If Art has a future - Ethical and legal challenges of AI in animation

During our childhood, every one of us has watched animation films and cartoons. The drawings by hand depicted the reality around us and our dreams, nourishing young minds and creativity. However, since AI is gaining the upper hand, wondering about the future of animation has become crucial. How do we face the quiet truth that what we see might not be the result of someone’s authentic and heartfelt imagination?

From the phenakitoscope to advanced 3D animation technology

The origins of animation are much older than we think. More than a century ago, the phenakistoscope and zootrope would create the illusion of animation thanks to a rotating disk. Thenceforth, the world of entertainment has evolved along with the latest technologies, shifting from silent films to audio, from black and white to Technicolor. It can be argued that this is the natural advancement of any industry, with AI, VR, and AR becoming the next frontier. These instruments are influencing how animation is conceived by the professionals, and reflectively the final product that reaches spectators at home and in cinemas. However, some fear that the involvement of AI generates an impersonal out-take, affecting the creative effort that would normally be integrated in such works.

Integration of AI in professional workflows

AI tools are increasingly being adopted to support various stages of the workflow, from pre-production to post-production. In the early stages, AI is used for script analysis, moodboarding and general suggestions based on genre and visual styles. During the animation process, AI assisted tools are used for in-betweening (the process in which motion is created in between several key photograms). However, it is not a pervasive use, as we might imagine. Considering that the databases of the algorithms could be trained using copyrighted images, it is unusual that workers would risk costly lawsuits instead of relying on personal genuine inspiration. Moreover, in some cases, involving AI would prevent authors from copyrighting their work.

In several sectors, it is sometimes difficult to find qualified concept artists. Henceforth, AI is involved in the so called “photo-bashing procedure”, through which models to build cartoons on are created. These are technical documents rather than creative, and nowadays there are not cartoons and comics made with AI if not for proof of concept, and never for commercial scope.

The fight of creativity against automation

Several AI extensions have recently allowed people to convert their pictures into Studio Ghibli animation style, as well as Disney’s and other signature designs from famous companies. Some have exploited this tool to convert their family pictures into astonishing artworks, and who renounced has interrogated themselves of the repercussions of this mania.  

Is this a threat to creativity? Usually, creating a piece of art by exploiting a style would not constitute plagiarism itself. The problem is that Art upon which AI is trained on is usually made up of copyrighted pieces, and little is known about how the images are scraped on the Internet, or how they are then effectively elaborated. Moreover, AI is not able yet to perfectly replicate individual styles, as the personal touch of each artist. What stays at the basis are still algorithms,and there can be many imprecisions.

Overall, the sentiment of designers towards AI is the one of departing and maintaining creative identity. There are two primary concerns. Some professionals complain that the advent would diminish workplaces, and others give priority to a correct use of images and compliance with copyright.

In the future, there might be the need of a professional called “trainer”, a person with remarkable artistic sensibility that will oversee the choice of images to give AI for training algorithms. Other highly qualified professionals will most likely keep the traditional crafted approach, generating different currents on how art is conceived.

As an example of how the market would look like in the future, imagine you are buying a sweater. The one that is handmade will cost most likely more than the one which is artificially produced. The same will happen to art. The handmade drawings would probably stay more adherent to the style, meanwhile AI does not consider the fundamental theme of coherency when creating images. This will result in higher value of the final handmade product, compared to the one made artificially. Sometimes, in the so called “sequential visual art”, if characters are made through AI their features might change, creating issues. Indeed, if the character does not seem the same in all the moments of the artistic process, this might impact on commercial prospects.

Intellectual property rights and dataset use

It is still too early to determine the true impact of new technologies. Their use feels like a sword of Damocles, as there is a constant risk of facing million-dollar lawsuits for improper use. It remains uncharted territory for legislation as well. A coalition of artists, creatives, publishers and associations across Europe is raising concerns about the unauthorised use of their data and intellectual properties by generative AI technologies. The EGAIR Manifesto constitutes the expression of such concerns, claiming that generative AI, since its advent in 2022, is trained with massive datasets often built by scraping the internet without consent. This includes copyrighted works and private data. The group argues that this exploitation threatens not only individual rights but also the future of the creative industry and broader job markets. They are calling on European institutions to act and propose five key demands, that include transparency and certifications for datasets, as well as consent-based training.

What is next?

In the end, it is not the conclusion we draw, but the reflections we foster, that matter most. Indeed, we all have that one animated film that makes us radiant even when we become adults. The world of cartoons has the fascinating ability to convey the deepest life lessons with the lightness of a feather, reaching the heart of people who revisit them time and again. How can talent be nourished, if years of Fine Art Schools are substituted with a click? What is the message we want to send to kids, when the hero they look up to, the stories and the songs they dream about might all be a surrogate? Only time will reveal if this marks the Death of creativity.

CC: Francesca Posadinu