Send us a textPhotographer credit for Anja Neubauer: self-portrait created with an AI tool.Show Notes:2:30 Prof. Tim McFarlin’s focus on copyright and authorship3:30 Dr. Caterina Moruzzi’s philosophical/design perspective / focus on authenticity5:00 Dr. Anja Neubauer's focus on global AI/copyright framework5:50 Artist Lisa Lebofsky’s perspective on AI as a nomadic painter8:45 “Authenticity Unmasked”–looking at the artistic process not the product9:55 “Authenticity Unmasked” insight-centrality of human perspective12:00 Neubauer–redefinition of terms like originality in light of emerging tech13:30 Getty v. Stability finding outputs are not copies so not infringements14:55 McFarland–genAI’s scale and redefining understanding of terms17:05 US state and federal laws 19:00 need for unified global protection19:50 Alan Robershaw – UK Getty decision’s technical focus on the process 21:40 Defining originality 22:10 Getty opinion at 601 v. AI models are memorizing/making copies 24:00 Robertshaw - one step away from judicial definition of consciousness24:40 McFarland – scale is the concern25:35 Lebofsky – how prior claims of infringement fit into AI/appropriation of artists’ works26:20 McFarland – ‘substantially similar’ takings are prima facie infringement subject to fair use defense27:10 consideration of outputs flooding the market harm 29:25 Lebofsky – use of AI through tools like AI Charm Lab app 31:00 Lebofsky’s view of threats to her style and her language 32:45 human requirement for ‘authorship’ and consumer trends35:55 Moruzzi – human effort to value the process37:15 Process visible in generative AI circa 2015 v. current genAI’s less visibility and thus less authenticity38:30 Anthroprocentric – human need for authorship40:20 Robershaw - Monkey-selfie case; animal versus machine personhood 43:15 McFarland – Arkansas statute on AI44:40 Gould – UK Section 9(3) - limited copyright for output in person who organized the output45:00 Neubauer – issue of term “equipment” for tools 46:50 Gould – current copyright legislation is not fit for purpose48:35 Distinction between camera use and AI model training49:05 Copyright Criminals documentary regarding music sampling 50:00 Sampling case involving Kraftwerk 51:35 Moruzzi – response to consultations53:00 McFarland – extent of law v. parallel tracks to copyright or other alternatives to preserve and protect human creativity54:00 Stefania Salles Bruins–solutions outside the law54:40 Copyright not fit for purpose 55:20 Neubauer - Shift in definition of artwork55:45 Lebofsky – how to establish boundaries57:25 Robertshaw re: Lebofsky’s paintings58:00 Salles Bruins – Lebofsky’s coding that cannot be replicatedPlease share your comments and/or questions at [email protected] by Toulme.To hear more episodes, please visit Warfare of Art and Law podcast's website.To leave questions or comments about this or other episodes of the podcast and/or for information about joining the 2ND Saturday discussion on art, culture and justice, please message me at [email protected]. Thanks so much for listening!© Stephanie Drawdy [2025]

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Transcript

Related