Posted on

Community of AI Artists Exploring Creativity with Technology

AI artists explore the use of AI as a creative medium to produce original works, often exploring themes around the relationship of humans and machines. (GETTY IMAGES)

By AI Trends Staff

Artists are using AI to explore original work in new mediums.

Refik Anadol, for example, creates art installations using pools of data to create what he calls a new kind of “sculpture.” His “Machine Hallucination” installation ran in Chelsea Market, New York City, last fall.

The Turkish artist used machine learning algorithms on a dataset of more than three million images, to create a synthetic reality experiment. The model generates “a data universe of architectural hallucinations in 512 dimensions,” according to an account of the exhibit in designboom.

The exhibit was installed in the boiler room in the basement of Chelsea Market, a 6,000 square-foot space newly opened with the Anadol exhibit. He commented on being selected, “I’m especially proud to be the first to reimagine this historic building, which is more than 100 years old, by employing machine intelligence to help narrate the hybrid relationship between architecture and our perception of time and space, machine hallucination offers the audience a glimpse into the future of architecture itself.”

Machine Hallucinations was shown on giant screens or projected onto walls, floors, ceilings or entire buildings, using data to produce a kind of AI pointillism, in an immersive experience.

One theme of Anadol’s work is the symbiosis and tension between people and machines, according to an account in Wired.  The artist says his work is an example of how AI—like other technologies—will have a broad range of uses. “When we found fire, we cooked with it, we created communities; with the same technology we kill each other or destroy,” Anadol stated. “Clearly AI is a discovery of humanity that has the potential to make communities, or destroy each other.”

Artists working with AI as a medium have come together to form to curate works by pioneering AI artists and act as the world’s first clearinghouse for AI’s impact on art and culture. The site was founded by Marnie Benney, an independent, contemporary art curator. The site features the community of AI artists and works they are investigating.

The artists are exploring themes around our relationship with technology. Will AI be the greatest invention or the last one? How can AI expand human creativity? Can AI be autonomously creative in a meaningful way? Can AI help us learn about our collective imagination? How can artists build creative and improvisational partnerships with AI? Can AI write poetry and screenplays? What does a machine see when it looks at the depth and breadth of our human experience?

Lauren McCarthy, LA-based AI artist who examines social relationships

These are fun questions to consider. The site offers resources for AI artists, a timeline of AI art history and a compilation of unanswered questions about AI.

Among the artists listed is Lauren McCarthy, an LA-based artist who examines social relationships in the midst of surveillance, automation and algorithmic living. She is the creator of p5.js, an open source programming language for learning creative expression through code online. It has over 1.5 million users. She is co-director of the Processing Foundation, a nonprofit with a mission to promote software literacy within the visual arts. She is an assistant professor at UCLA Design Media Arts.

See the source articles in designboom, Wired and visit

Source: AI Trends

Posted on

US Patent and Trademark Office Seeking Comment on Impact of AI on Creative Works

A notice in the Federal Register invited readers to comment on whether creative content produced by AI can be issued a patent.

By AI Trends Staff

The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is getting more involved in AI. One effort is an AI project that aims to speed patent examinations. The office receives approximately 2,500 patent applications per day.

The project took some nine months to develop and makes a “really compelling case” for the use of AI, stated Tom Beach, Chief Data Strategist and Portfolio Manager at USPTO, in an account in MeriTalk. Beach was speaking at a recent Veritas Public Sector Vision Day event.

The project calls for extracting technical data from patent applications and using that to enhance Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) data, which is reviewed by USPTO patent examiners to evaluate patent applications. The aim is to speed the overall evaluation process. “That’s the ROI for this project,” Beach stated.

The USPTO is also actively seeking comments on the impact of AI on creative works. The office published a notice in the Federal Register in August 2019 seeking comments. It sought comment on the interplay between patent law and AI. In October, the USPTO expanded the inquiry to include copyright, trademark and other IP rights, according to an account in Patently-O. Comments are now being accepted until Jan. 10, 2020.

(Anyone can respond; interested AI Trends readers are encouraged to respond.)

The questions have no concrete answers in US law, experts suggest. “I think what’s protectable is conscious steps made by a person to be involved in authorship,” stated Zvi S. Rosen, lecturer at the George Washington University School of Law, in an account in The Verge. A person executing a single click might not be so recognized. “My opinion is if it’s really a push button thing, and you get a result, I don’t think there’s any copyright in that,” Rosen stated.

This push-button creativity discussion gets a little more murky when considering the deal Warner Music reached with AI startup Endel in March 2019. Endel used its algorithm to create 600 short tracks on 20 albums that were then put on streaming services, returning a 50 / 50 royalty split to Endel, The Verge reported.

Rosen encouraged people to respond. “If a musician has worked with AI and can attest to a particular experience or grievance, that’s helpful,” he stated.

For those interested, here are the questions:

  1. Should a work produced by an AI algorithm or process, without the involvement of a natural person contributing expression to the resulting work, qualify as a work of authorship protectable under U.S. copyright law? Why or why not?
  2. Assuming involvement by a natural person is or should be required, what kind of involvement would or should be sufficient so that the work qualifies for copyright protection? For example, should it be sufficient if a person (i) designed the AI algorithm or process that created the work; (ii) contributed to the design of the algorithm or process; (iii) chose data used by the algorithm for training or otherwise; (iv) caused the AI algorithm or process to be used to yield the work; or (v) engaged in some specific combination of the foregoing activities? Are there other contributions a person could make in a potentially copyrightable AI-generated work in order to be considered an “author”?
  3. To the extent an AI algorithm or process learns its function(s) by ingesting large volumes of copyrighted material, does the existing statutory language (e.g., the fair use doctrine) and related case law adequately address the legality of making such use? Should authors be recognized for this type of use of their works? If so, how?
  4. Are current laws for assigning liability for copyright infringement adequate to address a situation in which an AI process creates a work that infringes a copyrighted work?
  5. Should an entity or entities other than a natural person, or company to which a natural person assigns a copyrighted work, be able to own the copyright on the AI work? For example: Should a company who trains the artificial intelligence process that creates the work be able to be an owner?
  6. Are there other copyright issues that need to be addressed to promote the goals of copyright law in connection with the use of AI?
  7. Would the use of AI in trademark searching impact the registrability of trademarks? If so, how?
  8. How, if at all, does AI impact trademark law? Is the existing statutory language in the Lanham Act adequate to address the use of AI in the marketplace?
  9. How, if at all, does AI impact the need to protect databases and data sets? Are existing laws adequate to protect such data?
  10. How, if at all, does AI impact trade secret law? Is the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), 18 U.S.C. 1836 et seq., adequate to address the use of AI in the marketplace?
  11. Do any laws, policies, or practices need to change in order to ensure an appropriate balance between maintaining trade secrets on the one hand and obtaining patents, copyrights, or other forms of intellectual property protection related to AI on the other?
  12. Are there any other AI-related issues pertinent to intellectual property rights (other than those related to patent rights) that the USPTO should examine?
  13. Are there any relevant policies or practices from intellectual property agencies or legal systems in other countries that may help inform USPTO’s policies and practices regarding intellectual property rights (other than those related to patent rights)?

Read the source articles in  MeriTalk, Patently-O and The Verge.

Send your comments to

Source: AI Trends