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

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

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.

Become a member to read more.

Robert Carnevale

Robert has covered the technology and entertainment sectors for nearly a decade. He's written for Wired and Tom's Guide as well as served as the news editor for Windows Central. He's also the author of Earth: Game of the Year Edition and Cold War 2395, two science fiction novels that have set the bar for what he's willing to constructively contribute to the world. | Contact: