8/11/2023 0 Comments Canvas write text on imageUnder this hypothetical, neither party copied the other’s work, so no infringement claim is likely to succeed.” “Specifically, a successful copyright infringement claim requires proof of copying-independent creation is a complete defense. “Even assuming that the rightful copyright owner is the person whose queries generated the AI work, the concept of independent creation may preclude two parties whose queries generated the same work from being able to enforce rights against each other,” says Esquenet. What about when ChatGPT generates the exact same passages for someone else? However, in the case of ChatGPT, the operator’s control of the output is limited, and perhaps a stronger argument could be made that the output is controlled more by the creator(s) of the ChatGPT software than the operator who initiates an input.” For example, a graphic artist can claim artwork made through the use of drawing software. “And that result could also be supported, since the vast amount of source materials are at least publicly available.”Ī compelling argument, Kelber adds, “may be made that AI is simply a tool and that the human who is directing the AI should be able to claim ownership of the output. “Who owns the rights in such a derivative would likely be dependent on various issues, including where the dataset for training the AI tool originated, who, if anyone, owns the training dataset (or its individual components), and the level of similarity between any particular work in the training set and the AI work.”Īssuming the prior cases precluding authorship for non-humans is followed, “it could preclude anyone from owning the output, essentially dedicating such works to the public,” Kelber says. current law, an AI-created work is likely either (1) a public domain work immediately upon creation and without a copyright owner capable of asserting rights or (2) a derivative work of the materials the AI tool was exposed to during training,” Esquenet continues. “This strategy will likely face strong headwinds in light of the legislative history of the human authorship prerequisite and subsequent court decisions affirming the requirement.”Īs a result of the human authorship standard, “under U.S. author needs to secure a registration or a refusal from the Copyright Office to enforce rights, a potential path to challenging the human authorship obligation is to either appeal a Copyright Office registration refusal or pursue an infringer after attempting to register rights with the Office,” says Esquenet. Things get more complicated if an active copyright or IP-infringement challenge to AI-generated content takes place. “So far, the courts have been hostile to the notion of non-humans claiming authorship or inventorship, and in both cases, thereby ownership of the IP.” This question is also “presently being litigated, e.g., in a case involving a photograph taken by a monkey and also cases exploring the concept of inventorship of AI in the context of patents,” says Kelber.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |