  Generative AI tools are used to create art-like outputs and sometimes aid in
the creative process. These tools have potential benefits for artists, but they
also have the potential to harm the art workforce and infringe upon artistic
and intellectual property rights. Without explicit consent from artists,
Generative AI creators scrape artists' digital work to train Generative AI
models and produce art-like outputs at scale. These outputs are now being used
to compete with human artists in the marketplace as well as being used by some
artists in their generative processes to create art. We surveyed 459 artists to
investigate the tension between artists' opinions on Generative AI art's
potential utility and harm. This study surveys artists' opinions on the utility
and threat of Generative AI art models, fair practices in the disclosure of
artistic works in AI art training models, ownership and rights of AI art
derivatives, and fair compensation. Results show that a majority of artists
believe creators should disclose what art is being used in AI training, that AI
outputs should not belong to model creators, and express concerns about AI's
impact on the art workforce and who profits from their art. We hope the results
of this work will further meaningful collaboration and alignment between the
art community and Generative AI researchers and developers.
