Loading...
With the rapid growth of machine learning and artificial intelligence technology, the question of authorship and copyright ownership has become increasingly important. This technology is now nearly as accessible as a search engine, with apps such as Midjourney, OpenAI, ChatGPT, and DALL-E 2 allowing users to input a prompt and receive a generated response from a bot. Microsoft’s recent multibillion-dollar investment in OpenAI highlights this technology’s potential to transform the internet.
However, with the rise of AI technology, there has been a growing concern over copyright infringement and artistic expression. There are still many unresolved questions, such as: who should be credited for the work – the user, the bot, or the software that generated it? Also, what source of information does this new generative technology utilize? These are just some of the queries that remain to be answered.
Getty Images has sued stability AI, an AI art tool, alleging that the company did not seek a license to train its system. Meanwhile, Shutterstock has taken a different approach and partnered with OpenAI to compensate artists for their contributions. Open-source coders have also targeted Microsoft, GitHub, and OpenAI in a proposed class-action lawsuit, alleging that the creation of the AI coding assistant GitHub Copilot relies on software piracy on a massive scale.
The US Copyright Office (USCO) has stated that the copyright act only applies to human authorship. Still, the office has signaled its intention to focus on the legal grey areas surrounding AI-generated works in 2023. The USCO has denied multiple applications to protect AI-authored works, stating that the lack of human authorship makes them ineligible for copyright protection. However, the office is considering the issue of copyright registration for works co-created by humans and AI.
The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will also have to reevaluate its patent policies with the growth of sophisticated AI systems. Experts speculate that the USPTO may declare AI inventions unpatentable, leading to disputes and hindering innovation, or conclude that the use of AI should not render otherwise patentable inventions unpatentable but raise complex questions of inventorship. The USPTO may have to rethink its existing framework for determining inventorship based on who conceived the invention.
Companies should consider the degree of human involvement in creating AI works before incorporating this technology into their business practices. The extent of human input in the AI creation will likely determine whether the final work product is protectable. For example, an apparel company using generative AI to create a fabric design may not have protectable copyright, while a game studio using generative AI to create scenes in a video game may not be able to prevent unlicensed distribution. Code edited or created by AI may also be freely copied and replicated.
Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!
The debate over what constitutes an artist and the extent to which AI artwork is protectable under existing intellectual property laws is just beginning. As AI technology continues to advance, the legal framework must keep up to protect both the creators and users of this technology.
REFERENCES:
Robo-Rights: As AI Art Takes Over, Who’s the Real Artist in the Machine Learning Age?
