A decision foreclosing nonhuman authorship for Stephen Thaler’s Creativity Machine didn’t conflict with any in other circuits or raise complicated questions about protections for artificial intelligence-assisted work by human authors, the Jan. 23 filing said."
ROSE ESFANDIARI , IP Watchdog; Professors Press SCOTUS to Affirm Copyright Protection for AI-Created Works
"On Friday, October 31, Professors Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid, Lawrence Lessig and a number of other professors and researchers filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Dr. Stephen Thaler’s petition for a writ of certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter, urging the Court to grant certiorari and recognize copyright protection for works generated by artificial intelligence (AI).
The brief argued that “excluding AI-generated works from copyright protection threatens the foundations of American creativity, innovation, and economic growth,” warning that the lower court’s interpretation, which requires human authorship, disregards the “spirit of the Copyright Act.”"
Judy Wang and Nicol Turner Lee , Brookings; AI and the visual arts: The case for copyright protection
"Looking ahead
As AI-generated art continues to reshape the creative landscape, the legal and economic challenges surrounding copyright, authorship, and enforcement will only grow more complex. Ongoing lawsuits, reactions from artists, and market shifts highlight the struggle to define human authorship and protect artists’ rights in an era where AI-generated works hold significant commercial value, but lack clear copyright protections. With increasing pressure on legislative and regulatory bodies to address these issues, the future of AI-generated art will depend on policies that balance innovation with fair compensation and safeguards for human creativity.
While we await the final part of the Copyright Office’s report, which will determine the legal implications of training AI on copyrighted data, the more pressing determinant of fair use in GenAI training may come from the courts. Yet, regardless of the outcome, the Copyright Office should transcend its passive regulatory guidance and actively develop new mechanisms to distinguish human-authored elements from AI-generated ones to enforce its present guidance. In addition, the office must think creatively about flexible frameworks that can account for future, more nuanced and complex modes of collaboration between human and GenAI systems. This may require stronger disclosure requirements, improved detection methods, and a reexamination of what constitutes meaningful human authorship in an increasing AI-involved creative process.
Further, artists, tech companies, and policymakers must be brought to the table to ensure copyright law reflects the newest collaborations in AI and art, protects human creativity, and accommodates technological progress. Without safeguards, the rapid influx of AI into the art market could lead to a systemic devaluation of human original authorship and growing precarity in the creative field. The future of AI-generated art hinges on such governance. "
MATT O’BRIEN, AP; AI-assisted works can get copyright with enough human creativity, says US copyright office
"Artists can copyright works they made with the help of artificial intelligence, according to a new report by the U.S. Copyright Office that could further clear the way for the use of AI tools in Hollywood, the music industry and other creative fields.
The nation’s copyright office, which sits in the Library of Congress and is not part of the executive branch, receives about half a million copyright applications per year covering millions of individual works. It has increasingly been asked to register works that are AI-generated.
And while many of those decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, the report issued Wednesday clarifies the office’s approach as one based on what the top U.S. copyright official describes as the “centrality of human creativity” in authoring a work that warrants copyright protections."
Kyle Jahner, Aruni Soni , Bloomberg Law; AI Art Copyright Stays Doubtful After Appeals Court Argument
"The first federal appeals court battle over the boundaries of copyright law’s application to AI-generated works carries huge implications for creative industries given the rapid proliferation of the technology. The circumstances upon which copyright vests in work wholly or partly created by AI and who gets to control and enforce that right will hinge on interpretations of cases like Thaler’s."
Anja Karadeglija, National Post; Federal government considering copyright law changes for AI-generated work
"The Liberal government is asking for input on potential changes to copyright law to account for the emergence of generative artificial intelligence systems like ChatGPT.
That includes the question of whether copyright protection should apply to AI-generated work, or whether it should be reserved exclusively for work created by humans, it outlined in a new consultation...
The National Post reported earlier this month that the federal government doesn’t know how Canadian copyright law applies to systems like ChatGPT, and is following multiple lawsuits in the United States."
Gil Appel, Juliana Neelbauer, David A. Schweidel, Harvard Business Review; Generative AI Has an Intellectual Property Problem
"This isn’t the first time technology and copyright law have crashed into each other. Google successfully defended itself against a lawsuit by arguing that transformative use allowed for the scraping of text from books to create its search engine, and for the time being, this decision remains precedential.
But there are other, non-technological cases that could shape how the products of generative AI are treated. A case before the U.S. Supreme Court against the Andy Warhol Foundation — brought by photographer Lynn Goldsmith, who had licensed an image of the late musician, Prince— could refine U.S. copyright law on the issue of when a piece of art is sufficiently different from its source material to become unequivocally “transformative,” and whether a court can consider the meaning of the derivative work when it evaluates that transformation. If the court finds that the Warhol piece is not a fair use, it could mean trouble for AI-generated works.
All this uncertainty presents a slew of challenges for companies that use generative AI. There are risks regarding infringement — direct or unintentional — in contracts that are silent on generative AI usage by their vendors and customers. If a business user is aware that training data might include unlicensed works or that an AI can generate unauthorized derivative works not covered by fair use, a business could be on the hook for willful infringement, which can include damages up to $150,000 for each instance of knowing use. There’s also the risk of accidentally sharing confidential trade secrets or business information by inputting data into generative AI tools."
Harris Bricken - Fred Rocafort, Lexology; AI and Copyright in China
"In the landmark Shenzhen Tencent v. Shanghai Yingxun case, the Nanshan District People’s Court considered whether an article written by Tencent’s AI software Dreamwriter was entitled to copyright protection. The court found that it was, with copyright vesting in Dreamwriter’s developers, not Dreamwriter itself. In its decision, the court noted that “the arrangement and selection of the creative team in terms of data input, trigger condition setting, template and corpus style choices are intellectual activities that have a direct connection with the specific expression of the article.” These intellectual activities were carried out by the software developers.
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has distinguished between works that are generated without human intervention (“AI-generated”) and works generated with material human intervention and/or direction (“AI-assisted”). In the case of AI-assisted works, artificial intelligence is arguably just a tool used by humans. Vesting of copyright in the humans involved in these cases is consistent with existing copyright law, just as an artist owns the copyright to a portrait made using a paintbrush or a song recorded using a guitar. The scenario in the Tencent case falls in the AI-assisted bucket, with Dreamwriter being the tool."
