Will AI replace performers in the arts?
As more music and movie production companies turn to artificial intelligence to cut costs, what does it mean for artists’ jobs?
From gems such as this video of Elon Musk, Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson and the Joker playing Minecraft to Daddy’s Car, one of the first pop songs composed by artificial intelligence, one thing is certain: AI is here to stay (and thrive). However, the boom in the development of creative AI tools is starting to raise ethical and legal questions concerning creativity and originality.
The global AI in media and entertainment market size was valued at £8.4 billion in 2021 and is expected to grow every year from 2022 to 2030 by 26%, reaching an estimated whopping value of £105 billion pounds by 2032. Despite such rapid growth, artists are not happy.
A recent survey by Equity found that 65% of performers based in the UK think AI technology poses a threat to employment opportunities, with the figure rising as high as 93% for audio artists. Stop AI stealing the show, the campaign launched by performing arts and entertainment trade union Equity, aims to strengthen performers’ rights in response to the rise of artificial intelligence.
‘Art is not an object and music is not just notes. It needs people.’
What this means for artists
Voice cloning and sound generating are one of the most interesting - and dangerous, you could say - tools in the creative AI arsenal. In a recent article, Motherboard found that voice actors are increasingly being asked to sign rights to their voices away, often without additional compensation. AI and music expert Dr Martin Clancy believes giving rights to artificial intelligence would have ‘huge consequences’ and ‘massive ramifications.’
An academic and creative professional, Clancy’s research focuses on the economic and ethical implications of AI technologies with a particular emphasis on employment in the creative industries. According to him, the push to grant AI rights in the law ‘needs to be considered very cautiously and very carefully, simply because it has such a fundamental implication.’
In the UK, artists’ work is currently protected by the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988, a legal act which has not yet been properly updated to include the rapid development of artificial intelligence tools. Which is to say, the legal system has not yet completely grasped the complexity of AI technologies in the creative industry.
Why is copyright relevant in the AI discussion?
Broadly, copyright is the right to make copies of something that a human has made. As Clancy explains:
‘The reason we make that distinction is that's how the courts divide this. So legally, the question is not whether a non-human, such as an animal or a machine, is capable of making it.’
Dr Clancy says that if production companies have started asking voice actors to sign the rights away to their voices, that could have serious implications for the music ecosystem and the creative industries as a whole. With creatives being asked to sign the rights away for their voices, Dr Clancy comes up with a possible defence:
‘It's a thing called moral rights, which is the right that you should have your name, your personality [attached to your work]. Maybe that's where the argument is, that your voice catches part of your personality, and that's your protection.’
And that is where originality comes into play.
What's originality in music or art?
Clancy says that the only way to position these ideas is from a legal and philosophical point of view. He compares using only legal tools to address artificial intelligence in the arts to ‘trying to eat soup with a fork. You know you can do it, but [it’s not easy].’
The 2022 Equity survey also found that 93% think the Government should introduce new legal protections for performers, so that a performance cannot be reproduced by AI technology without their consent. That is to say, the rise of AI opens up a new realm of legal and ethical issues for performers, especially voice actors and musicians.
Antonio Della Marina is an Italian electronic composer and sound artist with nearly two decades experience. He has tried using AI tools in his creative process and is optimistic about the impact these technologies will have on the music industry:
‘I think artists are curious and they are using it, accepting it because it's a new opportunity. It's a new tool to use, to be creative with. It’s something to play with.’
Antonio, having been commissioned to compose and perform musical works all over the world, believes that artificial intelligence ‘makes your work easier and does some part of your work for you, but not the whole thing. Human creativity will always be there.’
So, are artists really at risk?
Yes and no. AI technologies work by inputs and outputs. Until that changes, human creativity will still be used as the input, which means two things:
Unless artificial intelligence learns to take its own inputs as new inputs, we will still need human creativity and people in the arts to advance the field, otherwise AI inputs are frozen in time - and therefore all creative results are, well…, not creative anymore.
The evaluation of whether an artistic output is good or bad depends on a human subjective opinion. That is to say, an output is as ‘good’ as what the artist subjectively decides makes ‘good’ art.
People will always enjoy human creativity simply because it is challenging to humans and we relate to that. Antonio Della Marina believes that ‘technology is a tool. Art is not an object and music is not just notes. It needs people. It needs a musician and a listener. It’s a two-person relationship.’