Discussion Who "owns" the artwork? ... a conundrum when AI is involved

[Boudica]

So, while I'm the resident graphic designer and production manager for a print studio, I moonlight my design services when something will take a lot more of my time at work then I have to afford. I'm most valuable to my boss as the production manager keeping the printers going and .... well producing. He doesn't mind at all if I work on design and layout at home on my own time to free up more time for the part that actually makes him money.

We have a customer who does wallpaper murals, they send us the art, we produce it and blind ship it to their customers all over the country. They recently had a project that was very different from the type of wall murals they normally do, and hit me up to do the design work. I worked with that client, we came up with and finalized the artwork and then I sent it to our customer who will turn around and send the order to us for producing. I bill my customer for my time, and they add it to the cost of the overall project.

They do a LOT of social media on the projects they do, which gains them more customers - they are pretty successful, as we print these wallpaper murals for them almost every day - they sent 3 orders just today. So their projects are quite visible to the world and she asked me... if someone else wants this for their home, who owns the artwork?

This was my response:
As to who owns the artwork.... that's a very good question! I was actually considering that question the other day. But there is no straightforward answer.
It was her concept, but she paid for my time - not the artwork. She supplied some of the elements - but she used AI to create them (another can of worms - who "owns" AI generated artwork) There are no hard fast rules on this subject yet.
I used my skills to create editable artwork from her idea, but I wouldn't say I owned it, it's not my brainchild.... I just know a thing or two about how to use the creative software, and how to create a visually pleasing layout. I would say if it comes up.... we start from scratch with that person's idea, and I can do something similar to customize it for them.
...the beginning part was really quick for me... it was all the changes that took most of the time I spent.

Anybody else running into this? In the new world of AI, is it fair to charge someone for artwork (on top of time) or is it just in existance and no one really owns it?

 

[Gino]

Ya know, that's a pretty good question.

Years ago, our motto was bring us you ideas, partials thoughts or whatever ya have, We can take your needs and wants from any point and we'll finish it for you professionally. We basically used our expertise to create a sign, which is an end product. You use whatever tools you have at your disposal and create, too. However, with so many hands in the pot, it's certainly a piece of work til it's done brewing.

You could always tell them although we all had a hand in creating this, the final files hadda be created in order for us to produce it.

I'd put together a cost for your part of the final in producing the final design project and whatever extras ya might of had in it, but you own the digital files. Who made them ?? YOU. They're yours. To put it into any format, if they request files back, charge them a flat fee for that portion of $475.00. It's due every time they want that same file produced.

 

[victor bogdanov]

You have to register the work with the copyright office to be able to sue for damages etc. Without registration, while you may have the copyright for it, you won't get far on the legal from without registering it.

If you want to be sure your copyright is protected you'll need to register the work


All of the intricacies you posted would be up to the judge / lawyers to decide in mediation if a legal dispute was to occur.



Legally, neither one of you will get far without registering the work.

 

[Boudica]

I think the real question from my client was "if someone else wants this for their home too, is it ok to sell this design to another customer, or does the original customer own it"
The original customer hasn't asked for the digital files, I think the in-between customer was looking ahead and wondering where we stand on "reselling" the idea for someone else. Edit to add - she doesn't want to make the original customer angry if they see it somewhere else.
As it stands, she loved my suggestion to wait until we cross that bridge, and I would start from scratch and customize it for them (any new customers). It's not like I'm going to make prints of it and try to sell it online, it's pretty custom, not sure who else would want it. Though it did come out pretty cool.

 

[victor bogdanov]

Here is a good analogy:

Hire a wedding photographer, pay them.

photographer takes pictures of you

photographer owns all the rights to the photo despite that the photos are of you and you paid the photographer to take the pics. Unless the photographer explicitly releases the photos to you


I think this case is much the same. You own all of the rights.

 

[victor bogdanov]

Without some kind of exclusive design agreement or something with that original customer they can't have an expectation that they will be the only ones with that design

 

[Gino]

It's on your client to have it established who can and cannot use the design. When you go to a paint store and buy wall paper everyone has the right to pick and choose anything they want without hesitation...... because the store bought all those rights. Your part of the overall contribution is with your client, if you sign it over to them.

 

[Boudica]

It's on your client to have it established who can and cannot use the design. When you go to a paint store and buy wall paper everyone has the right to pick and choose anything they want without hesitation...... because the store bought all those rights. Your part of the overall contribution is with your client, if you sign it over to them.

I think that's why she was asking me.... the artwork they use for the wallpaper for their customers is purchased (they are NOAA nautical charts), and then they customize it for their clients. I've seen them use the same chart a hundred times.
This is a little different, it's not an NOAA chart, it's a unique creation from scratch - that originated with chatgpt. If they have another customer who wants something similar, They all still need me to make it/edit it for them - resize it, alter it or whatever, and I would charge for my time. I feel like since the original "design" came from AI, no one really owns the idea - any litigation would get thrown out, but I think my customer is worried about buthurt feelings and bad feedback on her company.

I really think it won't matter at all (she overthinks things a LOT), but the question was asked, and I was curious if my answer was inline. So far from the feed back I think it was.

 

[Solventinkjet]

I would say if the end customer didn't provide any original art work and just gave a description of what they wanted and you did the design work, technically you own the artwork unless you signed away ownership in an agreement of some sort. You might just tell them, in the future, if you want to own the artwork to resell, here's the price for that service. You're basically a subcontractor doing design work and weren't doing "work for hire" which would be the difference.

 

[Boudica]

I would say if the end customer didn't provide any original art work and just gave a description of what they wanted and you did the design work, technically you own the artwork unless you signed away ownership in an agreement of some sort. You might just tell them, in the future, if you want to own the artwork to resell, here's the price for that service. You're basically a subcontractor doing design work and weren't doing "work for hire" which would be the difference.

And I'm more than happy to re-customize what I did for another project - for a fee.

 

[BigNate]

I originally got into this business with 2 artist friends and we did graphic art advertising - no moneys for presses as broke teenagers. We had a good mentor who had worked for Sachi & Sachi - we basically just absorbed what he taught us.
THE ARTWORK BELONGS TO THE ARTIST! Now, the artist can sell the rights.

Every logo or corporate ID we created had explicit details on the invoice as to how the artwork could be used. We would prefer a full corporate ID package, but when we would start with a new company whose eyes were bigger than their wallets, we could narrow some things a bit - right to use logo for business cards $XX.00 right to use same logo for letterhead $yy.00 if needed for print advertising in magazine $zz.00/per incident.... etc. (okay it was much more often things like "this lager logo and label design may be used exclusively on beer bottles and kegs (not apparel) for the trade price of 100 gallons of said lager" accompanied by "This lager design as laid out for shirts may be used for apparel by client for the trade price of 75 gallons of said lager"......)

 

[Boudica]

I originally got into this business with 2 artist friends and we did graphic art advertising - no moneys for presses as broke teenagers. We had a good mentor who had worked for Sachi & Sachi - we basically just absorbed what he taught us.
THE ARTWORK BELONGS TO THE ARTIST! Now, the artist can sell the rights.

Every logo or corporate ID we created had explicit details on the invoice as to how the artwork could be used. We would prefer a full corporate ID package, but when we would start with a new company whose eyes were bigger than their wallets, we could narrow some things a bit - right to use logo for business cards $XX.00 right to use same logo for letterhead $yy.00 if needed for print advertising in magazine $zz.00/per incident.... etc. (okay it was much more often things like "this lager logo and label design may be used exclusively on beer bottles and kegs (not apparel) for the trade price of 100 gallons of said lager" accompanied by "This lager design as laid out for shirts may be used for apparel by client for the trade price of 75 gallons of said lager"......)

dang that's some specifics!

 

[BigNate]

dang that's some specifics!

and my memory is a bit fuzzy, but I remember it being very thirst quenching! (we did a lot of creative trades in the early years.....paintball, go-karts, motorcycle jacket, beer, food.... everyone used to need graphics - the Mac ruined it.)

 

[WildWestDesigns]

It was her concept, but she paid for my time - not the artwork. She supplied some of the elements - but she used AI to create them (another can of worms - who "owns" AI generated artwork) There are no hard fast rules on this subject yet.


Anybody else running into this? In the new world of AI, is it fair to charge someone for artwork (on top of time) or is it just in existance and no one really owns it?
;

My first question would be, did the woman do anything to the "AI" generated content (it's not really "AI", hence the quotes in case anyone is wondering). Last that I heard/read is that there had to be substantive human expression (changes) in order to be able to lay authorship to the work (what counts as substantive would probably vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction).

So, if she just did a prompt and emailed the results of said prompt without anything else being done to it, it's technically not her's. The prompt on the other hand, may be able to claim some authorship on that, but not the results of said prompt (the prompt would be more human expression compared to the results that the "AI" gave).

I would imagine that things will get laxer when corporations need to be able to claim authorship since otherwise they would have a hard time creatively speaking. So just wait until the lobbyists get involved, if they haven't started already.

 

[Johnny Best]

I WAS READING WHERE GETTY IMAGES AND AI are going to court over infrigement.

 

[Boudica]

My first question would be, did the woman do anything to the "AI" generated content (it's not really "AI", hence the quotes in case anyone is wondering). Last that I heard/read is that there had to be substantive human expression (changes) in order to be able to lay authorship to the work (what counts as substantive would probably vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction).

So, if she just did a prompt and emailed the results of said prompt without anything else being done to it, it's technically not her's. The prompt on the other hand, may be able to claim some authorship on that, but not the results of said prompt (the prompt would be more human expression compared to the results that the "AI" gave).

I would imagine that things will get laxer when corporations need to be able to claim authorship since otherwise they would have a hard time creatively speaking. So just wait until the lobbyists get involved, if they haven't started already.

She used chatgpt is all I know. What she sent was a bitmap that couldn't be edited or resized to work as her wallpaper mural. I took that, vectorized it, retyped all of the text, found suitable fonts and made it to fit the size needed for her wall. After that, I put in several hours swapping icons in and out, redrawing things, fixing what she didn't like from the original, moving things around...
After the initial prompt to the bot, the rest of the "prompts" were to me, to edit as she wished.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

She used chatgpt is all I know. What she sent was a bitmap that couldn't be edited or resized to work as her wallpaper mural. I took that, vectorized it, retyped all of the text, found suitable fonts and made it to fit the size needed for her wall. After that, I put in several hours swapping icons in and out, redrawing things, fixing what she didn't like from the original, moving things around...
After the initial prompt to the bot, the rest of the "prompts" were to me, to edit as she wished.

Something tells me that this is just livetrace/powertrace on steroids. Brave new world out there, at least it better be.

 

[Texas_Signmaker]

I thought things made by NOAA was public domain.

Once you create something, you automatically get copyright. You can register it with copyright office and get a registration number, which gives you a better standing to sue.

 

[Boudica]

I'm not that concerned with registration and copyright... I just made something for someone. Can it be repurposed legally? IDK... But it seems like the consensus here is that I did most of the work in creating this artwork, therefore yes it can be repurposed for other projects... If it comes up.
Am I wrong? Are my 30+ years of skills on steroids? Maybe, but I'm using tools for efficiency, like the technology gods intended.
If I'm wrong, I'll not use any of it for future projects, and create something new as I did with this project.

 

[Boudica]

Maybe I should share the before and final?