TL;DR:
- AI-generated art has faced criticism for the unauthorized use of existing artworks by human artists.
- Three artists filed a class-action complaint against Midjourney, DeviantArt, and Stability AI.
- Ascendant Art is a new company that uses AI to generate avatar images.
- Ascendant Art promises to pay royalties to artists whose artwork is voluntarily submitted for training.
- The company has trained its AI on public domain images and prohibits the scraping of its site.
- Artists who license their work with Ascendant Art are protected from having their art ripped off by other generators.
- Ascendant Art sells packs of avatars at various prices, with royalties shared among artists if multiple styles are used.
- CEO Mitch Randall believes in doing the right thing and expects Ascendant Art to be successful.
- Molly Crabapple compares Ascendant Art’s model to Spotify’s compensation system.
- Randall refutes the comparison, stating that Ascendant Art offers a substantial royalty percentage.
- The company aims to provide fair compensation to artists and differentiate itself from competitors.
- The industry awaits the outcome of lawsuits regarding copyright infringement.
Main AI News:
The emergence of AI-generated art has sparked a heated debate regarding the rights and compensation of flesh-and-blood artists, whose existing artworks serve as the foundation for these computer-generated creations. Several artists have taken legal action against Midjourney, DeviantArt (the force behind DreamUp), and Stability AI for the unauthorized use of their art by AI image generators.
In response to these concerns, Ascendant Art, a pioneering company that leverages AI to produce avatar images, has introduced a groundbreaking solution: paying royalties to artists who willingly contribute their artwork for training purposes. With nearly two dozen artists already registered, Ascendant Art aims to revolutionize the industry by showcasing a fair and ethical approach.
Mitch Randall, the CEO of Ascendant Art, expressed his discontent with the way AI-generated art has traditionally neglected artists’ rights and jeopardized their livelihoods. In an email to Artnet News, Randall stated, “We all thought it was terrible that AI art is just stealing from artists and is a threat to their livelihoods. It was obvious to us that artists should be getting royalty from the reproduction of their art. We decided to make this app because we wanted to show how to do this right.” Ascendant Art’s commitment to ensuring artists receive compensation is a testament to their dedication to ethical practices.
To date, Ascendant Art has trained its AI on public domain images, ensuring that copyrighted artwork remains untouched. Additionally, the company maintains a strict policy against web scraping, assuring artists who license their work with Ascendant that their creations will not be replicated by other image generators. By safeguarding the integrity of artists’ works, Ascendant Art cultivates an environment conducive to creativity and innovation.
Headquartered in Colorado and employing a small team of fewer than ten individuals, Ascendant Art offers packs of avatars at varying price points, ranging from a 10-pack priced at 99 cents to a 200-pack available for $9.99. In cases where an avatar image combines the styles of multiple artists, the royalties will be shared proportionately based on the extent to which each artist’s style contributes to the final image. The determination of artistic influence will, fittingly, be made by an AI.
Acknowledging the challenges they have faced, Randall shared, “We definitely chose the hard way. It took quite a bit longer than we anticipated and involved more tech development, legal work, and business efforts. We are truly pushing our resources to do what is right. Nevertheless, we firmly believe in our mission, and we anticipate remarkable success. In fact, if lawsuits end up shuttering other platforms due to copyright infringement, we might even be the sole survivor.”
However, some artists have already voiced their concerns about the model employed by Ascendant Art. Molly Crabapple, in a statement to Hyperallergic, drew parallels between the Ascendant Art model and Spotify’s compensation system. Mitch Randall, in response, refuted this comparison.
He explained, “Suppose there are 100,000 purchases per month resulting in a net revenue of $420,000 per month. Assuming we have 24 registered artists, then, on average, each artist would receive $4,375 per month. From what we know about the market, the number of downloads should be much higher, but I just wanted to give a lowball example. This is not like Spotify—the royalty percentage we have baked in is huge by comparison. At one time, one of our competitors was making $8 million per day in revenue!“
Conlcusion:
The emergence of Ascendant Art and its commitment to providing royalties to artists in the AI-generated art market signifies a significant shift in the industry. By addressing concerns regarding unauthorized use and offering fair compensation, Ascendant Art sets a precedent for ethical practices and establishes itself as a trustworthy platform for artists.
This development is likely to impact the market by fostering increased collaboration between AI technologies and human artists while also encouraging other companies to adopt similar models that prioritize artist rights and fair compensation. As the industry navigates legal challenges related to copyright infringement, the success of Ascendant Art could potentially shape the future landscape of AI-generated art, with a greater emphasis on artist recognition and remuneration.
