AI is clearly a hot topic in the photography world. As we know, AI algorithms can change colours and gradients, add or remove objects, adjust focus and or any settings for that matter to create entirely new images. These could be nuanced artistic decisions, but some AI usage can fundamentally change images. AI’s ability to enhance images throws up questions around photography competitions, and the debate whether photos made using AI in some way should be labelled as such or not continues.
For some, using AI to enhance an image is simply the smart, latest way of using all the tools at your disposal, not hugely different from adopting the settings and filters available on every digital camera. It does beg the question, how far should we go in disclosing the extent to which a photo has been retouched, filtered or edited in some way, either using AI or other tools? Others say that, even if a photo has used AI to enhance an image, the creative intent behind the instructions given to the algorithm still belong to the person creating the photo. Others would argue that not disclosing the use of AI is dishonest, especially if the audience believes it to be a real, raw image. When it comes to judging photography competitions, do we need to know the details of how an image was created, in order to fully understand its worth?
In the interests of fairness in photography competitions, it seems sensible to create a system whereby information regarding AI involvement in creating an image – and in particular metadata, is available in a clear, easy-to-understand format as a basic requirement. This would provide a more even playing field when it comes to judging a photography competition. There’s a call for photography competition organisers across the globe to work together to create industry-wide guidelines and rules for the use of AI in photography. Perhaps a fair way forward would be the creation of an AI category alongside the existing categories, where AI use is permitted and images can be judged accordingly. Should AI be permitted in photography competitions, what’s clear is that there needs to be full transparency and a system to ensure fair guidelines for the judgement.
When it comes to insurance and AI, there are two main areas to consider:
Photographers defending themselves against breaches of their Intellectual Property by AI.
Unfortunately, there is not much photographers can do from an insurance point of view to protect themselves currently. Insurance policies are generally defensive; protecting people who are insured from claims from third parties, rather than covering people who are insured to pursue legal action against a third party. Some legal expenses policies include cover for action brought by people who are insured, but currently they exclude Intellectual Property exclusion, so would not help in this instance.
Photographers using AI who are worried about claims against them alleging they have breached a third parties’ Intellectual Property.
At present, most Intellectual Property policies in the UK do not contain an AI exclusion so this would be covered by a Professional Indemnity policy a photographer took out through us. Be aware that some US insurers are starting to apply AI clauses to policies, so it is likely that this situation may change here in the UK in the future.
