The art world is experiencing a profound transformation, driven by dramatic advances in artificial intelligence (AI). From generating novel paintings to curating dynamic exhibitions, AI tools are redefining the creative process and how art is managed.
The fashion world is not immune to these changes either, with AI beginning to influence design, styling and fashion marketing. However, this evolution raises complex legal questions: who owns an AI-generated artwork? Can these creations be copyrighted? And how should we understand authenticity when a machine, rather than a human, is the primary creative force?
These issues are at the forefront of debates about the intersection of art, fashion, technology and intellectual property law.
AI’s emergence in the creative process
AI’s involvement in art and fashion creation is not entirely new, but its recent, rapid development has brought it to the forefront of these worlds. Historically, AI was used in basic ways, such as creating algorithms that could replicate or imitate the styles of established artists. However, with the creation of advanced machine learning models, AI can now produce entirely original artworks that are difficult to distinguish from works created by human artists. AI now composes music, generates literature, choreographs dance and even contributes to film production.
Platforms such as Artbreeder and DALL-E allow users to produce high-quality images from simple prompts, while AI models like OpenAI’s GPT – currently in its fourth iteration – have demonstrated sophisticated capabilities in generating creative text. The fashion industry has also embraced AI technology, with these systems being used to predict trends, generate virtual clothing designs and virtual dressing rooms, and create fashion illustrations.
AI is also revolutionising art curation. Museums, galleries and auction houses increasingly use AI-driven analytics to manage collections, forecast art market trends and design innovative exhibitions. In the fashion industry, brands and retailers use AI-driven data to better understand consumer preferences, predict the next big trend and streamline supply chains. These systems can process vast amounts of data in real time, uncovering hidden connections between works and enabling more dynamic curatorial practices.
Legal implications of AI-generated art
As AI transforms art creation and curation, it poses significant legal challenges. Intellectual property law, traditionally grounded in human creativity, is struggling to keep pace with these rapid technological developments.
Key issues include:
- Ownership of AI-generated works: Ownership of AI-created works is a central question. Under US copyright law, only works created by human authors qualify for protection. The US Copyright Office has maintained that works generated by machines or non-human entities do not meet the criteria for copyright protection (88 Fed. Reg. 16190, Mar. 16, 2023). This raises the critical issue of whether the programmer, the user who inputs creative directives or another party should hold the rights to an AI-generated work. Some legal scholars advocate for assigning ownership to the human entities involved in directing the AI, much as a photographer is recognised for their role despite the camera being the tool. Others call for a radical rethinking of copyright law to accommodate the realities of AI-generated creativity. Until the law adapts, uncertainty remains, highlighting the urgent need for legislative reform and new legal frameworks.
- Copyright and the authorship conundrum: Authorship is a cornerstone of copyright law, yet it is challenged by AI-generated art. Current legal frameworks require human authorship for copyright protection, leaving AI-generated works in a legal limbo. Taler v. Permutter is a landmark case illustrating this tension. In this matter, the plaintiff sought copyright registration for an artwork produced by an autonomous “Creativity Machine”. The Copyright Office rejected the claim, a decision recently upheld by the DC Circuit Court in March, reaffirming that human authorship is indispensable. The plaintiff indicated his intention to appeal, suggesting that this authorship question will likely continue to be reviewed and debated. This ruling underscores the need for a nuanced approach. While AI is an invaluable tool, its increasing autonomy calls for reconsideration of what constitutes authorship and creative ownership. An evolving legal perspective may eventually consider hybrid authorship models or alternative forms of protection tailored to AI-generated works.
- Authenticity in the AI age: Authenticity is synonymous with the artist’s identity and reputation. In an era where AI can autonomously produce art, traditional markers of authenticity are blurred. AI-generated works, especially those derived from extensive datasets that include preexisting art, invite scrutiny regarding originality and derivative value. To address these concerns, the art world may need to establish new standards and certifications, potentially leveraging blockchain technology to verify each work’s provenance and creative process. These measures could distinguish between purely human-created art, AI-assisted projects and entirely AI-generated pieces, preserving artworks’ integrity and market value.
Ethics, fair use and the digital ecosystem
Beyond ownership and authorship, ethical considerations are paramount. AI models typically rely on vast datasets, often incorporating copyrighted material without explicit permission. This practice has ignited debates over fair use and the potential for infringement, with some critics contending that AI effectively “steals” creative input from human artists.
The call for ethical guidelines is growing louder. Industry leaders and legal experts are advocating for frameworks that ensure transparency, fair compensation and respect for artists’ rights. Additionally, the risk of bias in AI-generated content – stemming from training data that may be unrepresentative or prejudiced – requires active measures to promote diversity and inclusivity in the creative process.
Eyes toward an adaptive legal framework
AI’s growing role in art creation and curation presents exciting possibilities and complex legal challenges. As AI tools become more integrated into the art and fashion worlds, questions about ownership, copyright, authenticity and ethics will continue to evolve. Current intellectual property laws are not fully equipped to address these issues, and new frameworks may be necessary to ensure that both human and AI creators are treated fairly.
For now, artists, technologists, designers and legal professionals must work together to navigate these challenges and find solutions that balance innovation with protection. As AI continues to push the boundaries of creativity, the legal landscape must adapt to ensure that art remains a vibrant and protected domain for all creators, human and machine alike.
Bianca Ascolese is a trademark, copyright and advertising associate in Foley & Lardner’s New York office, advising clients on strategic foreign and domestic trademark, branding, copyright counselling and protection. She is a member of the trademark, copyright and advertising practice, and the firm’s the fashion, apparel and beauty industry team. She can be reached at [email protected].
Arian Jabbary is an associate in Foley & Lardner’s trademark, copyright and advertising practice group, based in the firm’s New York office. He co-leads the beauty segment of Foley’s fashion, apparel and beauty industry team, where he also co-founded and co-edits the firm’s Foley In Fashion blog. He can be reached at [email protected].
Email your news and story ideas to: [email protected]
