Does AI have an Artistic License? Students at Georgetown University are Looking for the Answers
AYUSHI DAS: An influx of artificial intelligence in creative spaces has turned copyright and policymaking into an unexpected challenge.
Some artists defend AI tools for their ability to speed up the ideation process. Others say AI art lacks the human experience, emotion, and creativity that makes art enjoyable.
One artist from Georgetown University stands somewhere in between. For the past few months, Judy Wang (CAS ‘27) has been working with a team of PhD students and faculty across the Computer Science, Law, and Art departments on a sustained research project: AI in Art: Perceptions, Values, and Rights.
“We’re trying to see how people and experts perceive AI generated works,” Wang said. “The hope is that this project will influence copyright law in the future.”
The research study measured the perceptions of AI pieces in terms of artistic value, authorship, and ownership. Wang’s role includes drafting survey questions, recruiting participants, and collecting data on perceptions of AI-generated art.
The submissions were then evaluated by over 120 peer evaluators and a panel of five expert jurors and scored according to the three metrics. The team then cross-compared evaluations from the entrants, the evaluators, and the expert jurors to derive results on perceptions of AI-generated art.
“The Hasty Hare,” by Isabella Liu (CAS ‘25) is the result of many iterations in AI software. (courtesy of Judy Wang)
“There are students and professors from each discipline on the team,” Wang said. “I’m the art student.”
Wang has been making art since she was young. It was an easy decision for her to pursue an art major once she came to Georgetown. Being an artist has provided her with a unique perspective on the question of AI and art, which has become even more prevalent throughout her research.
“As artists, we want something new and iterative, which AI definitely is,” Wang said. “But then there are the bigger philosophical questions that AI calls attention to like– where does the value of art come from?”
It seems this question is what traditional and generative artists go back and forth on, with AI making its way into unexpected spaces.
Most recently, Adrien Brody’s Oscar-winning performance for The Brutalist used AI to alter his Hungarian pronunciations. This has drawn backlash with the public calling the merit of AI art into question.
Adrien Brody accepts the Oscar for Best Actor. (courtesy of Variety magazine)
“The use of generative AI visuals honestly feels like it spits in the face of the themes of a movie about art and architecture and the human condition,” one user said on X.
“I think we’ve really taken a step in the wrong direction by awarding and encouraging the use of AI with The Brutalist,” another user said.
Dávid Janscó, the lead editor on The Brutalist, has defended the use of generative AI.
“‘We had so much dialogue in Hungarian that we really needed to speed up the process,’” Janscó said.
What The Brutalist conversation has clarified is that there is currently a divide between artists who are ideating for the future and those who aim to preserve the application of human skill. Debates like these are what make Wang’s research all the more important when it comes to validating creative license.
Her role on the team also includes reading up on AI copyright law from the lens of a human creative.
“What we see is that the copyright office has a limited ability to distinguish between AI generative works or human generated works,” Wang said.
This makes protecting AI artworks and human artists using AI difficult in the long run.
“The question now is how will copyright offices enforce the law?” Wang said.
The AI perception research will hopefully provide some answers for these copyright and policy issues, by understanding the tells that distinguish AI art from human-made art.
Wang’s time on the project has made her into an expert on the balance between AI, copyright, and policy. Yet, the controversy surrounding AI in art has deterred the efficacy of conducting research.
“People are raising questions about how the artists inputting work into AI systems enjoy copyright protection,” Wang said.
However, there are certainly benefits to using AI art tools.
“The copyright office cited a case where an artist suffered a stroke and became disabled,” Wang said. “AI was then able to output the artist’s ideas because they’re no longer able to execute it for themselves.”
As the research project heads into its final stages, the conclusions aim to grapple with all these large questions and ultimately provide more information for AI copyright laws.
You can enjoy the final presentation of AI in Art: Perceptions, Values, and Rights on April 16th in Lau 1 at 4:30 pm. RSVP here.