It's a very interesting article, and thank you for raising these points. As an artist/designer/UX writer, I'm deeply interested in where Image AI is going. On the one hand, there's the thrill of generating a conceptual image quickly, something that would take endless hours in photoshop.
On the other hand, if it's an image relying heavily on an art style that an artist toiled decades to invent and paint, Van Gogh come to mind, then the AI appropriation just seems wrong.
Now, many Van Gogh paintings are in public domain, so again, one can argue, that these paintings belong to everyone, even an AI.
But it the style is based on a living artist, then it's downright threatening to this artist to have AI appropriate that style. Even more so, it dilutes that artist's market stake, makes them less unique, and opens up a copy cat market across the world.
Artists are really threatened by AI, and now have to protect their copyright property even more so.
The idea of an Art Fair is good, but it'll only work in the beginning. Once AI companies have created enough of a database, the initial properly bought rights are not relevant anymore.
It really is a tough question, and I think there needs to be legislation drafted around AI generated art.
I've recently wrote a story on image AI as well, from a slightly different point of view.
Thanks for this great article.
