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.
A federal judge ruled that AI-generated art is not eligible for copyright protection in the US due to the absence of human authorship.
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.
Authors such as Zadie Smith, Stephen King, Rachel Cusk, and Elena Ferrante have discovered that their pirated works were used to train artificial intelligence tools by companies including Meta and Bloomberg, leading to concerns about copyright infringement and control of the technology.
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.
Artificial intelligence (AI) programmers are using the writings of authors to train AI models, but so far, the output lacks the creativity and depth of human writing.
Generative AI is enabling the creation of fake books that mimic the writing style of established authors, raising concerns regarding copyright infringement and right of publicity issues, and prompting calls for compensation and consent from authors whose works are used to train AI tools.
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.
Renowned author Stephen King expresses a mix of fascination and resignation towards AI-generated fiction, acknowledging its potential but not considering it on par with human creativity, in response to the growing issue of pirated books being used to train AI models.
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.
Stephen King is not opposed to his works being used to teach AI about creativity, stating that even human writers need to be readers; however, thousands of other authors have objected to their work being used in AI without permission.
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.
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.
Stephen King, a renowned author, defends generative AI by comparing it to the Luddites' resistance to industrial progress, despite the fact that the Luddites were actually protesting against the exploitation of workers through machinery, not progress itself. However, many creatives are concerned about AI's impact on their livelihoods, as it eradicates revenue streams and reduces opportunities for emerging artists, making it crucial to critically examine how the technology is being utilized.
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.
Dezeen, an online architecture and design resource, has outlined its policy on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in text and image generation, stating that while they embrace new technology, they do not publish stories that use AI-generated text unless it is focused on AI and clearly labeled as such, and they favor publishing human-authored illustrations over AI-generated images.
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in academia is raising concerns about cheating and copyright issues, but also offers potential benefits in personalized learning and critical analysis, according to educators. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has released global guidance on the use of AI in education, urging countries to address data protection and copyright laws and ensure teachers have the necessary AI skills. While some students find AI helpful for basic tasks, they note its limitations in distinguishing fact from fiction and its reliance on internet scraping for information.
AI is a topic of concern and fascination within the music industry, as musicians and composers grapple with the potential benefits and threats it poses to their work, with tools already available that enable the creation of professional-sounding original compositions, but with debates surrounding the authenticity and copyright of AI-generated music.
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.
Authors, including Michael Chabon, are filing class action lawsuits against Meta and OpenAI, alleging copyright infringement for using their books to train artificial intelligence systems without permission, seeking the destruction of AI systems trained on their works.
The rise of easily accessible artificial intelligence is leading to an influx of AI-generated goods, including self-help books, wall art, and coloring books, which can be difficult to distinguish from authentic, human-created products, leading to scam products and potential harm to real artists.
The generative AI boom has led to a "shadow war for data," as AI companies scrape information from the internet without permission, sparking a backlash among content creators and raising concerns about copyright and licensing in the AI world.
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 technology has the potential to assist writers in generating powerful and moving prose, but it also raises complex ethical and artistic questions about the future of literature.
Several fiction writers are suing Open AI, alleging that the company's ChatGPT chatbot is illegally utilizing their copyrighted work to generate copycat texts.
FryxGames CEO defends the use of AI in Terraforming Mars project but announces that the company's next board game will not include AI, highlighting the ethical and copyright concerns of using AI in artwork.
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.
