Raw LLM Responses

Graphic artist turned copyright lawyer/professor weighing in here. I’ve spent the better part of past two decades teaching copyright and contract law at law schools, art schools, ComicCon’s, etc. A huge part of the problem is the art school model here in the US. Rare is the art school that puts serious effort behind teaching its students copyright and contract issues that are at the heart of every artist’s career. Quite literally every time I teach at a new school or guest lecture for an art teacher I spend the majority of the time undoing the misinformation passed on to the students by professors who think that creativity is the only thing that matters in an artist’s career. But here’s the funny thing: it’s not the art students to feel that way. I’m a product of art school myself and can tell you that the students who have taught for the past 10 years have been increasingly hungry for information on how to turn their art into a sustainable career. But if the school administration is not prioritizing the protection of art or the licensing of an artist's work product, they are failing their graduates. You may be wondering why this is at all relevant to the issue of AI? Simple: copyright law is complex and often counterintuitive. However, virtually everybody in the tech space knew this was coming for years now. Ask yourself — how many of you in art school learned about the encroaching copyright issues of AI-generated art? What would’ve happened if the art community had been informed before everything hits the fan this year was AI art? As both a practicing attorney and an academic I think it likely that you would have well-researched position papers and nonprofit arts groups seeking to bring cases to court to challenge the AI encroachment BEFORE this “AI-Artmageddon.”