The AI art theft debate grows more heated as Microsoft pours $10 billion into OpenAI’s technologies. Getty Images claims Stability AI’s models used 12 million of its photos without permission. The situation deserves a closer look before we rush to judgment.
Is AI art really art? This question splits the creative world into two camps. Some artists welcome these new tools – architect Joshua Vermillion now creates about 150 pieces yearly, up from just 10 before AI. Many artists worry about their future, though. The 2.3 million downloads of Glaze, a tool that shields artists’ work from AI copying, proves their concern. AI systems like DALL-E 2 and Stable Diffusion work differently from human copying. They learn patterns from millions of images rather than copying specific artwork directly.
As I wrote in this piece, the “AI stealing art” story misses the bigger picture. The situation mirrors past technological shifts that changed creative industries. We need to think about what ethical AI art creation could look like in 2025 and beyond.
AI and Human Creativity: More Similar Than You Think
“Artificial Intelligence is teaching us that creativity is not just human—it’s structural, emergent, and limitless.” — Fei-Fei Li, Professor of Computer Science at Stanford University, co-director of Stanford’s Human-Centered AI Institute
Artists rarely start their work from scratch. They often use reference photos and prefer taking their own shots to avoid crediting others in their final pieces1. This mirrors how AI systems work—both need input to create something new.
How both humans and AI use references
The creative process of AI resembles human creativity. It taps into information databases to connect different concepts. Research shows that AI can produce creative outputs that match or surpass what an average person can do in certain tasks2. Both AI systems and humans share the ability to link distantly related concepts—a fundamental part of creativity2. AI helps artists who can’t find the perfect reference images. It generates scenes they picture in their minds and saves them hours they’d spend searching or editing photos1.
The myth of total originality
The idea that “ai art is not theft” makes more sense once we realize pure originality doesn’t really exist. One artist put it well: “Nothing is original because everything is an influence; everything is original because no influence makes its way into our art untransmuted by our imagination”3. Art always involves:
- Sampling and remixing existing elements
- Weaving old with new to create something fresh
- Building upon a history of previous works
Mozart and Shakespeare, celebrated masters of their craft, borrowed directly from others’ work in their compositions4. Our imagination itself flows from “mostly an accidental dance between collected memory and influence” rather than something we truly own3.
Why prompting is a creative act
People who ask “is ai art really art” should know that prompting AI needs real creative input. AI art comes from a mutually beneficial partnership between human creativity and machine learning. The human provides vision while the AI brings it to life5. The AI creates visual elements, but the ideas come from the artist6. Studies show that people who excel at generating novel ideas can make better use of text-to-image AI6. Creating prompts means writing precise instructions that guide the AI’s creative process. This takes time to learn and needs constant skill development7. The human’s sense of beauty and emotional depth gives the artwork meaning and impact7.
The line between AI and human creativity gets harder to see each day, but creative expression stays deeply human at its core.
Historical Parallels: Photography, Digital Art, and Now AI
Art history shows how new technology faces strong pushback before it reshapes creative expression. AI art represents the newest example of this pattern.
What past tech disruptions can teach us
Artists go through predictable stages when new technology arrives: they reject it, adapt to it, and it changes everything. The invention of photography in the 1820s created new ways for technology and art to work together8. This happened again with digital art between 1950-1970. Bell Labs produced the first computer-generated artwork in the 1960s9. Artists resisted each new technology at first but discovered new creative possibilities later. One expert said, “There is no more difference between art and technology. Artists have always used the medium that’s available to them”10.
How photography was once seen as ‘not art’
Critics debated photography’s status as art for almost 180 years. The Photographic Society of London’s early members complained that the technique was “too literal to compete with works of art” because it couldn’t “raise the imagination”11. Many saw it as just an industrial tool with little artistic merit12. Photography remained in what photographer Jeff Wall called a “photo ghetto” of niche galleries and publications even during the 1960s and 70s11. This debate faded when Andreas Gursky’s photograph of the Rhine River sold for £2.7 million11.
Why AI art is following a similar path
People criticize AI art today much like they did photography back then. Critics once said photography needed no artistic skill. Today’s skeptics say AI-generated images lack human creativity or originality. Notwithstanding that, AI art exists on a spectrum rather than as a clear-cut category13. Some AI tools help artists save time while keeping their vision intact. Others create images with minimal human involvement13.
New technology threatens existing methods at first but creates fresh creative opportunities. Photography didn’t kill painting—it freed it from realism and led to Impressionism and Expressionism8. AI won’t eliminate human creativity either. It will likely change it in ways we’re just starting to grasp.
Debunking the Theft Narrative
AI art creation is fundamentally different from theft or plagiarism. Courts and copyright offices consistently maintain that AI-generated content cannot be copyrighted because it lacks human authorship—a requirement that also complicates claims of theft.
Why AI art is not plagiarism
AI systems don’t store or regurgitate existing artworks, which contradicts popular belief. Legal experts emphasize that “generative AI does not copy any of the artworks it has been trained on. Every output it generates is an original work that has no one-to-one correspondence to any part or whole of any image”14. AI models learn patterns and relationships, similar to human artists who study techniques. The U.S. Court of Appeals confirmed this legal perspective by ruling that works generated by AI without human input cannot be copyrighted under U.S. law15.
The difference between copying and transforming
A significant difference exists between copying and transformation:
- Copying: Direct reproduction of existing elements
- Transformation: Creating something new from learned patterns
- Fair use: Legal doctrine protecting transformative works
AI art belongs to the transformation category as it creates new outputs through pattern recognition. Copyright experts compare this to the fair use doctrine that “allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission“16. Creative Adversarial Networks take this further by “creating something that goes against the patterns in the training data”17, which sets AI outputs apart from simple copies.
Is AI art theft or progress?
This debate reflects ongoing discussions about human creativity. Artists throughout history have learned techniques and styles from their predecessors—Andy Warhol created his iconic paintings without Campbell’s Soup’s permission18. Contemporary artists often use art fabricators to execute their ideas while keeping full credit19.
The line between tool and collaborator becomes less clear as technology advances. One expert suggests, “Rather than perceiving AI as a threat… recognize its knowing how to improve human creativity and broaden the scope of artistic expression”18. AI art represents the latest step in art’s continuing progress, pushing us to rethink creativity’s meaning in the digital world.
The Future of Art in an AI World
“The best art of the future will be a fusion of human imagination and AI precision.” — Jaron Lanier, Computer philosophy writer, pioneer in virtual reality, Microsoft researcher
Artists aren’t simply rejecting AI art tools as they mature—they’re learning new possibilities through creative teamwork. This transformation reshapes how we understand art creation itself.
How artists are adapting and collaborating with AI
Many artists today see AI as a partner rather than a threat. Sougwen Chung works together with a robotic arm named DOUG that she programmed to mimic her drawing style20. Her father was an opera singer and her mother a computer programmer. This partnership lets her tuck into entirely new creative territories. Refik Anadol, another pioneer, uses custom algorithms that transform museum collections into mesmerizing installations which never repeat themselves21. Knight Foundation grant recipient Kelani Nichole says, “I’m very pro-A.I. But what’s vital is having a critical orientation to A.I. and how it’s emerging”22.
New opportunities for disabled and non-traditional creators
AI tools are opening doors for artists with disabilities who faced major barriers before. Voice command platforms help create art without physical movement if you have mobility impairments23. This technology has helped artists like Sean Aaberg return to creating art using Midjourney after a stroke affected his drawing hand24. These tools represent a major democratization of creative expression, especially since 61 million American adults (one in four) live with some form of disability24.
What responsible AI art could look like
Ethical frameworks are emerging for responsible AI art practices that include:
- Transparency about AI usage in creating artworks (82% of collectors want clear labeling)25
- Shared development with artists in AI systems design
- Fair compensation models for artists whose works train AI systems
- Expanded representation of diverse creators and viewpoints
Of course, as Dr. Madeline Gannon notes, “We collectively have determined what we don’t want this technology to do, but we haven’t decided what we do want it to do. That’s where artists can come and bring their own narratives”22. The future isn’t about AI replacing artists but expanding who can create art and how we experience it.
Conclusion
The Art of Development, Not Theft
History shows how new technologies have altered the creative landscape. People resisted these changes at first, but they eventually reshaped how we make art. AI art represents a transformation that enhances human creativity rather than threatens it. Research shows that AI systems don’t steal art. They learn patterns and relationships just like human artists who study different techniques.
Looking back at similar cases, AI follows the same path as photography and digital art. These technologies didn’t limit human creativity—they expanded it. AI tools now give us amazing ways to blend human imagination with machine capabilities.
The idea of complete originality doesn’t hold up against claims of theft. Every creative work builds on past influences. AI might process information differently than humans, but both turn influences into something new.
AI makes art creation available to more people, especially when you have disabilities that made traditional art-making difficult. This inclusion alone makes the technology worth embracing instead of rejecting it completely.
We have a long way to go, but we can build on this progress as the technology grows. In spite of that, seeing these tools as part of art’s natural growth helps us focus on what matters. We need to create ethical guidelines for responsible use while celebrating new creative possibilities. The real question isn’t about theft—it’s about how to employ these tools to improve human expression and make art available to everyone.
FAQs
Q1. Is AI art really stealing from human artists?
AI art is not stealing in the conventional sense. It learns patterns and styles from existing artworks, similar to how human artists gain inspiration. However, AI does not directly copy or plagiarize specific pieces. Instead, it creates new works by combining and transforming what it has learned.
Q2. Can AI create truly original art?
While AI cannot create art entirely from scratch, it can produce unique combinations and interpretations based on its training. The level of originality in AI art is debatable, but it’s worth noting that even human artists are influenced by existing works and styles.
Q3. How does AI art impact the livelihoods of human artists?
AI art tools are changing the artistic landscape, potentially affecting some artists’ income. However, many artists are adapting by incorporating AI into their workflows or focusing on uniquely human aspects of creativity. AI is also opening up new opportunities for collaboration between humans and machines.
Q4. Is AI-generated art protected by copyright?
Currently, AI-generated art cannot be copyrighted in many jurisdictions because copyright laws typically require human authorship. This legal landscape may evolve as AI technology advances and becomes more integrated into creative processes.
Q5. How can we ensure ethical use of AI in art creation?
Ethical AI art practices include transparency about AI usage, fair compensation models for artists whose works train AI systems, and involving diverse creators in AI system development. It’s also important to recognize the value of human creativity while exploring the potential of AI as a tool for artistic expression.
References
[1] – https://medium.com/@randi.lynn.wahl/using-ai-for-art-reference-1e6d9ad2b00c
[2] – https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-40858-3
[3] – https://www.themarginalian.org/2022/01/20/nick-cave-creativity/
[4] – https://www.techdirt.com/2010/03/05/the-myth-of-originality/
[5] – https://www.castmagic.io/post/ai-prompt-tips
[6] – https://buexperts.medium.com/the-art-of-prompt-engineering-bu-researchers-explore-how-generative-ai-impacts-human-creativity-in-7bc90ba68756
[7] – https://itsartlaw.org/2024/04/16/artificial-intelligence-versus-human-artists-ai-as-a-creative-collaborator-in-art/
[8] – https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2019/634439/EPRS_IDA(2019)634439_EN.pdf
[9] – https://www.theartstory.org/movement/digital-art/
[10] – https://blogs.getty.edu/iris/5-cutting-edge-innovations-in-art-history-tech/
[11] – https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2012/oct/19/photography-is-it-art
[12] – https://www.thecollector.com/how-photography-transformed-art/
[13] – https://www.thephoblographer.com/2023/08/17/ai-photography-where-is-the-line/
[14] – https://exmachina.in/15/02/2023/does-ai-copy/
[15] – https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-appeals-court-rejects-copyrights-ai-generated-art-lacking-human-creator-2025-03-18/
[16] – https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2022/09/13/the-battle-lines-over-ai-art/
[17] – https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20241018-ai-art-the-end-of-creativity-or-a-new-movement
[18] – https://darkvisionstudios.co.uk/embracing-ai-art-a-creative-evolution-not-theft/
[19] – https://news.iu.edu/live/news/31782-ask-the-expert-what-are-legal-issues-surrounding-ai-it
[20] – https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-6-artists-artificial-intelligence-chatgpt
[21] – https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2023/02/15/ai-in-art/
[22] – https://www.artnews.com/art-news/sponsored-content/knight-foundation-5-artists-ai-shaping-collaborative-future-1234720113/
[23] – https://pixel-gallery.co.uk/blogs/pixelated-stories/ai-art-and-disability?srsltid=AfmBOoqWCqB88KB-jxlKpvHT3A4EdwRFVDLQqbiPldBJtePYylZZp6Nm
[24] – https://techtualist.substack.com/p/art-generating-ai-as-an-accessibility
[25] – https://www.hiscoxgroup.com/news/blog/what-future-ai-generated-art