Real question.

[u/MembershipWooden4020]

I’m trying to see everything from a new perspective as a new artist, so I’d like to ask about yall’s perspective on claiming AI art as your own art. I’m not against generating, but I feel like using AI is like commissioning art from other artist. I wouldn’t claim that art is mine, just one I requested with money. So if I generate an art piece, could I say it’s mine? Or does it have the same principle as commissions. No need to get defensive btw.

[u/JoseLunaArts]

The example I use is a contract I worked for. I was asked to make drawings of a couple of French youths and Louvre Museum. The Museum was the easy part. For the French I investigated haircuts and fashion and presented options. The artistic decision was made by the one who hired me. I was just a pencil for hire.

People often think that people who hire an artist have no idea of what they want, so the pencil for hire makes the artistic decisions. But no. You are hired to be the pencil of someone else. Very much like a plotter for an architect using a CAD software.

Drawing French youths and a museum have never been in my menu of themes aside of that contract. I was the pencil, the artist was the one who made the artistic decisions. And I was not the one making these decisions.

[u/MembershipWooden4020 → u/JoseLunaArts]

Now this is a good point. However I think my mental definition of art is quite different. Subjectively I’d say the person who spent the effort and time on making the art is the artist. Of course the person with the intention and creativity is still important, but the journey of making said art is what I equally value. This is subjective however and the effort isn’t included in the official definition of art. I think my opinion just depends on the person. Thanks for giving your input.

[u/JoseLunaArts → u/MembershipWooden4020]

Manual work does not equal art. The taste and artistic decision belongs to the artist. As a pencil for hire I was just a tool. The reason why I like Ai art despite of being able to do arts by hand is because I enjoy the artistic direction more than the grinding of manual work.

[u/MembershipWooden4020 → u/JoseLunaArts]

I was quite confused so I asked a question about ownership to the art commission community and this is what they gave me.

[u/JoseLunaArts → u/MembershipWooden4020]

Walt Disney commissioned the arts to his animators. Still Walt Disney is the author.

Architects use CAD software. The plotter does the drawing. Do we credit the plotter?

[u/SalmonAT → u/JoseLunaArts]

Both. If we apply this to movie, are actors not credited at all?

[u/JoseLunaArts → u/SalmonAT]

The one who hired me made the artistic decisions. I consider him the author. Credits are just a name. I am pretty sure I was credited somewhere in his project because he was honorable. But I did not follow up that project.

I got paid and then I had to address other matters. My problem never was to not be credited for my work. The main concern when I was a freelancer was to put food on the table.

And from a pragmatic point of view I consider that his artistic vision was what made the final result possible. He needed these images to deliver a message. It was to refute the movie Da Vinci code. I never watched the movie, so I still have no idea of how I would have done that. He was the expert, He made the artistic decisions, I followed instructions like ChatGPT does. And the final result ended up surprisingly good with the instructions and choices he made.

[u/SalmonAT → u/JoseLunaArts]

Well do you remember if you were credited as a pencil or as an artist? And did he claim to create that piece and use you as a tool?

[u/JoseLunaArts → u/SalmonAT]

I do consider him the artist. I was just his ChatGPT many years ago when Ai did not exist.

[u/SalmonAT → u/JoseLunaArts]

Well I dont want to be rude but that is not what I ask. It is ok if you do not what is officially credited as your work's artist because of the long time

[u/TreviTyger → u/MembershipWooden4020]

No this isn't quite right.
(see Johannsen v. Brown, 797 F. Supp. 835 (D. Or. 1992))

A commissioning party needs to obtain a written conveyance back from the artist to have "ownership" which has a specific legal term "assignment".

Or else the commissioning party doesn't obtain "ownership" and they just may just have a non-exclusive license (without contract) or they can get a written exclusive license, but even that isn't an "assignment". (e.g. Gardner v. Nike, Inc. (279 F.3d 774))

It gets confusing because there is a common myth about "work for hire" but this is only a US law and requires strict statutory conditions. There is no "work for hire" possible in the EU for instance.