Federal Judge Rules AI Art Ineligible for Copyright – The Presidential Prayer Team
A U.S. District Court judge has ruled that images created by artificial intelligence cannot receive copyright, only those made by humans are eligible.
Topics
Posted 8/26/2023, 9:00:00 AM
presidentialprayerteam.org
Relevant topic timeline:
The use of copyrighted works to train generative AI models, such as Meta's LLaMA, is raising concerns about copyright infringement and transparency, with potential legal consequences and a looming "day of reckoning" for the datasets used.
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.
Hollywood studios are considering the use of generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT, to assist in screenwriting, but concerns remain regarding copyright protection for works solely created by AI, as they currently are not copyrightable.
A federal judge rejected an inventor's attempt to copyright an artwork generated by artificial intelligence, sparking a broader legal discussion on authorship and intellectual property rights.
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.
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.
Google is trialling a digital watermark called SynthID to identify images made by artificial intelligence (AI) in order to combat disinformation and copyright infringement, as the line between real and AI-generated images becomes blurred.
The United States Copyright Office has issued a notice of inquiry seeking public comment on copyright and artificial intelligence (AI), specifically on issues related to the content AI produces and how it should be treated when it imitates or mimics human artists.
“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.
AI researcher Stephen Thaler argues that his AI creation, DABUS, should be able to hold copyright for its creations, but legal experts and courts have rejected the idea, stating that copyright requires human authorship.
The US Copyright Office has ruled that a piece created with text to image GenAI app Midjourney is not eligible for copyright protection, raising questions about the copyrightability of AI-generated content.
Artificial intelligence (AI) image generation tools, such as Midjourney and DALL·E 2, have gained popularity for their ability to create photorealistic images, artwork, and sketches with just a few text prompts. Other image generators like DreamStudio, Dream by WOMBO, and Canva offer unique features and styles for generating a wide range of images. However, copyright issues surrounding AI-generated images have led to ongoing lawsuits.
The Colorado State Fair has amended its rules to require artists to disclose if they used artificial intelligence (AI) to create their submissions after controversy arose when an AI-generated artwork won first place in the fair's digital arts competition last year.
The creator of an AI-generated artwork is unable to copyright it, as the US Copyright Office states that human authorship is necessary for copyright, which could have implications for the popularity of AI art generators.
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 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.