WATCH | Maria Galea: ‘Artists are having their work stolen, AI needs regulation’

We live in a world where artificial intelligence is a reality. The technology has infiltrated every aspect of our life; from how we work, to how we relax, to how we study and communicate.  

Inevitably, AI has also infiltrated our art and that is why the president of the Malta Entertainment Industry and Arts Association (MEIA) Maria Galea believes government should draw up a national policy which protects artists and their work from being misused by AI.  

Galea tells me a statement issued last week by the organisation she heads and union Solidarjetà, stems from concerns being raised by the community she represents. The statement called for broadcasters to discuss their increasing use of AI, in a way that an agreement can be met on how it can be used without posing a risk on Malta’s creative workers. 

The statement came after a ONE TV programme has been making use of an AI-generated introduction sequence, while TVM similarly, launched Malta’s first virtual television presenter, in a programme created to educate the public about AI. 

“The instability already exists [within the creative industry]. That is why the fear is there. We are already having to deal with these issues, and here comes AI with a new problem,” she says.  

The association president points towards the scraping of data by AI machines, saying they are using artists’ work without permission or reimbursement for their work.  

“We want a national plan that safeguards artists’ intellectual property (IP). The policy has to ensure the actual creation is protected, and is used in an ethical manner. It should also lay out how artists should be compensated if their work is used,” she insists.  

Galea also said the creative industry includes individuals who are not artists per se.  

“We are not speaking only about artists, but the workers that make that art possible—producers, technicians, writers. There is a whole eco-system surrounding the artist, without which their work is not possible,” she insists. 

I ask whether artists are not embracing the new technology, only to end up complaining for being left behind in the future. Galea insists this is not the case.  

“There are artists who use AI, and have come up with spectacular work. We are not saying that work is not up to standard. But there is a collaboration, the artist’s mind is stimulating the technology. There is a way to do things. It’s one thing for the AI to just create something against a prompt, but it’s another for the artist to make use of the AI as a tool,” she says.  

She says appreciation of art has grown over the years in the country, but audiences need to look at art “not only as an expression, but also an inspiration.” 

The following is an excerpt of the interview. 

How do you define art?  

Art is essentially an expression of the person, of the human, and is the process the artist goes through. It is not just a product, but also a connection between humans. If technology creates a product, the artist creates art derived from his personal emotional and cognitive experience. That is what makes art authentic. 

An issue which is often raised with AI is plagiarism. We recently saw how people were prompting AI platforms to generate a photo of themselves in Studio Ghibli style. But here we are speaking about an issue that is global—Chat GPT and Gemini are international corporations. How can we protect Maltese artists in this context? 

At an EU level there is an ongoing debate on Europe-wide regulation and legislation. I agree with you that we require a global solution. But in Malta, because we are micro-nation, we have to see how things play out in our demographics, especially when we are speaking about public entities where we can regulate and collaborate. Malta can have its own policy on the issue, especially when it comes to reimbursements.  

In your statement with Solidarjetà, you said: “We believe that the use of generative AI, not as a tool in a creative worker’s arsenal, but as a replacement of competent creative workers, leads to a poorer product and further devalues Malta’s creative industry.” Isn’t this a sweeping statement? There are so many different creatives around, how did you decide that generative AI is bad? 

No, we did not decide AI is bad, it isn’t bad. It’s a tool. What we are saying is that the artistic identity is unique because it is not the product of a lot of different things, but unique in its own identity. Whether you like it or not, it is still unique. That is where the quality of the product comes into the argument, and what is truly artistic work.  

There are artists who use AI, and have come up with spectacular work. We are not saying that work is not up to standard. But there is a collaboration, the artist’s mind is stimulating the technology.  

There is a way to do things. It’s one thing for the AI to just create something against a prompt, but it’s another for the artist to make use of the AI as a tool. 

We started off the interview with you describing art as the product of human emotion. If so, how can human emotion be replaced by a machine?  

Art is broad. If you are speaking about the creative industry, we are not speaking only about artists, but the workers that make that art possible—producers, technicians, writers. There is a whole eco-system surrounding the artist, who without them their work is not possible.  

I do not think there is a comparison. The problem lies with seeing art as a product, rather than the artistic value of it. When we are speaking about AI using the artist’s work, we are calling for the ethical structuring of AI. It needs to be regulated; people are having their work stolen. 

You spoke about unemployment within the arts industry if the situation is not addressed. But haven’t jobs changed over the years? Is it not up to the artists to adapt to this new reality?  

I think we are mixing two different things. It is a double-edged sword. If we are speaking about unemployment, the sector already suffers from it. The instability already exists. That is why the fear is there. We are already having to deal with these issues, and here comes AI with a new problem. You can help the artists, but there is a side to AI we must address, which protects not only artists’ jobs, but also their work.  

We are looking at the issue from the artists’ perspective, I will now shift a bit to the art consumer’s perspective. With AI technology, small organisations are finding AI to be a cheaper option for online content creation. The costs are much cheaper to design a poster for example. Do you understand them going in that direction? And how can it be mitigated?  

We understand. We ourselves are an NGO and understand the struggles. The problem is not the NGO or the company that is using AI. Even design companies are using AI. We have to see how artists will adapt. 

Another thing I want to point out is that while people do not see the difference, there is a difference in the product quality. When you employ a designer to create a brand identity, the result is completely different from that generated by AI. The designer knows what you want, who you are, what kind of audience you have…