Seeing Stars - Or Diamonds and Sparkles, Anyway.

What's up with all these star symbols floating around these days?

I first noticed these "diamonds" as the AI-bros like to call them, being used as sort of a watermark on AI-generated content, or as some sort of trademark used in conjunction with AI services.  OK, I thought, well, at least it helps us identify AI content without having to scan an image or product with some sort of AI-identifying software.

But in typical monkey-see, monkey-do fashion, I have noticed people using these stars as decoration on documents or even e-mails or texts - as some sort of emoticon.  And no, not for AI-generated content, either.

Sometimes, they appear in clusters, usually with a large diamond (stretched vertically) with one or more smaller ones.  Some folks call these "sparkles" and yes, there is an emoji ✨for them.  So, they mean more than just AI.  According to Google AI (ahem!) they stand for magic, cleanliness, special features, and of course, AI.  So maybe the icon (which is very mid-century modern) existed first, and was appropriated by the AI-bros.  Shocking, I know.

Speaking of AI art, it has been proposed that we allow AI art in the Arts Association.  One member (non-artist) argues that since a gallery in Tampa had a successful AI art show, we are somehow obligated to follow suit.  Precedent, I guess.  The problem is, the issue is blindsiding the members and board, as people think AI is something other people do, and slowly it is working its way into daily life without being noticed.  It is already too late to formulate a policy on it, it seems.

And what policy to use?  There are photographers who use Photoshop (or similar software) to "pop" the colors on their photos.  Others edit photos or create art using Photoshop (in the pre-AI era).  Is using AI to edit an existing photo the same thing, or something different?  And if that is allowed, can you also allow an image created entirely from an AI prompt?

I have no answers, just a lot of messy questions.

Another member insists that we reject any art with trademarked or copyrighted content in it.  So, if Andy Warhol brought us one of his Campbell's soup can images, we would have to reject it.   Or, if a painter or photographer presented a landscape of an abandoned gas station, we would have to reject it because of the faded "Sunoco" sign in the foreground.

Such nonsense.  The deal is, Andy Warhol didn't sell soup, but sold art.  In Trademark law, the issue is "likelihood of confusion" by the average consumer.  And the average consumer would realize that an art gallery is not a place to buy soup or gasoline.

The issue came to a head as one artist painstakingly crafted, from wood, a replica of the old Jekyll Island sign that was briefly out front back in the 1960s.  Think, Vegas neon.  Funny thing - when I first moved here, they had an image of it at the local museum, tucked away in the back.  When I mentioned it to a docent, they pooh-poohed it, claiming it didn't represent the vintage "Club era" of the island.

Well, new management dusted it off and made color copies of it - as signs, patches, stickers, posters, t-shirts, you-name-it.  The joke is, the authority originally put that sign out front in the 1960s, and quickly tore it down when they got the electric bill.  The actual sign is lost to the ages.  It was quickly forgotten, but now, is an icon.  And yes, I own a replica of the sign, a patch, a sticker, and a t-shirt.

Yes, this is "fair use" of the image for purposes of education and discussion.

Btw, the toll is now $10.

Anyway, the Authority objected to the woodworker's version of the sign being sold in the gallery, because the Authority was selling a similar version of the sign in their own gift shop. Granted, a one-off artisanal copy is hardly a threat to their sales, but here, at least, we have the same "goods and services" involved - the sign itself. This is not the same thing as an artwork that happens to include a Trademark in the background.

Copyright gets trickier. Some artists make collages from existing materials - texts, images, and the like. You might argue that a portion of a page torn from a magazine and pasted to a collage might be considered an act of infringement. In a way, it is akin to the use of snippets of music by DJs and rappers in their own creations. Without opening that can of worms, it should be noted that a collage that incorporates a snippet of copyrighted text or image is hardly an adequate substitute for the actual thing.  No one is saying, "Rather than buy this new bestseller, I'm going to buy this collage and read a snippet of the text from there!"

But then again, Copyright infringement is never a cut-and-dried thing.  Even "fair use" is only a defense you can raise in court - after you are sued.   But then again, it costs money to sue, so in most instances, de minimus amounts of infringement are ignored, while major acts of piracy are prosecuted.

No one is going to take you to court because back in 1980 you made a copy of Hotel California on a cassette tape and gave it to a friend - even if they gave you a couple of joints as payment.  Not only is it hard to detect such acts of infringement, the damages caused are minuscule and not worth litigating.  Don't confuse not getting caught with something being legal.  You might be able to drive 65 in a 60 zone, and never get a ticket - that doesn't mean the speed limit went up.

On the other hand, if you set up a "file sharing site" and call it Napster, and allow thousands, if not millions, of copies to be made and distributed, well, not only is that easy to detect, but represents a large amount of damages to go after.

This whole tempest-in-a-teapot reminds me of the Hymnal Copyright issue raised by my neighbor, when a friend at church got agitated when a letter arrived implying they would all go to jail unless they bought a license for "New Christian Music."  The short answer is, use of music in worship services is expressly exempt from Copyright infringement, and moreover, 150-year-old hymns are in the public domain, anyway (and their hymnal had a express grant of a license to use and make copies in the title page).  But LoL's (Little Old Ladies) need something to obsess about, so they go off the deep end.

And like the Hymnal Copyright controversy, I suspect this latest bru-ha-ha will blow over in short order, but not before a few people puff themselves up and make new rules and piss off a lot of members, before it is all forgotten over time.

In the meantime, more and more AI-slop will slip into the gallery and our lives, bit by bit, until we are almost unaware of it.   As it will likely be, in other areas of our lives.