and had to make a specific car perfectly. A single car can be broken down to around 25,000 components. Multiplied by 1 million cars and mix all the components together. 25,000,000,000 components, could you get the exact same parts to build one of the original cars again? Good luck with that.
If AI can't produce copyrighted images, where's the problem?
Here's the grey area where you have to apply morals where the laws haven't kept up with technology. By law there isn't a problem, "copyright" (super simply) is the right to copy someone's art, AI doesn't copy. It looks at the artwork and uses it as inspiration to create it's own art.
An interesting thought occurs when you boil this down. I have spent my life looking at photos and artworks. If I were to draw a picture, I am using inspiration from artworks I've seen. It's how humans learn things. I literally can't ignore the things I've seen. I don't have copyright on the art I've seen but it's perfectly acceptable for me to draw and that's not an issue.
Who owns the copyright on images generated by AI?
This will be based on the T&Cs of the AI. Can you copyright an image generated in Photoshop? By default the person using the tool owns the copyright but that can be overriden with T&Cs.
Conclusion
The intersection of AI and art is a tricky one. While AI doesn't outright copy artworks, it uses them as a springboard to create something new. It's a bit like how we, as humans, learn and get inspired. The lines between inspiration and infringement can get blurry. As tech keeps advancing, it's important to keep discussing the ethical and legal sides, making sure we respect both artists' rights and the cool stuff tech can do.