Kelly McKernan’s artistic prowess shines through in their acrylic and watercolor paintings, which captivate viewers with their boldness and vibrancy.
Their works often showcase feminine figures, brought to life with a striking palette of bright greens, blues, pinks, and purples.
McKernan describes their style as “surreal” and “ethereal,” exploring the intricacies and discomforts of the human journey.
However, amidst the challenges of making a living as a visual artist, the Nashville-based McKernan now faces an existential threat that originates from an unexpected source: artificial intelligence.
Over the past year, McKernan has noticed online images eerily reminiscent of their distinctive style, seemingly generated by entering their name into an AI engine.
This revelation has led McKernan to discover that companies are utilizing artwork to train image-generating AI systems, a development that once seemed like science fiction but now poses a significant danger to the livelihoods of artists worldwide.
In a recent interview, the artist expressed their discomfort with the unauthorized use of their name and work on Twitter.
Despite their efforts to communicate their concerns to the companies involved, they received no response.
The artist, with their vibrant blue-green hair reflecting the essence of their artwork, recounted their attempts to reach out to these companies, emphasizing their status as a lesser-known artist and kindly requesting that their work not be used in such a manner. However, their pleas fell on deaf ears, leaving them feeling unheard and disrespected.
As a result, the artist, along with two other fellow artists, has decided to take legal action against the creators of artificial intelligence tools that have the capacity to generate new images at will.
This lawsuit aims to safeguard their copyrights and protect their artistic careers from further infringement.
The outcome of the case remains pending as it awaits a decision from a federal judge in San Francisco. This judge, who has expressed some skepticism regarding whether artificial intelligence (AI) companies are infringing on copyrights when they analyze vast amounts of images and produce something different, holds the power to shape the resolution of this matter.
In the midst of this legal battle, McKernan, one of the individuals involved in the lawsuit, highlights the apparent inequality between themselves and the AI giants they are up against.
Describing their situation as a David versus Goliath scenario, McKernan emphasizes that someone is benefiting financially from their creative work, leaving them in a precarious position where they struggle to meet their financial obligations.
The desperation of their circumstances is underscored by the fact that their rent was due yesterday and they find themselves $200 short. Such circumstances, they argue, simply do not feel right.
This lawsuit, therefore, has the potential to set a precedent and provide an indication of the challenges that creators across various domains, such as actors, novelists, musicians, and computer programmers, may face when attempting to prevent AI developers from profiting off their original creations.
In January, a case was filed by McKernan, Karla Ortiz, and Sarah Andersen, prominent artists, on behalf of numerous others facing similar circumstances.
The defendants in this lawsuit are Stability AI, the renowned London-based creator of Stable Diffusion, a text-to-image generator, as well as Midjourney, another popular image-generator, and the widely used online gallery, DeviantArt.
The crux of the complaint revolves around the alleged infringement of the rights of countless artists, as the AI image-generators are accused of consuming vast collections of digital images and subsequently generating derivative works that directly compete with the original creations.
This legal action seeks to address the significant concerns and potential harm caused to the artistic community due to these practices.
The issue at hand revolves around the relationship between artists and artificial intelligence (AI), specifically in terms of exploitation and consent.
While the artists involved in this case do not inherently oppose the use of AI, they are adamant about not being taken advantage of by it.
To address this concern, they have taken legal action seeking class-action damages and a court order to prohibit companies from exploiting their artistic works without their explicit consent.
One of the companies implicated in this matter, Stability AI, has chosen not to comment on the situation. However, in a court filing, the company defended itself by stating that it generates “entirely new and unique images” based on simple word prompts, asserting that these images do not or only rarely resemble the images in the training data.
Stability AI maintains that its technology facilitates creation rather than infringing on copyright. On the other hand, both Midjourney and DeviantArt, two other companies involved in this case, have not responded to requests for comment via email.
The recent boom in the availability of image-generators can largely be attributed to the existence of a remarkable research database called the Large-scale Artificial Intelligence Open Network, or LAION, overseen by a dedicated schoolteacher residing in Hamburg, Germany.
This teacher, by the name of Christoph Schuhmann, has expressed no remorse regarding his involvement in this non-profit venture, which, it is worth noting, is not implicated in any legal proceedings and has largely evaded copyright disputes by merely compiling a comprehensive index of links to publicly accessible images, without actually storing the images themselves.
However, Schuhmann is empathetic to the concerns raised by artists and understands the reasons behind their apprehension.
During an interview, Schuhmann expressed the belief that in the coming years, the ability to generate various forms of content, including video, images, and text, will be within everyone’s reach.
This advancement in technology will be so sophisticated that it will become nearly impossible for humans to differentiate between AI-generated content and content produced by professionals.
This statement highlights the inevitability of this development, making it a crucial topic of discussion. In fact, this matter was at the center of a U.S. Senate hearing held in July.
Ben Brooks, the head of public policy for Stability AI, acknowledged that artists currently do not receive payment for their images due to the lack of an established arrangement.
This revelation prompted Hawaii Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono to inquire whether Ortiz, a witness present at the hearing, had ever been compensated by AI creators.
In a resolute and indignant tone, the talented concept artist and illustrator, Ortiz, hailing from the vibrant city of San Francisco, expressed her frustration at the lack of recognition, compensation, and acknowledgment she has received for her extensive body of work.
Her dismay was palpable as she revealed that her artistic contributions, encompassing both personal and commercial endeavors, have been utilized in a multitude of blockbuster films such as “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3,” “Loki,” “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story,” “Jurassic World,” and “Doctor Strange.” It is worth noting that in the latter, Ortiz played a pivotal role in designing the iconic costume of the enigmatic character, Doctor Strange.
Reflecting on the nature of her profession, Ortiz lamented that concept artists and illustrators are often overlooked, despite being the unsung heroes who lay the foundation for visual aesthetics in movies and games.
Serving as the vanguard in the creative process, they craft the initial visual representation, thereby providing a blueprint for the entire production to follow.
Despite their indispensable contributions, Ortiz emphasized that they are akin to the blue-collar workers within the art world, toiling diligently behind the scenes, yet seldom receiving the recognition and compensation they rightfully deserve.
The emergence of AI-generated images has sparked a fascinating debate surrounding their potential to rival the work of human artists.
This is not a mere hypothetical scenario, as numerous productions have already integrated AI imagery, leading to an exponential growth in this industry, almost overnight.
The impact has been profound, with artists witnessing their creations being utilized extensively, sometimes even millions of times, without their consent.
The implications are far-reaching, not only in terms of financial compensation but also in the recognition and protection of intellectual property.
However, amidst this complex landscape, there have been some encouraging developments. In a recent legal victory for human artists, a federal judge upheld the decision of the U.S.
Copyright Office to reject an attempt to copyright an AI-generated artwork. This ruling highlights the ongoing struggle to define and protect the rights of creators in the face of rapidly advancing technology.
Ortiz expresses concern over the potential devaluation of artists, fearing that their services will soon be considered too costly.
She questions the rationale behind employers paying artists’ salaries when they can simply purchase a subscription for a mere $30 and generate any desired artwork.
Moreover, Ortiz ponders the future implications of this technology, wondering how advanced it will become in just a few years.
She apprehensively predicts a bleak scenario where the artistic industry will be reduced to a point where only a select few can sustain a livelihood, with artists being relegated to mere editors of AI-generated images rather than creators.
The very essence of the artist’s passion and purpose, the aspects that give artists life and vitality, would be outsourced to machines, leaving them devoid of the joy and fulfillment they derive from their craft.
McKernan shares similar concerns about the uncertain future, wondering if there will even be work available for artists in the coming year.
Both artists are currently dedicating themselves to the legal battle, recognizing the importance of preserving the qualities that define human beings.
McKernan’s Instagram profile, which reads “Advocating for human artists,” encapsulates his commitment to this cause.
He emphasizes that the process of artistic creation is what gives him a sense of purpose and meaning, and therefore, the fight to safeguard these fundamental aspects of humanity is one that he believes is worth undertaking.
The battle against the encroachment of AI in the realm of art is not just about protecting artists’ livelihoods but also about preserving the very essence of what it means to be human.