Initially introduced in academic articles, the concept of AI (See McCulloch and Pitts, 1943; Turing, 1950) gained prominence with the Dartmouth Conference (McCarthy et al., 2006). The ability of AI to solve intricate problems was acknowledged through the programme “Logic Theory” (Newell and Simon, 1956).

In the subsequent years, criticism arose regarding the limited capabilities of AI, demonstrating that it was not yet on par with human intelligence (See Dreyfus, 1972). However, with advancing and evolving technology, numerous studies addressed the progressing abilities of AI and its transformation (LeCun et al., 2015; Russell and Norvig, 2022).

The concept of AI can be defined as a system with abilities similar to human intelligence, fundamentally capable of performing tasks related to computer structures (Russell and Norvig, 2022). Comprising an interdisciplinary whole, AI possesses critical skills such as deep problem-solving, learning, and decision-making (Nilsson, 2010; Dolunay, 2024).

AI, which can generally be categorised into weak and strong AI, exhibits capabilities comparable to human intelligence in certain specified aspects for weak AI, whereas strong AI is closer to general intelligence levels (Kurzweil, 2005).

Having a vast application scope, AI manifests its impact in various fields such as the functioning of automatic systems, content analysis, healthcare, education, communication, etc. (Bengio, 2021). The examination of AI’s usage in the mentioned fields is indeed important; however, the focus of this study will be on its application in artistic production within the given context. Prior to delving into this subject, it would be pertinent to briefly define the concepts of art, artist, and artwork.

Art can be defined as a process resulting from the combination of individuals’ productivity, imagination, and aesthetic perception, culminating in a unified whole and subsequently expressed outwardly. The concept of art, with its wide boundaries, not only provides aesthetic and beauty satisfaction but also serves as a powerful tool for social critique, cultural expression, and the transmission of personal emotions and thoughts (Turgut, 1991). The broadness of the concept of art is due to its many subfields. Art encompasses numerous branches such as painting, music, theatre, sculpture, dance, literature, etc. (Adajian, 2022).

According to Adorno (1997), art possesses an autonomous structure, leading to profound effects both individually and socially. In this context, as stated, art shapes the identities, histories, and cultural values of both individuals and societies. This powerful impact of art is manifested through artworks. It should be noted that the concept of an artwork, an inseparable part of art, is the tangible output of the artists’ creative processes, materialising as a product or performance with aesthetic values.

Benjamin (2008) argues that the uniqueness and aura of an ‘artwork’ are of paramount importance. In this regard, artworks must possess a unique existence and historical context. In other words, these characteristics are fundamental elements that construct the originality and historical value of the work.

The unique and historical nature of artworks, as described, transforms them from mere aesthetic objects into tools of cultural memory and social critique (Shiner, 2001). The individual and cultural elements presented by the artist during the creative process play a significant role in the interpretation and evaluation of the work. Thus, the necessity of emphasising the importance of the artist becomes apparent. Therefore, when addressing the concepts of art and artwork, it is also essential to define the concept of the artist, who is the creator of this entire process (Adajian, 2022).

‘Artist’ can be defined as an individual who produces and/or performs works of art. However, this general definition as ‘productor and/or performer’ is insufficient for defining this term. It is crucial to emphasise that the artwork expresses the emotions, thoughts, and worldview too of the individual who performs and/or creates it. Moreover, the artist not only reflects personal emotions, thoughts, and worldview but also produces or performs works that embody the impact of social issues and cultural matters too (Guoa and Guib, 2021).

The creativity and technical skills of artists nourish the originality and depth of their works. Thus, artists can powerfully reflect both their inner world and at the same time, the external world, offering a unique experience to their audience. It must be reiterated, due to its significance, that the works of artists are not merely aesthetic products but also serve as a means of communication, social critique, and cultural expression. In this context, the role of the artist extends beyond being merely a creator-performer; they can also be considered critics and cultural transmitters too (Guoa and Guib, 2021).

The discussion above encompasses the concepts of AI and, specifically, art. In the context of the research subject, it is pertinent to delve into the relationship between AI and art.

AI can be interpreted as a force contributing to significant transformations in the art world. These transformations extend across a broad spectrum, influencing aspects ranging from the creation of artworks to their exhibition.

Starting with the use of AI in the production of artworks, learning models such as Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) and Recursive Neural Networks (RNNs) play a crucial role in this domain (Wang et al., 2020). These learning models facilitate the integration of AI into the process of artistic creation. For instance, the work “Memories of Passersby I” by Klingemann (2018) incorporates portraits randomly selected using GANs, serving as an example that highlights the synergy between the artist’s creativity and the productivity of AI.

As emphasised, the relationship between AI and art not only extends to the production of artworks but also contributes to offering new aesthetic perspectives or viewpoints to artists. Algorithms capable of analysing the structure of a particular artwork and generating new pieces serve as illustrative examples in this regard (Mazzone and Elgammal, 2019).

The types of artworks that can be produced through AI, whether visual, auditory, literary, etc., are analogous to categories of artworks that can be created by individuals (See Uzun et al., 2020).

Following the brief exploration of the relationship between AI and art, it is fitting to address the concept of copyright, which constitutes a significant focal point in the study.

If we approach the concept of copyright chronologically, the art creations produced by early human communities were evaluated with a different perspective than today. In ancient times, artworks were associated with materials, and they were not valued in terms of intellectual context separately from the substances they were made of. In other words, for instance, a music piece was evaluated in conjunction with the vinyl record it was pressed onto, and a painting was considered in connection with the canvas on which it was drawn. This situation eliminated the need for artists to secure themselves financially and spiritually on an individual basis (Dolunay and Keçeci, 2017).

As time progressed, the notion that artworks were essentially intellectual structures not necessarily tied to or limited by materials began to prevail among artists. At this point, the initial step is considered to be the emergence of ‘printing privileges.’ Especially with the rise of copying and piracy markets in the mediaeval period, the concept of ‘copyright’ entered human life, marking the inception of the first examples of copyright, particularly in the field of printing (Dolunay and Keçeci, 2017).

With the proliferation of copyright, the first legal regulation was the Act Anne enacted in 1709 in England (Dolunay and Keçeci, 2017).

The aforementioned concept of copyright is extremely crucial concerning the transmission of artistic production and cultural heritage from generation to generation. It is highly important for artists to find emotional and material satisfaction when presenting their works. Moreover, in a fair environment, it is vital for artists to obtain their rights in a commercial context and be able to control unauthorised usage. In this context, the protection of copyright for artworks is perceived not only as a commercial necessity but also as highly significant for cultural advancements (Özgür, 2020).

Geographical timeline of copyright laws in contemporary Turkey reveals a progressive journey. In the mid-1800s, the “Hukuku Telif Nizamı” (Copyright Law) was introduced, followed by the “Hakkı Telif” (Right of Copyright) enacted by the Ottoman administration in the early 1900s. The present-day legal framework, the Copyright and Related Rights Law No. 5846, was enacted on January 1, 1952 (What is copyright?, 2014).

In the current territorial boundaries of Northern Cyprus, serious challenges in copyright enforcement have led many national artists to protect their artistic works financially and spiritually by seeking copyright under the laws of the Republic of Turkey. This is due to significant issues within the copyright system in Northern Cyprus (Violation of intellectual property rights in the TRNC violation of intellectual property rights in the TRNC, 2023).

As emphasised earlier, the ever-advancing and unstoppable pace of global technology provides immense access to artists and artworks for individuals worldwide. This phenomenon has made copyright protection more challenging, leading to widespread piracy. Copyright laws play a crucial role in legally safeguarding the intellectual creations of artists. Northern Cypriot artists face considerable difficulties in protecting their artistic ideas due to the inadequacy of the existing law (Violation of intellectual property rights in the TRNC violation of intellectual property rights in the TRNC, 2023).

On a national level, the Copyright Law in Northern Cyprus is notably insufficient. The existing law, referenced from the 1911 British law during the British colonial period, is extremely limited, represented by a 4-article Law No. 264. Additionally, there are regulations such as the Broadcasting High Board Copyright and Producer Rights Protection Law and Procedures Regulation and the Copyright Regulation (Violation of intellectual property rights in the TRNC violation of intellectual property rights in the TRNC, 2023).

Under the Copyright framework applied in Northern Cyprus, the rights granted to the copyright holder include:

In the event of copyright infringement in Northern Cyprus, the copyright owner must have documentation proving ownership before initiating legal action. These cases primarily aim to prevent others from profiting from or copying and imitating creative works. It is crucial for artists to be aware that copyright protection is not indefinite, lasting for 50 years after the artist’s death (Violation of intellectual property rights in the TRNC violation of intellectual property rights in the TRNC, 2023).

Examining various countries’ national regulations, leading countries in copyright protection, such as Germany, the United Kingdom, and Spain, have comprehensive laws known as ‘Intellectual and Artistic Works Protection Laws.’ These laws protect both written and printed works as well as draft and conceptual works, highlighting the ownership of the artist (Turan, 2014).

Internationally, some crucial agreements include:

Bern Convention (1886): The oldest and most fundamental regulation governing copyright, signed in Bern, Switzerland, in 1886, providing mutual legal protection among member nations.

World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Agreement: Aims to universally regulate intellectual and artistic works’ protection on a global scale, similar to the Bern Convention (Gin, 2004).

Rome Convention (1961): Primarily focuses on protecting sound recordings internationally.

TRIPS Agreement (1994): Aims to unite companies and rights holders for universal protection of intellectual property, specifically in trademark matters.

The present-day evolution of the artist and artwork, undergoing rapid change, coupled with the impact of social media, digitization, and the emergence of AI, has transformed copyright issues into a more complex and globalised landscape (Kaynak and Koç, 2015).

Traditional copyright laws have long been an effective tool for protecting the ideas and works of artists and ensuring their rights are respected. However, with the development of digital structures, social media, and art platforms, adapting copyright to digital versions has become inevitable (Litman, 2020).

Digitalised copyright, tailored to the digital environment, is considered to be more solution-oriented compared to traditional copyright methods, as it not only protects the rights of intellectual and artistic creators on an international scale but also provides fair and controllable conditions in areas such as equal access, rapid compensation processes, and work diversity (Litman, 2020).

In addition to digital platforms, the concept of art has evolved into a new dimension today, with professionally produced artworks created with AI. When examining artworks and ideas generated by AI, there is observed a divergence of opinions among individuals studying this field. Especially in the realm of art, the majority tends to accept the idea that AI is an object without personality and does not possess intellectual ownership. Therefore, artworks produced by AI are generally considered to be owned by the one directing it (Zorluel, 2019).

On the other hand, considering the analysis and production capabilities of today’s computers, some argue that AI can also fulfil the emotional aspect of art creation. In this regard, attributing the intellectual ownership of artworks to AI is not surprising (Zorluel, 2019).

A group that combines and evaluates the two contrasting views mentioned above argues that the usage rights of works produced with AI are equally divided between AI and the person directing it (Zorluel, 2019; Darvishi et al., 2022).

Apart from the issue of ownership of copyright in artistic productions with AI, important aspects such as how it will be protected, etc., are not yet fully regulated. In national regulations, including the United States (Isohanni, 2021), there are no regulations in this regard. This issue, due to its current relevance, is a topic of academic discussions. It is noteworthy that even the United States, often cited as an example in these academic debates for its legal regulations, does not yet have a comprehensive legal framework on this matter (Škiljić, 2021). In particular, the international regulations mentioned above are not up-to-date in the face of today’s technology. These regulations seem to be outdated, as they are based on the idea that only individuals can create works that will be protected by copyright. However, with the emergence of works produced by or with the help of AI, these regulations have become inadequate to meet current needs (Hristov, 2020).

Additionally, without straying from the focus of the topic, it is important to note that discussions regarding artworks produced through AI continue not only from a legal standpoint but also from an ethical perspective. Notably, literature includes warnings that their use in media could lead to disinformation, mass manipulation, and the proliferation of large amounts of low-quality content. However, while this is a related issue, it constitutes a separate debate. Therefore, it has been briefly addressed in this study due to its significance (Vyas, 2022).

The concept of emotional state can be defined as a general evaluation of an individual’s emotional condition at a given moment (Ekman and Davidson, 1994). Emotional states are categorised as positive, negative, or neutral. Emotional states reflect individuals’ emotional experiences in the specified categories and manifest themselves physically, behaviourally, and mentally (Keltner and Gross, 1999).

Emotional states are closely linked to brain structures and functions. The limbic system, particularly structures such as the amygdala and hypothalamus, plays a crucial role in regulating emotional responses (LeDoux, 1996). Neurotransmitters, especially serotonin and dopamine, have a critical role in transmitting chemical signals that affect emotional states (Hariri and Holmes, 2006).

When considering the formation of emotional states, the complexity of genetic, environmental, and cognitive factors becomes apparent (Gross and Thompson, 2007). Determining factors include individuals’ past experiences, general personality structure, and emotional regulation strategies acquired from childhood onwards (John and Gross, 2004).

Emotional states significantly impact individuals’ quality of life. For instance, positive emotional states can enhance individuals’ motivation and strengthen overall feelings of well-being (Fredrickson, 2001). However, negative emotional states can create stress and be among the factors contributing to conditions such as anxiety and even depression (Watson and Clark, 1984).

In academic studies, it is noted that individuals’ emotional states are crucial; rapid and unjust progress goals can lead to unethical approaches, and the unethical use of AI is cited as an example of these unethical approaches (Dolunay and Temel, 2024).

On the other hand, considering the significance of emotional states in all areas of life, it can be argued that they are particularly important for artists when thinking about how emotional states are expressed. In this regard, it is pertinent to discuss the effects of emotional states on artistic production.

As mentioned above, emotional states significantly impact individuals, and in this context, they also have important effects on the creativity of artists. For example, according to Csikszentmihalyi’s Flow theory, positive emotional states are believed to enhance creativity and allow for deeper connections in artistic production (Moneta and Csikszentmihalyi, 1996).

Moreover, neurological studies also explore the connection between emotional states and artistic production processes. Interactions with artworks are suggested to increase activity in the emotional regions of individuals’ brains (Kawabata and Zeki, 2004). Research on how emotional states affect brain activities during artistic production processes contributes to the biological understanding of the subject.

Art is considered to be a method for artists to express their emotional states through the creation of artworks (Garrido and Schubert, 2015). These processes also contribute to establishing emotional connections between viewers and art (Juslin and Sloboda, 2010).

Studies suggest that emotional states influence various processes in artists’ works, from composition to colour selection (Smith et al., 2015). Similarly, studies using brain imaging techniques have found that positive emotional states support activities in brain regions associated with creativity (Flaherty, 2011).

In numerous scientific studies, the effects of emotional states on artists have been investigated, yielding varied results. As mentioned above, some studies have found that positive emotional states enhance creativity among artists (Baas et al., 2008). However, another study suggests that negative emotions also have the potential to enhance creativity (Forgas and Baumeister, 2019). Furthermore, some studies have found no significant relationship between emotional states and creativity (Davis, 2009).

While the notion that positive emotions tend to support creativity is more common, it is also plausible to assume that certain negative emotions may also support creativity and productivity. This is because some challenges, among other factors, can serve as a form of reverse psychology, providing motivation. For example, sad situations may lead the creativity (Ashby and Isen, 1999). However, the assumption that emotional states are completely unrelated to creativity is, in our view, not universally valid. Nevertheless, these differing results underscore the importance of further research and investigation into the subject.

When considering the overall consensus of consistent views, it is concluded that positive emotional states support the creativity and productivity of artists, while negative emotional states may have the opposite effect.

In this context, concerning the crucial issue of copyright for artists, if their rights are violated or they perceive that their rights have been violated, it can be assumed that their emotional states will be negatively affected. This, in turn, could undermine their creativity and motivation to create.

To emphasise the multifaceted and contemporary nature of the issue, it is noteworthy that various aspects, such as the emotional perspectives of artists towards their self-produced musical works compared to those produced with AI assistance, are also subjects of debate. Research highlighted in the literature (See Vikström and Von-Bonsdorff, 2022) provides current and intriguing insights in this direction. These studies suggest that the emotional states of artists might be negatively impacted by the notion that individuals they perceive as less talented could produce similar works with the aid of artificial intelligence (Anantrasirichai and Bull, 2022; Vikström and Von-Bonsdorff, 2022). Given that the topic is discussed from many angles, this study specifically explores the emotional states of artists regarding the issue of copyright ownership in AI-generated artworks, addressing an aspect that, in our opinion, could have significant implications for creativity and productivity.

This study, particularly focusing on the negative impacts of copyright issues on the emotional states of artists, aims to identify and propose solutions to the problems that may arise or have arisen. In this context, considering both national (Northern Cyprus) and international regulations, the emergence of copyright ownership issues in the context of the development of AI in the current digital age becomes crucial regarding the emotional states of artists. As mentioned earlier, negative emotional states can undermine creativity and artistic production, making the investigation of this issue even more significant. In the research section of this study, focus group interviews were conducted with artists and semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with academic experts in the field.

A focus group interview is defined as a discussion and interview conducted between a small group and a leader, utilising group dynamics to gather detailed and comprehensive information and generate ideas (Bowling, 2002; Çokluk et al., 2011). On the other hand, the primary concern in a focus group interview is to conduct a carefully planned discussion in an environment where participants can comfortably express their views and opinions (Krueger and Casey, 2000). The aim at this point is to obtain in-depth and comprehensive qualitative information on individuals’ perspectives, interests, experiences, tendencies, thoughts, perceptions, feelings, attitudes, and habits regarding a specified topic. Focus group interviews typically consist of 8–12 participants (Kitzinger, 1994, 1995; Bowling, 2002; Çokluk et al., 2011).

Interviews are commonly used as a professional technique or auxiliary tool in various research fields within social sciences, including journalism, law, and medicine (Kahn, 1983; Tekin, 2006: 101). Used frequently as a data collection technique in qualitative research, interviews provide an opportunity for the participants to express themselves directly, allowing the researcher to conduct comprehensive observations about the interviewees (McCracken, 1998: 9; Tekin, 2006: 102). The interview, by asking questions covering all dimensions of the research topic, enables the collection of detailed answers, facilitating one-on-one information gathering (Johnson, 2002: 106; Tekin, 2006: 102).

Interviews can be categorised into three subtypes: unstructured, semi-structured, and structured (Punch, 2005: 166; Tekin, 2006: 104). Semi-structured interviews involve pre-prepared questions but allow the researcher to direct additional questions based on the course of the interview.

In this study, focus group interviews and semi-structured in-depth interview techniques were chosen for its relevance to the topic.

In the context of research, the term “population” refers to the entirety of individuals with similar characteristics, while smaller groups that can be selected from within the population and have the power to represent it are referred to as “samples” (Yıldırım and Şimşek, 2018). The snowball sampling technique was employed to identify both the focus group (artists) and the groups interviewees (academic experts).

The snowball sampling technique is a method that involves selecting a reference person related to the subject of the study and reaching other individuals through recommendations. This method is iterative, and participants guide researchers, contributing to the growth of the sample. Therefore, it is known as the “snowball effect” (Biernacki and Waldorf, 1981).

The interview group identified through snowball sampling consists of eight artists (two painters, two graphic artists, two musicians, two photographers) and eight psychology experts, also two communication experts and two legal experts too.

Artists were included in the sample due to their focus on the subject. On the other hand, academic experts in communication and law were included in the sample because copyright is an interdisciplinary subject from both legal and communicative perspectives (Mengüşoğlu, 2015). On the other hand, the psychology experts were included in the sample for understanding the emotional states term, relationship between copyrights and artists emotions, emotional effects of copyrights issues on artists creativity.

While there was no geographical limitation in the context of the universality of the subject in snowball sampling, certain criteria were sought for proposing names to be included in the sample. Among these criteria were the involvement of artists in one of the fields of painting, graphics, music, or photography to create a diverse artistic perspective in the sample, having at least 5 years of professional experience to benefit from the experiences of experienced individuals, and for artists to have academic studies in the relevant fields (being academics). Similarly, for communication and legal experts, the criteria included having at least 5 years of professional experience to benefit from the experiences of experienced individuals and holding a doctoral degree in the fields of communication and law to bring an academic perspective to the subject.

On the other hand, as mentioned above, since creating a comfortable environment and careful planning are essential in focus group interviews and interviews in general, to ensure participants can openly express their opinions, the interviews were conducted online to minimise the effects of external stimuli. This approach aimed to enable focus group participants to express their views freely in their natural environments. However, considering the possibility that participants, even in their natural settings and experienced in their fields, might provide biased responses due to an overly individual perspective, academic artist-scholars with professional academic experience and titles were included in the focus group. This inclusion aimed to obtain more objective, ethical, and unbiased responses from an academic perspective.

Similarly, the primary purpose of selecting field experts (psychologists, legal experts, and communication specialists) from among academics with professional experience and titles at universities was to maintain objectivity and academic rigour. As focus group interviews typically consist of 8–12 participants, it was deemed sufficient to conduct a focus group interview with eight artist-scholars relevant to the subject. Since the focus group comprised eight individuals and given the equal importance of the psychologists in the context of the study—as professional evaluators—interviews were conducted with eight academic psychologists. While the groups of artists and psychologists each consisted of eight members, the groups of legal scholars and communication scholars consisted of only two members each. The reasoning behind this was to avoid deviating from the main focus of the study while still supporting it from legal and communicative perspectives, as copyright issues encompass both areas.

Details regarding the analysis of the data obtained from focus group interviews and semi-structured in-depth interviews are provided below.

The data obtained in the research were evaluated using the content analysis method. Content analysis is the neutral, systematic, and quantitative description of the content resulting from communication (Berelson, 1952: 17; Koçak and Arun, 2006: 22). Another definition characterises content analysis as a research technique used to derive repeatable and valid results from data (Krippendorff, 1986: 25).

According to yet another definition, content analysis is a research technique where valid interpretations extracted from the text are articulated through successive processes (Weber, 1989: 5; Koçak and Arun, 2006: 22).

In line with the nature of the study, sometimes detailed coding is required, while at other times, comprehensive coding may not be necessary (Karataş, 2017: 80; Yıldırım and Şimşek, 2018: 233). Therefore, due to the ease of evaluating the data obtained through the conducted interviews in the context of the study, a more intricate coding and categorisation theme was not deemed necessary.

In this context, the data obtained from focus group and semi-structured in-depth interviews with sampling were themed and coded as follow:

In the analyses under the specified themes and codes (Table 1), 20% of the direct opinions of the interview group were included. The names of the participants are given in codes as A1, A2, A3, etc. (for Artists), P1, P2, P3, etc. (for Psychology Experts), L1, L2 (for Law Experts) and C1, C2 (for Communication Experts).