Who Owns Our Culture?
 |
| The Cellist -- Modigliani 1909 |
AI has learned from the vast body of knowledge and creativity available to humanity, mastering the ability to generate text, art, and music. It has advanced at an astonishing pace, already surpassing human ability in many creative fields—especially in speed and efficiency.
We stand at the brink of a new era: the democratization of creativity. AI already allows anyone to produce stunning digital works, and soon, robots will be able to craft physical artifacts just as effortlessly.
But this future is under threat. The same forces that have locked away our shared culture now want to control AI-generated creativity—not just what has been made, but what could be made. If we let them, they will monopolize not only our past but also our future.
1. AI Art Training Mirrors Human Learning
- AI systems learn the way humans do—by analyzing existing work, recognizing patterns, and synthesizing new outputs.
- No artist in history has had to pay royalties to their predecessors for learning from past works.
- Michelangelo studied sculptures before him, Shakespeare borrowed freely from earlier plays, and contemporary artists constantly build on prior influences.
- To claim AI should be barred from this same process is a double standard.
2. Copyright Already Overwhelmingly Benefits Corporations, Not Artists
- Most artists make little or nothing from copyrights, while the real beneficiaries are publishers, labels, and large corporations.
- Studies have shown that less than 10% of revenue from copyright-related earnings goes to individual creators—the rest is absorbed by middlemen.
- Rent-seekers aim to perpetuate a closed system where access to knowledge, culture, and art is artificially restricted so they can extract tolls.
- Artists should be wary of aligning with corporate gatekeepers who profit more from their work than they ever will.
3. AI Art is an Economic Reality—Trying to Ban It Won’t Change That
- No amount of prohibition will prevent AI from advancing.
- The same way photographers displaced portrait painters, and Photoshop displaced airbrush illustrators, AI will outcompete traditional artists in certain areas.
- Rather than denying humanity access to a new frontier, the focus should be on helping artists adapt, integrate AI tools, and create new markets—not propping up outdated income models.
4. The Danger of Letting Rent-Seekers “Own” the Commons
- If we accept that anything used in AI training must be “compensated”, we are implicitly accepting that corporations can lock up the cultural commons forever.
- Who decides who gets paid? If someone takes inspiration from Greek sculpture, does Greece get a check? Do Bach’s descendants get royalties every time a composer is influenced by him?
- This argument doesn’t just stifle AI—it threatens all creative work.
- It’s an attempt to extend corporate control over knowledge and culture indefinitely.
5. A System That Works for Everyone
If we must implement a compensation model, it should be:
- Limited in scope (e.g., a temporary adjustment period for living artists, not a permanent tax on all cultural knowledge).
- Aimed at individual creators, not corporations that had nothing to do with the original work.
- Designed to transition, not entrench outdated models—perhaps a universal basic income for artists, rather than an endless licensing scheme.
Final Thought: Who Are We Really Protecting?
At its core, this debate is about control—whether knowledge and culture should be freely available to all, or whether a few entities should have the power to limit, tax, and restrict how people learn and create.
We can acknowledge that AI changes things—just like every technological revolution before it—without submitting to a future where rent-seeking monopolies dictate what humanity is allowed to access, share, or create.
This is not about "protecting artists."
It’s about who gets to control the future of human creativity.
Comments