Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Ownership and Fair Use

By Shaleen J. Patel and Sushmitha Rajeevan
June 01, 2020

Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies use tremendous amounts of information to learn, refine and filter data that is then used to generate an output. The process, commonly referred to as "machine learning," allows certain AI to create entirely new content based upon the materials it used to learn. For example, in 2016, AI was trained to replicate and produce original paintings based upon works of renowned artist Rembrandt van Rijn. In the process of creating new content, AI may create copies of copyrighted works in memory storage as a byproduct of its overall output sequence. This article explores authorship and ownership of such AI-generated content, and to what extent, if any, can copyrights be infringed upon when AI reproduces copyrighted works for machine learning.

|

Ownership Under 17 U.S.C. §201

Under 17 U.S.C. §201, the ownership of a copyright in an original work is determined by identifying the author of a work. Specifically, the author of a work owns the rights associated with an original work of expression. Under the law, the author — and copyright-holder — is the individual (or individuals) who creates the work and fixes it in a tangible medium. However, what happens when the "author" of a copyrightable work is not human? More specifically, who or what is entitled to claim the ownership when an original work is created by AI?

Artificial intelligence has become a key tool for developers and artists around the world. Some have used it to create unique creations, others have used it to create derivative works, and still others have used it to circumvent potential infringement claims. However, the United States Copyright Office has yet to issue guidance on the ownership rights of these works. Section 306 of the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices provides that "[t]he U.S. Copyright Office will register an original work of authorship, provided that the work was created by a human being." As such, no software program will be recognized as an author of a copyrightable work. In particular, the Compendium proclaims that "copyright law only protects 'the fruits of intellectual labor' that 'are founded in the creative powers of the mind.'" Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82, 94 (1879). Crucially, the Copyright Office will refuse to register a copyright claim if a human being did not create the work. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 58 (1884).

This is further affirmed by the decision in Naruto v. Slater, 888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018). In Naruto, a seven-year-old crested macaque monkey named Naruto allegedly took several photographs of himself with a camera owned, and left unattended, by wildlife photographer David Slater. The photographs were published in a book by Slater and Wildlife Personalities, Ltd. (Wildlife) created through Blurb, Inc.'s (Blurb) website. In 2015, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and Dr. Antje Engelhardt filed a complaint for copyright infringement against Slater, Wildlife, and Blurb on behalf of Naruto. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Naruto lacked standing to sue under the Copyright Act because animals cannot sue for infringement. Naruto, 888 F.3d at 420. The court elaborately distinguished between human and non-human authors of a work. Specifically, the court reasoned that since other sections of the Copyright Act, refer to "children" and "widow" for example, the statutory construction of the term "author" requires that the author must be a human being. Id.

Under the Naruto rationale, AI software itself could not own the rights to an AI-created work. This interpretation would also align with a recently published petition decision by the United States Patents and Trademarks Office (USPTO or the Office) that, under current law, only natural persons may be named as an inventor in a patent application. If AI systems cannot be credited as an inventor in a patent, then, current policy dictates it cannot be credited as an author in a copyright. Therefore, AI-created work may be ineligible for copyright protection and may enter the public domain immediately upon creation.

Alternatively, the copyright may be held by individual who created the AI program. This conclusion can also be derived from the ruling in Naruto. In particular, in its decision the Ninth Circuit noted that copyright ownership rights of corporations were predicated on the fact that corporations are considered "persons" under precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court because corporations "are formed and owned by humans." Id. Therefore, copyrights for works created AI software, also formed by humans, could be owned by the author of the software. This would also be consistent with the field of AI. In general, AI software requires some initial input from the author of the software code. As such, any subsequent work would be the fruit of that initial work, making the programmer the original author. Without additional guidance from Congress or the U.S. Copyright Office, creators of AI systems should apply to register copyrights for AI-created work as the "author" of that work. Or else, they would risk losing the ability to protect the work and exercise ownership rights against potential infringers.

|

Fair Use Under 17 U.S.C. §107

Copyright law has not yet defined a clear line between infringement and fair use for AI-manipulated works. The interplay between copyrighted works being used for machine learning and reproducing a work in a culpable manner is highlighted analogously through Authors Guild v. Google, 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015), wherein copyright owners sued Google for scanning digital copies of works, creating searchable text, and providing free "snippets" of the texts containing searched terms.

In Authors Guild, major libraries contracted with Google to make digital scans of books that could be machine-readable. Google "retain[ed] the original scanned image of each book" and "indexed more than 20 million books" for its Google Books project. Id. at 208. Google did not display advertising to users who searched for books using search terms and Google did not "receive payment by reason of the searcher's use of Google's link to purchase the book." In upholding the district court's grant of summary judgment of fair use under 17 U.S.C. §107, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that creating the searched indexes was transformative, with a purpose "to make available significant information about those books" and to provide readers the necessary information to educate them on whether or not they needed to purchase the books without providing so much information that the full context of the book was no longer necessary. Id. at 215-18 (emphasis in original). Transitioning to a similar example in AI contexts, it is clear that the exact output of the AI would have to be weighed against the input material to determine how the AI treats the work and the overall transformative nature of the AI-created content.

Second, the court noted that the second fair use factor, "the nature of the copyrighted work[,] … rarely play[s] a significant role in the determination of a fair use dispute." Id. at 220. With respect to AI, this factor weighs in favor of fair use for factual information. But to the extent that the AI relies on expressive works for its machine learning algorithms, this factor would weigh against fair use. The second factor highlights the murky common-law and statutory framework AI is currently operating in, and the need for practitioners to stay up-to-date on any upcoming guidance from the U.S. Copyright Office or USPTO.

Third, the Authors Guild court looked to "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole." Id. at 221. Noting that Google had copied the entire copyrighted work, the Court found that "what matters … is not so much the amount and substantiality of the portion used in making a copy, but rather the amount and substantiality of what is thereby made accessible to a public for which it may serve as a competing substitute. Id. at 222 (internal quotations removed) (emphasis in original). The court also found that there is no categorical rule precluding fair use from works that are taken in their entirety. Id. at 221. Although AI may take entire works to learn, this factor highlights the uncertainty between the ability to claim AI's reproduction of copyrighted materials for machine learning as fair use, without a detailed review of an AI's purpose, input, and output.

In evaluating the effect on the market, the court found that Google must create a "meaningful or significant effect 'upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted works." Id. at 224 (citing 17 U.S.C. §107(4)). Depending on an AI algorithm's output, the effect of AI-generated content may make the underlying content obsolete, complement it, or leave such content's market completely undisturbed.

Clearly, under the current statutory framework and common law doctrines, fair use can absolve AI of infringing copyrighted works. See also, Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that a copyrighted video game code may be copied to gain understanding of unprotected elements under fair use); Sony Computer Entm't, Inc. v. Conntectix, 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding the reverse engineering and intermediate copying of Sony PlayStation's copyrighted BIOS software for a transformative use constituted fair use); Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding thumbnails of copyrighted work to be sufficiently transformative to qualify to support a finding of fair use to survive summary judgment). An AI training model may use a copyrighted image for an entirely different purpose than that of the copyrighted image, but a training model may also use the copyrighted image for a purpose that is not sufficiently transformative. While current legal frameworks support that artificial intelligence may include fair use, the same framework makes it unclear as to the applicability to AI generally, rather than having to ask courts to provide a case-by-case analysis of when AI crosses the line from fair use to infringement.

|

Practice Notes

Practitioners should be prepared to for upcoming guidance on the impact of AI on copyright and other intellectual property regimes. At the end of 2019, the USPTO asked for public comment on how developments in AI should impact U.S. IP law, and the Office has started to take substantive positions on the issue. For example, on April 27, 2020, the USPTO published a decision in which the Office found that inventors are limited to natural persons for purposes of patents. While no official guidance or precedent has been set with respect to AI's implication on copyright laws, any official USPTO guidance could impact the applicability of AI in creating works capable of copyright protection.

Additionally, while there is analogous law on how AI may be said to infringe or qualify for fair use of copyrighted works, there has yet to be an on-point decision by any court that squarely decides the issue. Practitioners should advise clients of the importance of considering how their AI manipulates copyrighted works to determine if AI does indeed infringe the copyright of another work.

*****

Shaleen J. Patel is an associate in the Intellectual Property Department of Pepper Hamilton LLP, resident in the Boston office. He can be reached at [email protected]Sushmitha Rajeevan is an associate in the Intellectual Property Department of Pepper Hamilton LLP, resident in the Boston office. She concentrates her practice on intellectual property matters.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
How Secure Is the AI System Your Law Firm Is Using? Image

In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.

COVID-19 and Lease Negotiations: Early Termination Provisions Image

During the COVID-19 pandemic, some tenants were able to negotiate termination agreements with their landlords. But even though a landlord may agree to terminate a lease to regain control of a defaulting tenant's space without costly and lengthy litigation, typically a defaulting tenant that otherwise has no contractual right to terminate its lease will be in a much weaker bargaining position with respect to the conditions for termination.

Pleading Importation: ITC Decisions Highlight Need for Adequate Evidentiary Support Image

The International Trade Commission is empowered to block the importation into the United States of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights, In the past, the ITC generally instituted investigations without questioning the importation allegations in the complaint, however in several recent cases, the ITC declined to institute an investigation as to certain proposed respondents due to inadequate pleading of importation.

The Power of Your Inner Circle: Turning Friends and Social Contacts Into Business Allies Image

Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.

Authentic Communications Today Increase Success for Value-Driven Clients Image

As the relationship between in-house and outside counsel continues to evolve, lawyers must continue to foster a client-first mindset, offer business-focused solutions, and embrace technology that helps deliver work faster and more efficiently.