Screenplay: JJ Shaw, Louis Silkin
AI promises to transform the way content of all kinds is created, and is already disrupting the way companies create and deliver it to their clients. But are works generated by AI subject to copyright? person?
In this second article in the AI 101 series, the team at Ius Laboris UK subsidiary Lewis Silkin explores the legal issues involved in the development and use of AI text and image generation tools. In the first article of the series, we looked at how generative AI tools are trained and why there is a dispute involving some of the major UK and US AI companies.
With the recent proliferation of AI technology, we are on the precipice of a new era in which we can rely heavily on artificial intelligence to generate writing and creative artifacts.
Hailed by some as the most important technological development since the invention of the printing press and the Internet itself, OpenAI’s ChatGPT responds to basic user prompts to provide answers, stories, plans, essays, speeches, Instantly generate computer code, and (whisper quietly) even master contracts.
Similarly, platforms such as Midjourney and DALL-E 2 can generate nearly any image that comes to a requesting user’s mind, in any artistic style, all in less time than it takes to brew a cup of tea. can be generated with
The relative speed and ease with which these tools create new content means that companies across a wide range of industries are leveraging AI to create content and deliverables. Last month, BuzzFeed announced plans to leverage artificial intelligence as part of its core business to personalize and enhance its online quizzes and content (and cut about 12% of its workforce to keep costs down). It is expected to be).
However, an important question arises when using AI to create content. Are the outputs of generative AI protected by intellectual property law? Simply put, it depends.
IP ownership can be a complex question, and when it comes to AI-generated works, the answer can vary depending on:
- Laws of relevant jurisdictions governing AI and creation of works.
- The range of roles that both human users and AI platforms perform when generating output.and
- IP Provisions under the relevant AI Platform Terms of Service.
From a British point of view, a work of art is protected by copyright if it is original, and this is generally interpreted to mean that the work must be the “author’s own intellectual creation”. So the first important question is: who is the owner of the work from a legal point of view?
From a legal point of view, can an AI itself be an author?
Unlike most other countries, UK law can provide copyright protection for computer-generated works in the absence of a human author. The law provides that such works are owned by a human being or legal entity, but a computer, her program, or her AI itself cannot be the author or owner of intellectual property. Instead, Section 9 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) designates the human author of a computer-generated work as “the person who makes the necessary arrangements for the making of the work,” and copyright protection is granted to him. will continue for 50 years. from the date the work was created. This means:completelyFor AI-generated works of art, the law is more likely to designate the creator of the platform (i.e., the person who designed the AI technology) as the author, rather than the AI itself.
In contrast, to receive protection in the United States, a work must be the result of an original and creative work by a human author. As a result, the U.S. Copyright Office does not register works created purely by autonomous artificial intelligence tools.
human intervention
UK law requires consideration of the level of input provided by human users when identifying human authors of AI-generated works.
If AI platforms require human prompts, but most of the processes behind the creation of artworks are the result of automated decision-making by AI computer algorithms, i.e., humans beyond basic text prompts AI works may be protected by copyright if user input is minimal, but perhaps a starting point is to assume that the output is owned by the platform creator.
However, if the platform requires more advanced input and control by a human user through prompts or uploaded material to formulate a concept (and AI acts as a tool to bring ideas to life), It is more likely. Human users are the authors and owners of copyrighted works.
make sure you read the small print
Regardless of your legal copyright ownership position, it is always important to review the relevant platform terms of service to evaluate the terms and conditions under which output is provided to users.
Some platforms take the position that the final output is owned by the user and the IP in the output is assigned to the user at the time of creation. Other platforms may take the position that the IP in the output is retained by the platform authors and made available to users only under a license, which may come with restrictive terms of use.
This is an important consideration for companies and agencies leveraging AI in the creation of project deliverables that expect end clients to fully own the deliverables. If the IP in the output is not first assigned to you as per the relevant AI Platform Terms of Use, you will not have the necessary intellectual property rights to transfer full ownership of that work to your end client. .
Conclusion
It is reasonable to assume that AI will inevitably test the relevance of existing rules regarding intellectual property authorship and ownership. Most IP frameworks, including the UK, were not drafted with today’s AI technologies in mind, so it is likely that IP law will be amended to take into account the role of AI in content creation in the near future. I have. At this time, an important first step for anyone using AI in their daily business or personal life is to consider the terms and conditions of the relevant AI platform and ensure all necessary rights to use the final output as desired. to verify that you own it.
