A.I. Art: Is It Stealing Your Art?

 

By Nydia Tungsten
 

I like a lot of others tinker and play with AI, or “Artificial Intelligence.” I also use it to help with my writing, NOT writing for me, but helping with how I describe my characters, so I know I am describing them correctly. That being said, I posted a few of my tinkerings in a Discord chat, and the next thing I know, I am being attacked by some unhinged “artist” swearing how AI art isn’t art! And that it is garbage, and I am garbage for even using it. And stealing from him and other “artists,” I really tried to de-escalate, saying it goes by description, not stealing, and he informed me that words are “NOT ART!” 
 

Well, I am sure Mr. Shakespeare is going to be absolutely devastated to find out about this…

But let us pull it back to images, to me and a hell of a lot of others, art is what is appealing to the beholder. There are a lot of artists out there that, in my humble opinion, are just .. Trash, entitled hacks that mummy told that their art is “special and needs to be shared with the world.”  Crap shot out of a canon onto a canvas is NOT art, bugs glued to cardboard is not art. Furry girls drawn with HUGE boobs and inflated bodies are not “art.” ANY fetish drawing is not art. And I REALLY doubt ANY AI would even think of stealing that.

BUT… that is my opinion, and we all know, opinions are like buttholes every everyone has one, and most stink!
 

But let's get into facts, shall we? 

 

It has not been proven that AI "steals" from other artists in any legal or definitive sense. The claim is highly contested and depends on how you define "stealing." Here's a clear breakdown:

1. What AI Training Actually Does

Large language models and image generators (like Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, DALL·E) are trained on billions of publicly available images and texts scraped from the internet.

These datasets include copyrighted works, but the AI does not store or copy the original images. It learns statistical patterns—shapes, colors, styles, compositions—similar to how a human artist studies thousands of paintings to develop their own style. 

 

The output is not a reproduction of any single training image but a new synthesis based on learned probabilities. 

 

Legal Status (As of 2025): 
No court has ruled that AI training on public data constitutes copyright infringement.

The U.S. Copyright Office (2023–2025) has consistently stated that AI-generated works are not  copyrightable because they lack human authorship, but it has not banned training on copyrighted material.

Ongoing lawsuits (e.g., Getty Images v. Stability AI, NYT v. OpenAI, artists v. Midjourney) argue infringement, but no final ruling has established that training = theft.

A 2024 federal judge dismissed parts of the Andersen v. Stability AI case, noting that mere inclusion in training data does not prove infringement unless the output is "substantially similar."

3. "Stealing" vs. "Learning"
 

Claim:  "AI copies artists' exact styles"

 

Reality:  Outputs can mimic styles, but so can human artists (e.g., Van Gogh forgeries). Style itself is not copyrightable (only specific works).

Claim: "AI reproduces watermarks/logos"

Reality:  Early models sometimes did; modern ones (2025) filter or blur these via safety layers.

 

Claim: "AI reproduces watermarks/logos"

 

Reality:  Early models sometimes did; modern ones (2025) filter or blur these via safety layers.
 

Claim: "Artists lose income"

Reality: Some report reduced commissions, but causation is unproven—market shifts (e.g., stock photo decline) predate AI. 

Loss of commissions will probably only happen to highly sought-after artists, and even then, the numbers are so marginal that it can’t even be proven. Yet the ones whining the loudest are the ones no one has even heard of. “The mommies' special artists.” 

Yes, I am a bit salty as I write this because of the entitled little whiner that decided they were the “Art god” descending from on high. And I know that there are others out there on both sides that REALLY need to hear this!

“Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.” And we are not all the same. So if you’re not really into what someone else calls art, you don’t have to, but nor should you just attack and crap over what they like.

AI will become more and more involved, whether we want it to or not. Some good, some bad. But remember, life is always changing, and IF you want a say in how it changes, learn to discuss. Not howl and rant like a rabid chimpanzee spouting off what you have heard from other howling chimpanzees. There are a few things AI is being put into that I don’t agree with, and I am looking into what might be done. As I would suggest you all do for whatever you feel needs to be addressed.

On that note, I will leave you, my readers, with one word, and I hope you all take it to heart.

DISCUSS.

Nydia 

*Editors Note*: If there are enough comments, they may be in another article.