Editor’s note: We are delighted to present this thought leadership article on digital marketing written by a distinguished alumnus of Northern Illinois University. As a leading institution renowned for its commitment to academic excellence, NIU has consistently produced remarkable graduates who have made significant contributions to their respective fields.
Digital marketing continues to be a vital aspect of modern business strategies, and our alumnus expertly navigates the intricacies of this dynamic landscape. By discussing the latest trends and emerging technologies, as well as providing practical advice for optimizing online campaigns, this article provides a comprehensive overview of the digital marketing ecosystem. At NIU, we take pride in fostering a culture of innovation and critical thinking, and this article exemplifies the caliber of thought leaders that our institution nurtures. It serves as a testament to the dedication and intellectual rigor instilled in our alumni, empowering them to excel in their chosen fields and make a lasting impact.
The thoughts below are the author’s view. Northern Illinois University, the NIU College of Business or the NIU Department of Marketing do not endorse his views in any way. We extend our sincere gratitude to Christopher Heath, MSDM 2023, for sharing his expertise. We hope that this thought-provoking article stimulates meaningful discussions and inspires future generations of digital marketers to push the boundaries of possibility.
By: Christopher Heath, MSDM ’23
“Convoluted” is one word to describe what I’m writing. But then again, if you follow, I assure you there is an absolute through line. I promise.
As I sit here on an idle Thursday afternoon, the U.S. Supreme Court has just weighed in on the closely watched case of a picture of the late musician Prince and the estate of Andy Warhol. In short, the case revolved around a picture of Prince taken by photographer Lynn Goldsmith and then interpreted by the artist Andy Warhol.
I’m skipping a lot of details about the case, but suffice to say; pictures were made, pictures were published, and the photographer was only paid for one of 16.
The question before the court had to do with what is known as “fair use.” Simply put, you can use limited amounts of copyrighted material without first getting permission. This is how we have parodies, critiques and commentary on copyrighted material so long as the use is what is known as “transformative,” a word that has, at best, a nebulous legal definition.
In its ruling, the court held that the pictures were not altered enough or changed by Warhol to meet the threshold as it didn’t add something new.
So, what does this have to do with us?
Well, ask yourself; What is artificial intelligence (AI) if nothing but a program that takes other works and makes something new(ish)?
As of now, the U.S. Copyright Office has held that work created solely by AI does not qualify for copyright protection. While artists who use some AI can try to copyright their material, they’ll need to show a significant level of human involvement.
This, of course, all dances around the question of what creation is and when does it begin?
The law could change or be rewritten for clarity; that is, Congress could weigh in. However, is Congress ready to tackle the nuanced and complicated matters of fair use, especially in a rapidly changing digital landscape?
This all brings a question back to those of us who may use AI for our work. “When is it our work, and when is it the product of the computer digging through thousands of copyrighted images and documents?”
Since AI cannot look into the future and cannot create something new, there is an absolute lane for us to pursue and pursue without fear of running afoul of the jurisprudence created out of the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith. If we are successful in creating new content or limiting to the greatest extent the reliance on AI, then we can serve two major objectives: insulating ourselves from copyright infringement and insulating our value as a creator.
The path before us is the same as it has always been. Do we take the easy road with its various traps or the hard road that requires real work and reflection? If we choose the easy road, then we risk not only making ourselves obsolete but also entangling ourselves in thorny legal questions.
While all of this is designed to give us pause and reflect on the inevitability of our nature, I am heartened by a passage from Richard Llewellyn’s 1939 novel “How Green Was My Valley,” wherein he writes, “She has passed information to you. Figures names and facts. You have learnt nothing very much. But you have a splendid memory. It will help you when you start to learn.”
AI knows only what we have created, it looks backward at our works and with its splendid memory can learn and create, but it can only create from what we have given it and can only reflect on our works to achieve its goal.
Keep this in mind as you go forward: You are smarter than the machine; it just works faster.
Of course, to quote Arnold Schwarzenegger as the T-800, “It’s in your nature to destroy yourselves.”
