Federal government considering copyright law changes for AI-generated work; National Post, October 16, 2023

 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."

ChatGPT: what the law says about who owns the copyright of AI-generated content; The Conversation, April 17, 2023

Sercan Ozcan, University of Portsmouth; Joe Sekhon, Senior Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law, University of Portsmouth; Oleksandra Ozcan, Lecturer, University of Portsmouth, The Conversation; , ChatGPT: what the law says about who owns the copyright of AI-generated content

"The AI chatbot ChatGPT produces content that can appear to have been created by a human. There are many proposed uses for the technology, but its impressive capabilities raise important questions about ownership of the content.

UK legislation has a definition for computer-generated works. Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 they are “generated by computer in circumstances such that there is no human author of the work”. The law suggests content generated by an artificial intelligence (AI) can be protected by copyright. However, the original sources of answers generated by AI chatbots can be difficult to trace – and they might include copyrighted works.

The first question is whether ChatGPT should be allowed to use original content generated by third parties to generate its responses. The second is whether only humans can be credited as the authors of AI-generated content, or whether the AI itself can be regarded as an author – particularly when that output is creative."

Generative AI Has an Intellectual Property Problem; Harvard Business Review, April 7, 2023

Gil Appel, Juliana Neelbauer, and 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."

United States: Art And Artificial Intelligence Collide With Copyright Law; Mondaq, December 29, 2022

Marc D. Ostrow and  Carlianna Dengel, Romano Law , Mondaq; United States: Art And Artificial Intelligence Collide With Copyright Law

"US Copyright law protects "original works of authorship." And at least since the famous "Monkey Selfie" case, the Copyright Office's Compendium of Office Practices III states at section 313.2, "[t]o qualify as a work of 'authorship' the work must be created by a human being." The first example cited in this section as a work that will not be granted a copyright registration is a "photograph taken by a monkey."

This principle has been applied to AI-generated works in both the patent and copyright arenas. Stephen Thaler, the creator of the AI platform, DABUS, an acronym for Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience, had previously applied for patent protection for a DABUS-created invention. The USPTO denied Thaler's application and he appealed that denial as far as the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In October, that court rejected on the grounds that an inventor must be an individual.

Dr. Thaler had also applied for a copyright registration for artwork created by his computer program, "Creativity Machine." His 2018 application was rejected, and Thaler appealed that refusal to the Copyright Review Board (CRB). In a lengthy letter to Dr. Thaler's counsel dated February 14, 2022 and signed by the Register of Copyrights, the CRB, citing the Compendium III and prior Supreme Court precedent, affirmed the refusal to register the work on the basis that the "author" of the work is not human.

Given the proliferation of open-source AI platforms to generate all manner of creative works, including visual art, poetry and songs and the exponentially increasing number of AI-created works, copyright law may need to be more flexible as to what AI-generated (or partially generated) works may be registered and by whom. Other thorny issues that will need to be addressed either by legislation, regulation or litigation are the use of copyright or trademark protected works to train AI applications or the incorporation of such works into AI-generated creations."

AI and Copyright in China; Lexology, April 15, 2022

 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."