Showing posts with label human authorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human authorship. Show all posts

Friday, January 26, 2024

Computer scientist makes case for AI-generated copyrights in US appeal; Reuters, January 23, 2024

 , Reuters; Computer scientist makes case for AI-generated copyrights in US appeal

"Creative works generated entirely by artificial intelligence should be eligible for copyright protection, computer scientist Stephen Thaler told a federal appeals court in Washington this week...

A separate U.S. appeals court rejected Thaler's bid for patents covering AI-generated inventions, in a decision that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review last year. The UK Supreme Court ruled against Thaler in a similar case in December.

Thaler has several related cases still pending in other countries."

Friday, December 15, 2023

Copyright Board Upholds Latest Refusal to Register AI Generated Art; The Fashion Law (TFL), December 12, 2023

 ; Copyright Board Upholds Latest Refusal to Register AI Generated Art

"The Office primarily refused to register the work on the basis that it “lacks the human authorship necessary to support a copyright claim.” Specifically, the Office stated that despite Sahni’s claim that the work includes some human creative input, the work is not registrable, as “this human authorship cannot be distinguished or separated from the final work produced by the computer program.” 

Following an initial request for reconsideration, in which Sahni argued that “the human authorship requirement does not and cannot mean a work must be created entirely by a human author,” the Copyright Office again concluded that the work could not be registered, as it “is a derivative work that does not contain enough original human authorship to support a registration.” The Office found that “the new aspects of the [SURYAST] work were generated by ‘the RAGHAV app, and not Mr. Sahni – or any other human author,'” making it so that the “derivative authorship was not the result of human creativity or authorship” and therefore, not registrable."

Tuesday, August 22, 2023

As Fight Over A.I. Artwork Unfolds, Judge Rejects Copyright Claim; The New York Times, August 21, 2023

 , The New York Times; As Fight Over A.I. Artwork Unfolds, Judge Rejects Copyright Claim

"“Plaintiff can point to no case in which a court has recognized copyright in a work originating with a nonhuman,” Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia wrote in her decision on Friday, adding that “we are approaching new frontiers in copyright as artists put A.I. in their toolbox.”

Similar rules about “human authorship” have been used in deciding who owned a monkey’s selfie."

Friday, June 30, 2023

Copyright Office: Sorry, but you probably can’t protect your AI-generated art; Fast Company, June 30, 2023

JESUS DIAZ, Fast Company; Copyright Office: Sorry, but you probably can’t protect your AI-generated art

"Well, there’s nothing to see here, folks. You don’t need any of the generative AI tools in our weekly roundup because they will produce stuff you don’t really own. At least that’s what the United States Copyright Office (USCO) says. The federal agency doubled down on its AI doctrine during a recent webinar, labeling anything produced by AI as “unclaimable material.”

In other words, anything that comes out of an AI program can’t be protected under copyright law and will not be accepted even if it’s included in a work created by a human. So those extra trees and mountains you added to your landscape photo with Photoshop Firefly beta? They are not yours, sorry.”

Robert Kasunic of the USCO says, “The Office will refuse to register works entirely generated by AI. Human authorship is a precondition to copyrightability.” But it’s more complicated than that. As Petapixel reports, USCO will register your images if they are modified with AI, but you will have to declare which parts are made using AI, making them “unclaimable, essentially discounting them” from the copyright protection. Kasunic went on to say that USCO believes that using any AI to generate content is akin to giving instructions to a commissioned artist.

How will USCO enforce this policy in a world where generative AI work is practically undetectable? It’s a question that only has one obvious answer: LOL."

Tuesday, June 27, 2023

Using AI to Create a Work – Copyright Protection and Infringement; JD Supra, June 27, 2023

Amy GoldsmithJanet LinnTarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP, JD Supra; Using AI to Create a Work – Copyright Protection and Infringement

"Requirements For Past and Current Copyright Applications

Applicants are now required to disclose in their applications any AI-generated content and provide a brief explanation of the human author’s contribution. Any AI-generated content that is more than a tiny portion of the work must be explicitly excluded.

Pending applications must be corrected to conform to the new regulations. Applicants will need to contact the Copyright Office’s Public Information Office should a pending application not adequately disclose any AI-generated content.

For works already registered containing AI-generated material, a supplementary registration will be required describing the original material created by the human author and disclaiming the AI-generated material. Works with sufficient human authorship will be issued a supplementary registration certificate with a disclaimer of the AI-generated content."

Thursday, March 16, 2023

Copyright Report Says AI-Assisted Works Can Be Protected – But Only If A Human Was Still In Charge; Billboard, March 15, 2023

BILL DONAHUE, Billboard; Copyright Report Says AI-Assisted Works Can Be Protected – But Only If A Human Was Still In Charge

"A new policy report from the U.S. Copyright Office says that songs and other artistic works created with the assistance of artificial intelligence can sometimes be eligible for copyright registration, but only if the ultimate author remains a human being.

The report, released by the federal agency on Wednesday (March 15), comes amid growing interest in the future role that could be played in the creation of music by so-called generative AI tools — similar to the much-discussed ChatGPT...

Under the rules laid out in the report, the Copyright Office said that anyone submitting such works must disclose which elements were created by AI and which were created by a human. The agency said that any AI-inclusive work that was previously registered without such a disclosure must be updated — and that failure to do so could result in the cancellation of the copyright registration.

Though aimed at providing guidance, Wednesday’s report avoided hard-and-fast rules. It stressed that analyzing copyright protection for AI-assisted works would be “necessarily a case-by-case inquiry,” and that the final outcome would always depend on individual circumstances, including “how the AI tool operates” and “how it was used to create the final work.”

And the report didn’t even touch on a potentially thornier legal question: whether the creators of AI platforms infringe the copyrights of the vast number of earlier works that are used to “train” the platforms to spit out new works."

Wednesday, January 18, 2023

Do brands own the copyright on AI-generated ads?; The Drum, January 11, 2023

 Chris Sutcliffe, The Drum; Do brands own the copyright on AI-generated ads?

"Where copyright issues come into play is when there is no demonstrable human interaction – a tricky gray area given that a human is required to at least provide the prompts for the AI to begin with."

Monday, January 16, 2023

A Scientist Has Filed Suit Against the U.S. Copyright Office, Arguing His A.I.-Generated Art Should Be Granted Protections; Artnet News, January 12, 2023

Min Chen, Artnet News; A Scientist Has Filed Suit Against the U.S. Copyright Office, Arguing His A.I.-Generated Art Should Be Granted Protections

"A computer scientist has filed suit against the U.S. Copyright Office, asking a Washington D.C. federal court to overturn the office’s refusal to grant copyright protection to an artwork created by an A.I. system he built.

The work at the center of the suit is titled A Recent Entrance to Paradise, which was generated in 2012 by DABUS, an A.I. system developed by Stephen Thaler, the founder of Imagination Engines Incorporated, an advanced artificial neural network technology company.

In November 2018, Thaler applied to register the piece with the copyright office, listing DABUS as the author of the work and stating that it was “created autonomously by machine.” The office refused the application, responding, “We cannot register this work because it lacks the human authorship necessary to support a copyright claim.”"

Wednesday, January 4, 2023

Copyright Office Sets Sights on Artificial Intelligence in 2023; Bloomberg Law, December 29, 2022

Riddhi Setty, Bloomberg Law; Copyright Office Sets Sights on Artificial Intelligence in 2023

"The US Copyright Office over the next year will focus on addressing legal gray areas that surround copyright protections and artificial intelligence, amid increasing concerns that IP policy is lagging behind technology. 

“Developments are happening so quickly and so pervasively in so many different fields that I think in a way that is taking up most of the oxygen in the room these days,” Shira Perlmutter, register of copyrights and the office’s director, told Bloomberg Law in an interview."