Big AI Implications Lurk in the Supreme Court’s Andy Warhol Verdict | Analysis

Available to WrapPRO members

The perennial “fair use” debate as it applies to computer-generated art just got thornier thanks to a new ruling

Bing Image Creator (powered by Dall-E) Warhol v Supreme Court 2

In a move that could complicate the legal status of AI systems trained on existing visual artworks, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled Thursday that Andy Warhol’s 1984 work “Orange Prince” infringed on the rights of rock photographer Lynn Goldsmith because the work’s commercial intent was not covered by the “fair use” exemptions in copyright law.

It’s hard to argue with the commercial ambitions of AI-powered art, given that companies behind the trend, like Stability AI, are seeking valuations measured in the billions of dollars. Legal questions surrounding the field are already mountainous in volume and scope. The new ruling appears sure to muddy matters.