You might argue that if a particular person is the one who initiated the project, then they should still have exclusive rights to it. To illustrate this argument, suppose you’re someone who wants to sell a music album. You know next to nothing about music. You don’t know how to make music, you don’t know how to sing; you don’t even have any ideas for any songs. But you do know how to market and sell a product. So you load up your A.I. software, tell it to make you a hit song, and it comes up with something that sounds pretty good.

You might think that this doesn’t sound much different from you just hiring a professional person, instead of using A.I., to write, play, and sing in the song, and persons do this all the time, and they do have own the rights, as they should. But in this case, the person is basically buying those rights. When someone hires someone else to make an art project for them, the person doing the hiring doesn’t automatically get those rights. It must be agreed upon by the parties involved in order for that to happen, and sometimes you have to pay extra for those rights whereas sometimes you having the rights is already part of the deal. But in either case, you’re making an agreement.

When using A.I., there is no payment and no agreement. Some might think that because there’s no one to agree to anything, that this means the art project is automatically theirs and theirs alone. But I say no. I look at it another way. You did none of the design. You did none of the work. You never paid for the project. You never made an agreement with anyone for you to have the rights. And furthermore, just about anyone could come along and make the same thing you did with A.I. software too. In a way, you’re basically just calling dibs on something that’s already free to everyone. That isn’t right to me. That isn’t fair. Why should you get to have exclusive rights to something that you never designed or worked on, and never made any sacrifice or agreement with anyone who could have made the same project without any effort? It doesn’t make much sense to me.

Now, I realize that the most important aspect of a project is the finished result. Because it’s art, there’s a lot to say about the meaning behind it, the journey of the project, the passion for the skill, and the dedication put into creating it. But at the end of it all, the finished product is what’s most important, and if A.I. is useful to get there, then I can’t be entirely against that. A.I. might even be necessary in some cases. I mean, imagine you’re trying to create an album cover, and even when hiring artists, they just can’t get the look you want, so you turn to artificial intelligence, which gets it close enough. If it took A.I. to capture your vision, that’s understandable, and I’d say in that kind of a situation, it’s acceptable. While I still dislike the use of A.I., I don’t dislike it enough to say to never use it. I’d rather you finish your project than to not finish it.

You might argue that if a particular person is the one who initiated the project, then they should still have exclusive rights to it. To illustrate this argument, suppose you’re someone who wants to sell a music album. You know next to nothing about music. You don’t know how to make music, you don’t know how to sing; you don’t even have any ideas for any songs. But you do know how to market and sell a product. So you load up your A.I. software, tell it to make you a hit song, and it comes up with something that sounds pretty good.

You might think that this doesn’t sound much different from you just hiring a professional person, instead of using A.I., to write, play, and sing in the song, and persons do this all the time, and they do have own the rights, as they should. But in this case, the person is basically buying those rights. When someone hires someone else to make an art project for them, the person doing the hiring doesn’t automatically get those rights. It must be agreed upon by the parties involved in order for that to happen, and sometimes you have to pay extra for those rights whereas sometimes you having the rights is already part of the deal. But in either case, you’re making an agreement.

When using A.I., there is no payment and no agreement. Some might think that because there’s no one to agree to anything, that this means the art project is automatically theirs and theirs alone. But I say no. I look at it another way. You did none of the design. You did none of the work. You never paid for the project. You never made an agreement with anyone for you to have the rights. And furthermore, just about anyone could come along and make the same thing you did with A.I. software too. In a way, you’re basically just calling dibs on something that’s already free to everyone. That isn’t right to me. That isn’t fair. Why should you get to have exclusive rights to something that you never designed or worked on, and never made any sacrifice or agreement with anyone who could have made the same project without any effort? It doesn’t make much sense to me.

Now, I realize that the most important aspect of a project is the finished result. Because it’s art, there’s a lot to say about the meaning behind it, the journey of the project, the passion for the skill, and the dedication put into creating it. But at the end of it all, the finished product is what’s most important, and if A.I. is useful to get there, then I can’t be entirely against that. A.I. might even be necessary in some cases. I mean, imagine you’re trying to create an album cover, and even when hiring artists, they just can’t get the look you want, so you turn to artificial intelligence, which gets it close enough. If it took A.I. to capture your vision, that’s understandable, and I’d say in that kind of a situation, it’s acceptable. While I still dislike the use of A.I., I don’t dislike it enough to say to never use it. I’d rather you finish your project than to not finish it.

You might argue that if a particular person is the one who initiated the project, then they should still have exclusive rights to it. To illustrate this argument, suppose you’re someone who wants to sell a music album. You know next to nothing about music. You don’t know how to make music, you don’t know how to sing; you don’t even have any ideas for any songs. But you do know how to market and sell a product. So you load up your A.I. software, tell it to make you a hit song, and it comes up with something that sounds pretty good.

You might think that this doesn’t sound much different from you just hiring a professional person, instead of using A.I., to write, play, and sing in the song, and persons do this all the time, and they do have own the rights, as they should. But in this case, the person is basically buying those rights. When someone hires someone else to make an art project for them, the person doing the hiring doesn’t automatically get those rights. It must be agreed upon by the parties involved in order for that to happen, and sometimes you have to pay extra for those rights whereas sometimes you having the rights is already part of the deal. But in either case, you’re making an agreement.

When using A.I., there is no payment and no agreement. Some might think that because there’s no one to agree to anything, that this means the art project is automatically theirs and theirs alone. But I say no. I look at it another way. You did none of the design. You did none of the work. You never paid for the project. You never made an agreement with anyone for you to have the rights. And furthermore, just about anyone could come along and make the same thing you did with A.I. software too. In a way, you’re basically just calling dibs on something that’s already free to everyone. That isn’t right to me. That isn’t fair. Why should you get to have exclusive rights to something that you never designed or worked on, and never made any sacrifice or agreement with anyone who could have made the same project without any effort? It doesn’t make much sense to me.

Now, I realize that the most important aspect of a project is the finished result. Because it’s art, there’s a lot to say about the meaning behind it, the journey of the project, the passion for the skill, and the dedication put into creating it. But at the end of it all, the finished product is what’s most important, and if A.I. is useful to get there, then I can’t be entirely against that. A.I. might even be necessary in some cases. I mean, imagine you’re trying to create an album cover, and even when hiring artists, they just can’t get the look you want, so you turn to artificial intelligence, which gets it close enough. If it took A.I. to capture your vision, that’s understandable, and I’d say in that kind of a situation, it’s acceptable. While I still dislike the use of A.I., I don’t dislike it enough to say to never use it. I’d rather you finish your project than to not finish it.

You might argue that if a particular person is the one who initiated the project, then they should still have exclusive rights to it. To illustrate this argument, suppose you’re someone who wants to sell a music album. You know next to nothing about music. You don’t know how to make music, you don’t know how to sing; you don’t even have any ideas for any songs. But you do know how to market and sell a product. So you load up your A.I. software, tell it to make you a hit song, and it comes up with something that sounds pretty good.

You might think that this doesn’t sound much different from you just hiring a professional person, instead of using A.I., to write, play, and sing in the song, and persons do this all the time, and they do have own the rights, as they should. But in this case, the person is basically buying those rights. When someone hires someone else to make an art project for them, the person doing the hiring doesn’t automatically get those rights. It must be agreed upon by the parties involved in order for that to happen, and sometimes you have to pay extra for those rights whereas sometimes you having the rights is already part of the deal. But in either case, you’re making an agreement.

When using A.I., there is no payment and no agreement. Some might think that because there’s no one to agree to anything, that this means the art project is automatically theirs and theirs alone. But I say no. I look at it another way. You did none of the design. You did none of the work. You never paid for the project. You never made an agreement with anyone for you to have the rights. And furthermore, just about anyone could come along and make the same thing you did with A.I. software too. In a way, you’re basically just calling dibs on something that’s already free to everyone. That isn’t right to me. That isn’t fair. Why should you get to have exclusive rights to something that you never designed or worked on, and never made any sacrifice or agreement with anyone who could have made the same project without any effort? It doesn’t make much sense to me.

Now, I realize that the most important aspect of a project is the finished result. Because it’s art, there’s a lot to say about the meaning behind it, the journey of the project, the passion for the skill, and the dedication put into creating it. But at the end of it all, the finished product is what’s most important, and if A.I. is useful to get there, then I can’t be entirely against that. A.I. might even be necessary in some cases. I mean, imagine you’re trying to create an album cover, and even when hiring artists, they just can’t get the look you want, so you turn to artificial intelligence, which gets it close enough. If it took A.I. to capture your vision, that’s understandable, and I’d say in that kind of a situation, it’s acceptable. While I still dislike the use of A.I., I don’t dislike it enough to say to never use it. I’d rather you finish your project than to not finish it.