Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Artifacts Without Authors: Generative Artificial Intelligence and the Question of Authorship Cover

Artifacts Without Authors: Generative Artificial Intelligence and the Question of Authorship

Metaphysics
Volume 7 (2024): Issue 1
By: Nurbay IrmakORCID  
Open Access
|Aug 2024

References

  1. 1Anscomb, C. 2022. Creating art with AI. Odradek Studies in Philosophy of Literature, Aesthetics, and New Media Theories, 8(1): 13–51.
    Back to article
  2. 2Baker, LR. 2007. The Metaphysics of Everyday Life. Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511487545
    Back to article
  3. 3Bantinaki, K. 2016. Commissioning the (art)work: From singular authorship to collective creatorship. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 50(1): 16–33. DOI: 10.5406/jaesteduc.50.1.0016
    Back to article
  4. 4Bloom, P. 1996. Intention, History and Artifact Concepts. Cognition, 60: 1–29. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(95)00699-0
    Back to article
  5. 5Bonadio, E and McDonagh, L. 2020. Artificial Intelligence as Producer and Consumer of Copyright Works: Evaluating the Consequences of Algorithmic Creativity. Intellectual Property Quarterly, 2: 112–137.
    Back to article
  6. 6Cope, D. 1987. Experiments in Music Intelligence (EMI). Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference, San Francisco. Computer Music Association.
    Back to article
  7. 7Dornis, TW. 2020. Artificial Creativity: Emergent Works and the Void in Current Copyright Doctrine. Yale Journal of Law and Technology, 22: 1–60. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3451480
    Back to article
  8. 8Elder, C. 2014. Artifacts and mind-dependence. In: Franssen, M, Kroes, P, Reydon, TAC and Vermaas, PE (eds.), Artefact Kinds: Ontology and the Human-Made World. Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-00801-1_3
    Back to article
  9. 9Evnine, S. 2013. Ready-Mades: Ontology and Aesthetics. British Journal of Aesthetics, 53(4): 407–423. DOI: 10.1093/aesthj/ayt033
    Back to article
  10. 10Evnine, S. 2016. Making Objects and Events. Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198779674.001.0001
    Back to article
  11. 11Fritz, J. Forthcoming. The notion of ‘authorship’ under EU law—who can be an author and what makes one an author? An analysis of the legislative framework and case law. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. DOI: 10.1093/jiplp/jpae022
    Back to article
  12. 12Garcia, C. 2016. Harold Cohen and AARON – A 40- Year Collaboration. Available at https://computerhistory.org/blog/harold-cohen-and-aaron-a-40-year-collaboration/ [Last accessed 14 March 2024].
    Back to article
  13. 13Gervais, D. 2020. Is Intellectual Property Law Ready for Artificial Intelligence? GRUR International, 69(2): 117–118. DOI: 10.1093/grurint/ikz025
    Back to article
  14. 14Ginsburg, JC and Budiardjo, LA. 2019. Authors and Machines. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 34: 343–448. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3233885
    Back to article
  15. 15Gould, JL. 2007. Animal artifacts. In Eric, M and Stephen, L (eds.), Creations of the mind (pp. 249–266). Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199250981.003.0014
    Back to article
  16. 16Grierson, J. 2023. Photographer admits prize-winning image was AI-generated. The Guardian, April 17, 2023. [online access at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/apr/17/photographer-admits-prize-winning-image-was-ai-generatedast accessed 12 March 2024].
    Back to article
  17. 17Grimmelmann, J. 2017. There’s No Such Thing as a Computer-Authored WorkAnd It’s a Good Thing, Too. Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts, 39: 403–416. DOI: 10.31228/osf.io/rk8cm
    Back to article
  18. 18Gungor, A. Forthcoming. Artifact concept pluralism. Dialectica.
    Back to article
  19. 19Hick, DH. 2011. Toward and an ontology of authored works. British Journal of Aesthetics, 51(2): 185–199. DOI: 10.1093/aesthj/ayr004
    Back to article
  20. 20Hilpinen, R. 1993. Authors and artifacts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 93: 155–178. DOI: 10.1093/aristotelian/93.1.155
    Back to article
  21. 21Hilpinen, R. 2011. Artifact. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 Edition), Zalta, EN (ed.). Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/artifact/.
    Back to article
  22. 22Hugenholtz, PB and Quintais, JP. 2021. Copyright and Artificial Creation: Does EU Copyright Law Protect AI-Assisted Output? International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 52: 1190–1216. DOI: 10.1007/s40319-021-01115-0
    Back to article
  23. 23Hunter, W. 2023. What poets know that ChatGPT Doesn’t. The Atlantic, February 13, 2023 [online access at https://www.theatlantic.com/books/archive/2023/02/chatgpt-ai-technology-writing-poetry/673035/ last accessed 12 March 2024].
    Back to article
  24. 24Irmak, N. 2021. Authorship and Creation. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 79(2): 175–185. DOI: 10.1093/jaac/kpab004
    Back to article
  25. 25Irmak, N. Forthcoming. The Mess We Make: On the Metaphysics of Artifact Kinds. Erkenntnis. DOI: 10.1007/s10670-024-00789-5
    Back to article
  26. 26Irvin, S. 2005. Appropriation and authorship in contemporary art. British Journal of Aesthetics, 45(2): 123–137. DOI: 10.1093/aesthj/ayi015
    Back to article
  27. 27Juvshik, T. 2021a. Artifacts and mind-dependence. Synthese, 199: 9313–9336. DOI: 10.1007/s11229-021-03204-6
    Back to article
  28. 28Juvshik, T. 2021b. Artifactualization without physical modification. Res Philosophica, 98(4): 545–572. DOI: 10.11612/resphil.2092
    Back to article
  29. 29Juvshik, T. 2021c. Function essentialism about artifacts. Philosophical Studies, 178: 2943–2964. DOI: 10.1007/s11098-020-01594-w
    Back to article
  30. 30Khosrowi, D, Finn, F and Clark, E. Forthcoming. Engaging the many-hands problem of generative-AI outputs: a framework for attributing credit. AI Ethics.
    Back to article
  31. 31Koslicki, K. 2018. Form, Matter and Substance. Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198823803.001.0001
    Back to article
  32. 32Levinson, J. 2007. Artworks as artifacts. In: Margolis, E and Laurence, S (eds.), Creations of the mind. Oxford University Press. pp. 74–82. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199250981.003.0005
    Back to article
  33. 33Lopes, DM. 2009. A philosophy of computer art. Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203872345
    Back to article
  34. 34Mag Uidhir, C. 2011. Minimal authorship of (sorts). Philosophical Studies, 154: 373–387. DOI: 10.1007/s11098-010-9525-0
    Back to article
  35. 35Mag Uidhir, C. 2013. Art and Art-Attempts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665778.001.0001
    Back to article
  36. 36McManus, S. 2023. Friend or foe: Can computer coders trust ChatGPT? BBC, March 31, 2023. [online access at https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65086798 last accessed 12 March 2024].
    Back to article
  37. 37Moran, C. 2023. ChatGPT is making up fake Guardian articles. Here’s how we’re responding. The Guardian, April 6, 2023. [online access at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/06/ai-chatgpt-guardian-technology-risks-fake-article last accessed 12 March 2024].
    Back to article
  38. 38Ploin, A, et al. 2022. AI and the arts: How machine learning is changing artistic work. Oxford Internet Institute.
    Back to article
  39. 39Preston, B. 2013. A philosophy of Material Culture: Action, function, and Mind. Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203069844
    Back to article
  40. 40Reicher, ME. 2015. Computer-generated music, autrhoship, and work identity. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 91: 107–130. DOI: 10.1163/9789004302273_006
    Back to article
  41. 41Reicher, ME. 2022. The primacy of abstract artifacts. In: McNamara, P, Jones, AJI and Brown, MA (eds.), Agency, Norms, Inquiry, and Artifacts: Essays in Honor of Risto Hilpinen, Synthese Library 454. Cham: Springer. pp. 235–246. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-90749-5_12
    Back to article
  42. 42Roose, K. 2022. An A.I.-Generated Picture Won an Art Prize. Artists Aren’t Happy. The New York Times. September 2, 2022. [online access at https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/02/technology/ai-artificial-intelligence-artists.html last accessed 12 March 2024].
    Back to article
  43. 43Sparrow, J. 2023. Are AI-generated songs a ‘grotesque mockery’ of humanity or simply an opportunity to make a new kind of music?. The Guardian, January 20, 2023. [online access at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/20/are-ai-generated-songs-a-grotesque-mockery-of-humanity-or-simply-an-opportunity-to-make-a-new-kind-of-music last accessed 12 March 2024].
    Back to article
  44. 44Steinert, S. 2016. Art: Brought to you by creative machines. Philosophy and Technology, 30(3): 267–284. DOI: 10.1007/s13347-016-0230-6
    Back to article
  45. 45Thomasson, LA. 2003. Realism and human kinds. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 67(3): 580–609. DOI: 10.1111/j.1933-1592.2003.tb00309.x
    Back to article
  46. 46Thomasson, LA. 2007. Artifacts and human concepts. In: Margolis, E and Laurence, S (eds.), Creations of the mind. Oxford University Press. pp. 52–73. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199250981.003.0004
    Back to article
  47. 47van Woudenberg, R, Ranalli, C and Bracker, D. 2024. Authorship and ChatGPT: a Conservative View. Philosophy and Technology, 37: 34. DOI: 10.1007/s13347-024-00715-1
    Back to article
  48. 48Wojtkiewicz, K. 2023. How Do You Solve a Problem like DALL-E 2? The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 81(4): 454–467. DOI: 10.1093/jaac/kpad046
    Back to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/met.160 | Journal eISSN: 2515-8279
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Submitted on: Mar 17, 2024
Accepted on: Jul 26, 2024
Published on: Aug 19, 2024
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
artifacts,
authorship,
generative artificial intelligence

© 2024 Nurbay Irmak, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 7 (2024): Issue 1Next article