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
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.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?