Overview
Now let's hear what you think! After you make your posting, return to the discussion and read your groupmate's postings (not your own).
Go to the 1: Art & Copying Response discussion (not here). Hit Reply. Identify which AI-generated artwork from your group is most deserving of copyright protection and why. Then, in 100 words, give us your perspective on whether artists should be able to copy or use images made by others, with or without the help of AI.
THIS IS THE POST I AM SUPPOSED TO REPLY
Appropriation vs Copying
Image 1 - Acceptable Artistic Appropriations This is an example of acceptable artistic appropriation and therefore copyrightable.
The Mona Lisa by Leonardo da Vinci is shown in this picture made by AI taking a selfie with her phone. The famous pose and look are kept while new technology is added to the original to give it a new meaning. This is meant to make a comment on the rise of selfies and the history of self-portraiture. According to Living with Art (p. 32), an artist can appropriate a work as long as they give it a major new expression or meaning. This new interpretation turns the old picture into a comment on modern society. It's creative and unique, so it's okay to use someone else's work.
Image 2 -Mere CopyingThis is an example of copying and therefore not copyrightable
This picture looks a lot like da Vinci's original Mona Lisa. It looks, feels, and is put together the same way and doesn't add any new facts or opinions. Living with Art (p. 32) talks about what it means to "simply copy," which means to make an exact copy of a valid work without adding to or changing its meaning. You can't protect this picture as original because it was made by AI and doesn't add anything new or creative to the talk. It's just a copy.