Abstract

Purpose This study aims to test whether artists and technologists evaluate artificial intelligence (AI)-generated art differently with respect to authorship, ownership, ethics, public perception and market impact, thereby clarifying how creative and technical stakeholders view emerging copyright and pricing debates. Design/methodology/approach A closed-ended questionnaire using five-point Likert items was administered to 119 master-level artists and 119 AI developers in India. Paired-sample t-tests compared the two groups across six constructs derived from the recent literature. Findings Authorship and market-impact scores did not differ significantly (p = 0.229; p = 0.168). However, large gaps emerged for ownership (Δ = 1.02; t = 15.31; p < 0.001) and public perception (Δ = 1.24; t = 11.25; p < 0.001). Artists favored limited copyright and lower prices for AI art, whereas technologists endorsed full protection and price parity under defined conditions. Both groups supported minimal yet dedicated regulation. Research limitations/implications Findings are based on self-reported perceptions from a single country; cross-cultural replication is needed. Practical implications Results inform policymakers drafting adaptive copyright frameworks and gallery curators setting valuation benchmarks for AI-generated art. Social implications Balanced regulation and weighted authorship could preserve human creativity while legitimizing algorithmic contributions. Originality/value This is the first paired statistical investigation that juxtaposes creative practitioners and AI developers, quantifies their attitudinal distance and links the results to the legal triad of fixation, originality and creativity. The Global South sample broadens a debate dominated by Western case studies.