Cover image: Clarote & AI4Media / Better Images of AI / Power/Profit / CC-BY 4.0
Cosa trovi in questa news
Sora and the invitation to artists
Last December, OpenAI (one of the leading companies developing artificial intelligence technologies – the creator of ChatGPT, to be understood) released a beta-version of a new artificial intelligence product, Sora, capable of transforming text inputs into videos with professional, if not even cinematic, performances. To test the product, the company invited a group of artists working with AI to use the model in preview, with the main purpose of gathering feedback and perfecting the tool. The conditions offered to these alpha-artists were also favourable, according to Francesco D’Isa (an Italian artist and writer invited to participate):
Free use of the software, no obligation to provide any feedback on bugs or to promote the company (or I would not have accepted), freedom to publish the materials created as long as they did not violate the intellectual property of others.
The accusation of art-washing
On 26 November 2024, shortly before the planned date of the software’s official release, an anonymous group called PR Puppets publicly leaked Sora’s code on the Hugging Face platform, making it open source and therefore accessible to anyone, attaching to the fact an open letter signed by 19 artists stating the reason for the leak and their positions. They accuse OpenAI – a company worth 150 million dollars – of exploiting the work of artists and creatives to fix their bugs and make people believe that their products are useful to everyone, in a sort of art washing operation:
ARTISTS ARE NOT YOUR UNPAID R&D
☠️ we are not your: free bug testers, PR puppets, training data, validation tokens ☠️
Hundreds of artists provide unpaid labor through bug testing, feedback and experimental work for the program for a $150B valued company. While hundreds contribute for free, a select few will be chosen through a competition to have their Sora-created films screened — offering minimal compensation which pales in comparison to the substantial PR and marketing value OpenAI receives. [...] CORPORATE ARTWASHING DETECTED [̲̅$̲̅(̲̅ )̲̅$̲̅]
We are releasing this tool to give everyone an opportunity to experiment with what ~300 artists were offered: a free and unlimited access to this tool. What we don’t agree with is how this artist program has been rolled out and how the tool is shaping up ahead of a possible public release. We are sharing this to the world in the hopes that OpenAI becomes more open, more artist friendly and supports the arts beyond PR stunts.
The collective charges OpenAI with using the arts as a mere tool to promote their products, without any real interest in the cultural and social value of artistic work; they say their initial participation in the project was motivated by the promise of a fair and transparent collaboration, a promise which, according to them, was not kept.
We received access to Sora with the promise to be early testers, red teamers and creative partners. However, we believe instead we are being lured into "art washing" to tell the world that Sora is a useful tool for artists.
In light of the Sora leak and the alleged exploitation, the artists made several demands:
- Fair compensation: Payment for their contribution and time.
- Transparent communication: Honest disclosure of the project’s goals and the artists’ roles.
- Support for creativity: A focus on genuine artistic collaboration instead of public relations benefits.
- Long-term partnership: Building respectful and sustainable relationships with collaborators.
Who signed the open letter
Here is a list of some of the artists who signed the letter on artinthecageofdigitalreproduction.org – some others preferred to stay anonymous:
- Jake Elwes jakeelwes.com
- Memo Akten memo.tv
- CROSSLUCID crosslucid.com
- Maribeth Rauh maribethrauh.com
- Joel Simon joelsimon.net
- Bea Ramos bearamos.com
- Power Dada powerdada.com
- aurèce vettier aurecevettier.com
- Acfp acfp.art
- Iannis Bardakos iannisbardakos.com
- 204 no-content | Cintia Aguiar Pinto & Dimitri De Jonghe 204nocontent.com
- Emmanuelle Collet emmanuellecollet.com
- XU Cheng xucheng.art
- Operator operator.la
- Katie Peyton Hofstadter katiepeyton.com
- Anika Meier anika-meier.de
- Solimán López solimanlopez.com
Our statement
Other personalities active in the field also have joined the open letter, including Federico Bomba, artistic director of Sineglossa, upon invitation by Luna Bianchi. Below is his contribution:
I've always believed that the conversation artists should be having with OpenAI, and any company developing generative AI, shouldn't revolve around copyright compensation. Copyright is a game rigged to benefit corporations and a select handful of celebrity artists, while leaving the vast majority of independent creators with crumbs. The real demand should be for something transformative in their same playground, challenging the traditional concept of ownership as they already did by mining artists' works from the web. What is needed is a meaningful reinvestment of the wealth these companies generate which could benefit the biggest number of artists. Not token microgrants or hollow gestures, but millions of dollars, euros, yen, or pesos poured directly into empowering the worldwide artistic community to experiment, innovate, and push boundaries. This is what people should expect from a company that claims to value artists' skills and contributions.
Sadly, OpenAI is missing an important opportunity to strengthen its relationship with the very artists shaping the future of AI art, some of whom are leaders in this field. Rather than offering meaningful compensation for their expertise and vision, the company opted to reward them with "visibility." On top of that, the actual reward for participating in OpenAI's call was a microgrant of $1,500, a sum that hardly reflects the time and effort required to create high-quality work. This approach not only undervalues their contributions but also signals a disconnect from the needs and rights of the artistic community.
How does this behaviour align with OpenAI's lofty mission to "ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity"? Are artists not part of humanity? Or does humanity only include engineers, developers, and investors profiting from AI advancements? Was this decision to offer such modest rewards deliberate, or was it an oversight, perhaps a reflection of the common tendency to underestimate the significant research, effort, and emotional labour that art requires? Either way, it's a bad signal. OpenAI's inability to adequately value the artistic community is more than just a misstep; it's indicative of a deeper issue. Artists aren't just content creators—they are cultural innovators, critical thinkers, and essential collaborators. By failing to nurture these relationships, OpenAI not only alienates an important group of contributors but also limits its own potential to explore the broader, humanistic applications of AI technologies.
If OpenAI were serious about its mission, it would need to take meaningful steps to demonstrate that commitment. Establishing a substantial fund, something far beyond token amounts, could provide direct support to the artistic community through open grants, residencies, and collaborative projects. This isn't about charity; it's about reinvesting in the creative ecosystem that AI has drawn from and continues to impact. By doing so, OpenAI might rebuild trust with artists and set a positive example for the industry, showing that it values artists not only for PR art-washing but as essential partners.
It happened to artists today, but it will happen to other professionals tomorrow. If OpenAI cannot show respect and accountability to the creators whose work has shaped these technologies, how can it expect to serve the broader needs of humanity? The artistic community deserves better, and OpenAI should rise to the occasion by recognizing that compensating artists for the research is a matter of strategic investment in the future of generative AI.
