Main topic: Copyright protection for works created by artificial intelligence (AI)
Key points:
1. A federal judge upheld a finding from the U.S. Copyright Office that AI-generated art is not eligible for copyright protection.
2. The ruling emphasized that human authorship is a fundamental requirement for copyright protection.
3. The judge stated that copyright law protects only works of human creation and is not designed to extend to non-human actors like AI.
Main topic: Copyright concerns and potential lawsuits surrounding generative AI tools.
Key points:
1. The New York Times may sue OpenAI for allegedly using its copyrighted content without permission or compensation.
2. Getty Images previously sued Stability AI for using its photos without a license to train its AI system.
3. OpenAI has begun acknowledging copyright issues and signed an agreement with the Associated Press to license its news archive.
### Summary
A federal judge in the US ruled that an AI-generated artwork is not eligible for copyright protection since it lacks human authorship.
### Facts
- The judge agreed with the US Copyright Office's rejection of a computer scientist's attempt to copyright an artwork generated by an AI model.
- The judge stated that copyright protection requires human authorship and that works absent of human involvement have been consistently denied copyright protection.
- The ruling raises questions about the level of human input needed for copyright protection of generative AI and the originality of artwork created by systems trained on copyrighted pieces.
- The US Copyright Office has issued guidance on copyrighting AI-generated images based on text prompts, generally stating that they are not eligible for protection.
- The agency has granted limited copyright protection to a graphic novel with AI-generated elements.
- The computer scientist plans to appeal the ruling.
### Summary
A federal judge ruled that AI-generated art cannot be copyrighted, which could impact Hollywood studios and their use of AI.
### Facts
- 🤖 Plaintiff Stephen Thaler sued the US Copyright Office to have his AI system recognized as the creator of an artwork.
- 🚫 US District Judge Beryl Howell upheld the Copyright Office's decision to reject Thaler's copyright application.
- 📜 Howell stated that human authorship is a fundamental requirement for copyright and cited the "monkey selfie" case as an example.
- ❓ How much human input is needed for AI-generated works to qualify as authored by a human will be a question for future cases.
- ⚖️ Hollywood studios may face challenges in their contract disputes with striking actors and writers, as AI-generated works may not receive copyright protection.
Generative AI is starting to impact the animation and visual effects industry, with companies like Base Media exploring its potentials, but concerns about job security and copyright infringement remain.
Three artists, including concept artist Karla Ortiz, are suing AI art generators Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt for using their work to train generative AI systems without their consent, in a case that could test the boundaries of copyright law and impact the way AI systems are built. The artists argue that feeding copyrighted works into AI systems constitutes intellectual property theft, while AI companies claim fair use protection. The outcome could determine the legality of training large language models on copyrighted material.
A federal judge has ruled that works created by artificial intelligence (A.I.) are not covered by copyrights, stating that copyright law is designed to incentivize human creativity, not non-human actors. This ruling has implications for the future role of A.I. in the music industry and the monetization of works created by A.I. tools.
The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers has proposed guidelines for the usage of artificial intelligence (AI) and data transparency in the entertainment industry, stating that AI-created material cannot be considered literary or intellectually protected, and ensuring that credit, rights, and compensation for AI-generated scripts are given to the original human writer or reworker.
Major media organizations are calling for new laws to protect their content from being used by AI tools without permission, expressing concerns over unauthorized scraping and the potential for AI to produce false or biased information.
Artificial intelligence (AI) poses risks in the legal industry, including ethical dilemmas, reputational damage, and discrimination, according to legal technology experts. Instances of AI-generated content without proper human oversight could compromise the quality of legal representation and raise concerns about professional responsibility. Additionally, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently settled a lawsuit involving discriminatory use of AI in the workplace, highlighting the potential for AI to discriminate. Maintaining trust and credibility is crucial in the reputation-reliant field of law, and disseminating AI-generated content without scrutiny may lead to reputational damage and legal consequences for lawyers or law firms. Other legal cases involving AI include allegations of copyright infringement.
Salesforce has released an AI Acceptable Use Policy that outlines the restrictions on the use of its generative AI products, including prohibiting their use for weapons development, adult content, profiling based on protected characteristics, medical or legal advice, and more. The policy emphasizes the need for responsible innovation and sets clear ethical guidelines for the use of AI.
A Washington D.C. judge has ruled that AI-generated art should not be awarded copyright protections since no humans played a central role in its creation, establishing a precedent that art should require human authorship; YouTube has partnered with Universal Music Group to launch an AI music incubator to protect artists from unauthorized use of their content; Meta has introduced an automated translator that works for multiple languages, but concerns have been raised regarding the impact it may have on individuals who wish to learn multiple languages; major studios are hiring "AI specialists" amidst a writers' strike, potentially leading to a future of automated entertainment that may not meet audience expectations.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is seen as a tool that can inspire and collaborate with human creatives in the movie and TV industry, but concerns remain about copyright and ethical issues, according to Greg Harrison, chief creative officer at MOCEAN. Although AI has potential for visual brainstorming and automation of non-creative tasks, it should be used cautiously and in a way that values human creativity and culture.
“A Recent Entrance to Paradise” is a pixelated artwork created by an artificial intelligence called DABUS in 2012. However, its inventor, Stephen Thaler, has been denied copyright for the work by a judge in the US. This decision has sparked a series of legal battles in different countries, as Thaler believes that DABUS, his AI system, is sentient and should be recognized as an inventor. These lawsuits raise important questions about intellectual property and the rights of AI systems. While Thaler's main supporter argues that machine inventions should be protected to encourage social good, Thaler himself sees these cases as a way to raise awareness about the existence of a new species. The debate revolves around whether AI systems can be considered creators and should be granted copyright and patent rights. Some argue that copyright requires human authorship, while others believe that intellectual property rights should be granted regardless of the involvement of a human inventor or author. The outcome of these legal battles could have significant implications for the future of AI-generated content and the definition of authorship.
UK publishers have called on the prime minister to protect authors' intellectual property rights in relation to artificial intelligence systems, as OpenAI argues that authors suing them for using their work to train AI systems have misconceived the scope of US copyright law.
The National Association of Attorneys General has called on Congress to pass legislation that prohibits the use of AI to generate child sex abuse images, citing the need to protect children from exploitation and the potential harm caused by AI-generated content.
Microsoft has assured its commercial customers using AI Copilot services that they are protected against copyright claims if they adhere to safety measures, but personal use of Microsoft's AI services may not be legally covered for copyright infringement.
Microsoft will pay legal damages on behalf of customers using its artificial intelligence products if they are sued for copyright infringement for the output generated by such systems, as long as customers use the built-in "guardrails and content filters" to reduce the likelihood of generating infringing content.
Adobe, IBM, Nvidia, and five other firms have signed President Joe Biden's voluntary commitments regarding artificial intelligence, which include steps like watermarking AI-generated content, in an effort to prevent the misuse of AI's power.
Eight more companies, including Adobe, IBM, Palantir, Nvidia, and Salesforce, have pledged to voluntarily follow safety, security, and trust standards for artificial intelligence (AI) technology, joining the initiative led by Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and others, as concerns about the impact of AI continue to grow.
California lawmakers are introducing a bill that would allow actors and artists to nullify contracts that permit studios to use artificial intelligence to digitally clone their voices, faces, and bodies, in an effort to protect workers from being replaced by their digital replicas.
Microsoft will assume responsibility for potential legal risks arising from copyright infringement claims related to the use of its AI products and will provide indemnification coverage to customers.
The Authors Guild, representing prominent fiction authors, has filed a lawsuit against OpenAI, alleging copyright infringement and the unauthorized use of their works to train AI models like ChatGPT, which generates summaries and analyses of their novels, interfering with their economic prospects. This case could determine the legality of using copyrighted material to train AI systems.
The use of third-party AI tools poses risks for organizations, with more than half of all AI failures coming from third-party tools, and companies are advised to expand responsible AI programs, properly evaluate third-party tools, prepare for regulation, engage CEOs in responsible AI efforts, and invest in responsible AI to reduce these risks.
The US Copyright Office has ruled for the third time that AI-generated art cannot be copyrighted, raising questions about whether AI-generated art is categorically excluded from copyright protection or if human creators should be listed as the image's creator. The office's position, which is based on existing copyright doctrine, has been criticized for being unscalable and a potential quagmire, as it fails to consider the creative choices made by AI systems similar to those made by human photographers.
Amazon has introduced new guidelines requiring publishers to disclose the use of AI in content submitted to its Kindle Direct Publishing platform, in an effort to curb unauthorized AI-generated books and copyright infringement. Publishers are now required to inform Amazon about AI-generated content, but AI-assisted content does not need to be disclosed. High-profile authors have recently joined a class-action lawsuit against OpenAI, the creator of the AI chatbot, for alleged copyright violations.
As AI technology progresses, creators are concerned about the potential misuse and exploitation of their work, leading to a loss of trust and a polluted digital public space filled with untrustworthy content.
Authors are having their books pirated and used by artificial intelligence systems without their consent, with lawsuits being filed against companies like Meta who have fed a massive book database into their AI system without permission, putting authors out of business and making the AI companies money.
Representatives from various media and entertainment guilds, including SAG-AFTRA and the Writers Guild of America, have called for consent, credit, and compensation in order to protect their members' work, likenesses, and brands from being used to train artificial intelligence (AI) systems, warning of the encroachment of generative AI into their industries that undermines their labor and presents risks of fraud. They are pushing for regulations and contractual terms to safeguard their intellectual property and prevent unauthorized use of their creative content.
Security concerns are a top priority for businesses integrating generative AI tools, with 49% of leaders citing safety and security risks as their main worry, but the benefits of early adoption outweigh the downsides, according to Jason Rader, CISO at Insight Enterprises. To ensure safe use, companies should establish and continuously update safe-use policies and involve stakeholders from across the business to address unique security risks. Additionally, allowing citizen developers to access AI tools can help identify use cases and refine outputs.
Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to disrupt the creative industry, with concerns raised about AI-generated models, music, and other creative works competing with human artists, leading to calls for regulation and new solutions to protect creators.
Companies utilizing generative AI technologies are taking different approaches when it comes to addressing the intellectual property risks associated with copyright infringement, with some vendors pledging to protect customers from legal fees and damages, while others shield themselves and leave customers responsible for potential liabilities. The terms of service agreements vary among vendors, and although some are committing to defending customers against copyright lawsuits, others limit their liability or provide indemnity only under certain conditions.
The advancement of AI presents promising solutions but also carries the risks of misuse by malicious actors and the potential for AI systems to break free from human control, highlighting the need for regulating the hardware underpinnings of AI.
Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayan highlighted the promise of "accountability, responsibility, and transparency" in AI technology during the company's annual Max conference, emphasizing that AI is a creative co-pilot rather than a replacement for human ingenuity. Adobe also unveiled new AI-driven features for its creative software and discussed efforts to address unintentional harm and bias in content creation through transparency and the development of AI standards. CTO Ely Greenfield encouraged creatives to lean into AI adoption and see it as an opportunity rather than a threat.
