Is it OK for a company like Disney to use AI art?
Walt Disney, an artist before he was a theme park owner or movie maker, said to always remember The Disney Company “was all started by a mouse.” So, if Disney, or any other company rooted in art, posts Generative AI art, is that OK?
By Jeff DePaoli and Matt Roseboom
Walt Disney World recently released a controversial piece of Thanksgiving art on their Instagram account. The artwork in question is an homage to an oil painting by Norman Rockwell called “Freedom from Want.” The original painting features an American family sitting around a dinner table about to enjoy their Thanksgiving feast. Years ago, The Walt Disney Company created a version with Disney characters in a similar pose and setting; however, for Thanksgiving 2023, Disney updated their version for the modern times, but some fear it was created using generative AI.
It should be noted there is no proof it was created by AI, but that hasn’t stopped people from leaving their thoughts. If you scroll through the comments on the original post, there is an overwhelming amount of disgust, and any positive comment seems to come from another official Disney account sharing messages of gratitude.
Instagram account @stealcase_ writes, “AI is built on the exploited unpaid labor of millions of artists, a demographic that is legendarily underpaid. Why would you do this when your entire business is about selling magic and creativity?”
Other comments include:
“This is very disappointing. Disney is in the business of creating the most inspiring visual universes and should always stay away from uninspired ugly AI images. Also, a very greedy move. Pay artists and create real stuff.” -@squalaladam
Over on the social media platform X, the public has been analyzing side-by-side comparisons of the original Rockwell painting with Disney’s original and more current homage. Aside from anger over Roger Rabbit and a cooked turkey being replaced, most of the conversation is about whether or not this is truly a generative AI piece.
Most feel it is created by AI due to the fact that some characters look a bit off. In addition to the characters, some have commented on the bent utensils seen in the recreation. But others are defending Disney and don’t feel it’s AI created.
@HardrianHarker on X states, “They’re bent the exact same way at the exact same angle. It’s just a paintover where the artist didn’t do a great job reproducing what he was painting. But it’s not bent because it’s AI.”
Whether the artwork was created by AI or not, it leads to the question, should they? If a corporation can get away with an AI generated social media post, perhaps they’ll try it on a short film next. And if they get away with that, why not try it for a feature film?
To be fair, in the recent Walt Disney Animation short film “Once Upon a Studio,” where lots of recreated voice over was necessary, one of the writer/directors stated, “There was no AI in the making of this short.” But writer/director Trent Correy is an artist who made a film, not a corporation trying to save a dollar. The two don’t necessarily have the same feelings toward generative AI.
Perhaps spurred by the Disney art debate, Christopher Stapleton, a Professor of Themed Entertainment with the Savannah College of Art and Design, recently posted a long message with his thoughts on generative AI art. In part, he wrote, “As I say to my students, ‘you will not be replaced by AI, you will be replaced by the person who can yield AI as a tool (not a crutch).’ … we are prompting AI with stimulating inquiries and AI is putting out a response of creative synthesis of what humanity has fed it on the internet.”
“The role for the creative & entrepreneurial technologists is to figure out how AI generative assets can compensate its creative sources. We went through this process with Napster and iTunes, we can do it with AI.”
“(AI) is not intended to replace us. AI (or the Augmented Imagination) is actually a process of conducting a conversation between the Analytical Procedural Computing and the Analogical Human Reasoning that becomes more than the sum of its parts. … Human collaboration is always better!” (You can read Professor Stapleton’s full post on his LinkedIn page.)
So, would it matter if a Disney artist created the Thanksgiving art partially using generative AI? What if it were just a case of someone on Disney’s social media team using generative AI to create the image because an artist wasn’t readily available. Would that make it OK?
We at Attractions Magazine also posted a Thanksgiving message on social media, and we did use generative AI art. We are a small company and don’t have any artists on staff, so for a quick Thanksgiving social media post, it wouldn’t be cost effective for us to pay an artist to create a turkey on a roller coaster. Does that make it OK to use? You tell us.
It will ultimately come down to public response. If the public accepts generative AI-created work, then corporations will most likely use it to save money; if the public calls them out on it, like what happened with Disney’s Thanksgiving post, then they’ll probably steer away from it to avoid the bad press. That is, until generative AI becomes so good that you can’t tell the difference.
What do you think? Do you believe Disney’s recent posted art was created by generative AI? Whether it was or wasn’t, do you think it’s OK for Disney or any other company to use generative AI? When is it OK to use and when is it not? Leave a comment and share your thoughts below.
Only Disney artists should be using AI assisted programs. Like with photoshop or any other digital tool. But Disney artists are STRICTLY FORBIDDEN from using it. So this image is going to create conflict. Double standard much?
Matt,
Wonderfully thought-provoking. I am honored that my post on LinkedIn was quoted. An ironic thought came to me while reading: why is your name, as artist and writer, not posted also? As we look at business practices, how can I know the article is not written by AI?
As we question business practices, whether you are compensated or not, why are your words not accredited to you? Half the response to this issue is for artists be given and have the right to take credit when original and authentic. As copyright law guides us, you have the copyright just by creating Creatve works. Unfortunately, most contracts immediately take ownership away with recognition of its creator removed.
This issue goes beyond technological invention and use. It is why we perpetuate and extend exploitive practices of the analogical disciplines of art, humanities, design and media.
I didn’t add my name because our writer Jeff DePaoli and I both worked on the article, and our software only allows for one name. But because of your suggestion, I have written both our names into the article. Thanks.
Your comment about this article potentially being written by AI spurred me to ask ChatGPT if companies like Disney should be using Generative AI to create new art. Here’s what it said:
“Disney, being a company deeply rooted in artistic traditions, would need to carefully navigate these considerations. They may weigh the benefits of innovation and efficiency against concerns about preserving the human element in art and potential ethical issues. It’s possible for Disney to find a balance, using AI as a supplementary tool while ensuring that the core values of creativity, storytelling, and artistic expression remain intact. Ultimately, the decision to use generative AI in art creation is subjective and depends on the values and goals of the company, as well as societal and cultural perspectives on the role of technology in the arts.”