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.
### Summary
A US court ruled that creative work made by artificial intelligence is ineligible for copyright, a significant ruling amid the ongoing Hollywood writer's strike.
### Facts
- 🤖 Artificial intelligence-generated art cannot be protected by copyright, according to a US federal judge.
- 📜 The ruling may codify intellectual property rights regarding creative works made by AI versus those made by humans.
- ⚖️ The ruling was made by US District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell and supported by the register of copyrights and director of the US Copyright Office, Shira Perlmutter.
- ⚠️ The significance of the ruling comes amid ongoing writers' and actors' strikes in Hollywood, as there are fears that studios will use AI-generated work to avoid paying writers and actors.
- 🧠 The plaintiff, Stephen Thaler, argued that his AI, the "Creativity Machine," should be recognized as the author of a piece of artwork, but the US Copyright Office denied the application.
- 📚 The ruling also clarifies that the copyright for AI-generated work cannot be claimed by the AI's users under the work-for-hire doctrine.
### How does this relate to Hollywood and AI?
- 🎥 The ruling has implications for Hollywood's use of AI-generated content and the ongoing concerns of writers' and actors' unions.
- 💡 The question of copyrightability for works made by AI has become increasingly relevant as generative AI becomes more prevalent globally.
- 💰 Entertainment and media companies are investing significantly in generative AI and may become global leaders in the field.
- 🌐 By 2025, it is projected that 90% of all content may be partly AI-generated.
### Summary
A new episode of Netflix's "Black Mirror" explores how celebrities will contend with AI replicas, raising concerns about regulations and potential brand risks. The use of AI-generated replicas has already been a topic of discussion among actors and performers, who are demanding better protections. This development could also have implications for regular people managing their own digital likenesses.
### Facts
- The latest episode of "Black Mirror" focuses on a woman named Joan who discovers a show on a streaming platform that features a digital replica of her, portrayed by actress Annie Murphy.
- Actors have been striking to demand protections from studios regarding generative AI, including regulations for AI-generated replicas.
- Some celebrities are considering the coexistence of their AI replicas, which could bring new monetization options but also increase brand risks.
- The use of AI-generated replicas may extend to regular people, as companies like Soul Machines offer products for designing autonomously-animated digital persons.
- Soul Machines has created digitized versions of celebrities like Carmelo Anthony, Mark Tuan, and Jack Nicklaus.
- Another company called Hyperreal allows individuals to create digital versions of themselves for future generations.
### Loading
Something is loading.
### 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.
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.
AI-generated inventions need to be allowed patent protection to encourage innovation and maximize social benefits, as current laws hinder progress in biomedicine; jurisdictions around the world have differing approaches to patenting AI-generated inventions, and the US falls behind in this area, highlighting the need for legislative action.
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.
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.
“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.
Three artists, including Kelly McKernan, are suing artificial intelligence (AI) companies for infringing on their copyrights by using their artwork to train image-generators without their consent, in a case that may set a precedent for how creators can protect their work from AI developers profiting off it.
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.
Adobe has joined other companies in committing to safe AI development and has proposed a federal anti-impersonation law that would allow creators to seek damages from individuals using AI to impersonate them or their style for commercial purposes, which would make the impersonator, not the tool's vendor, the target of legal action.
California Senator Scott Wiener is introducing a bill to regulate artificial intelligence (AI) in the state, aiming to establish transparency requirements, legal liability, and security measures for advanced AI systems. The bill also proposes setting up a state research cloud called "CalCompute" to support AI development outside of big industry.
A proposed bill in California could allow actors to nullify contracts that require the use of their likeness for digital avatars created using artificial intelligence.
High-profile songwriters are meeting with Congressmen to advocate for legislation protecting musicians' copyrights in the face of the rapid rise of artificial intelligence (AI) in the music industry. The industry wants clear legislation that requires permission from copyright holders to use pre-existing songs to train AI for generating new music.
AI-altered images of celebrities are being used to promote products without their consent, raising concerns about the misuse of artificial intelligence and the need for regulations to protect individuals from unauthorized AI-generated content.
A tentative agreement between Hollywood writers and film studios could establish protections for workers against being replaced by artificial intelligence (AI), potentially setting a precedent for labor battles in other industries.
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.
Summary: The use of pirated books to train artificial intelligence systems has raised concerns among authors, as AI-generated content becomes more prevalent in various fields, including education and the workplace. The battle between humans and machines has already begun, with authors trying to fight back through legal actions and Hollywood industry professionals protecting their work from AI.
A bipartisan bill, called the NO FAKES Act, has been introduced to protect performers' likeness from unauthorized digital replicas created through generative AI technology. The bill aims to hold individuals and platforms accountable for producing and hosting such content, while exempting certain replicas based on First Amendment protections.
A bipartisan group of U.S. senators has introduced a draft legislation called the NO FAKES Act, which aims to protect artists and others from AI-generated deepfakes of their likeness, voice, or image without permission. The bill would create a federal right for artists to sue those who create digital replicas of their identity without consent. The legislation includes carveouts for news coverage, parody, historical works, or criticism.
The NO FAKES Act, a bipartisan bill introduced in the Senate, aims to protect performers from unauthorized digital replicas created using generative artificial intelligence (AI), while exempting certain replicas that fall under First Amendment protections such as news, sports broadcasts, documentaries, and satire.
The No FAKES Act, a newly proposed bipartisan senate bill, aims to provide legal protection to actors and recording artists against the unauthorized use of their likeness in AI-generated deepfakes.
A bipartisan group of US senators has introduced a bill called the NO FAKES Act, which aims to ban the unauthorized use of AI-powered replicas of people's voices and images, with penalties starting at $5,000 per violation, while allowing limited protected uses under the First Amendment. This bill is seen as a step towards protecting artists and creatives from the unauthorized use of their likeness.
