Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Generative AI and Copyright Law
With the advent of readily accessible artificial intelligence (AI) and the breakthrough of generative AI (GAI) programs such as ChatGPT, Stable Diffusion and Midjourney, GAI is now a staple in all facets of business. GAI programs can generate new texts, images, and content (outputs) based on textual prompts by a user (inputs). Whether prompted to write a corporate slogan, create music, generate works of art and advertisements, or summarize a book — GAI can do it all. However, its increasing popularity means that users of GAI programs face substantial intellectual property risks — particularly when businesses use GAI for marketing and other public-facing purposes.
GAI has taken the world by storm. In 2023 alone, GAI has been used to generate musical works using the voices of famous musicians such as Drake, The Weeknd, Rihanna, Ye (formerly Kanye West), and Jay-Z — to name a few. These AI-generated musical works were short-lived, however, as they were quickly removed from streaming services after record label companies threatened legal action. GAI has also been used to generate new works of art. For example, the winner of the 2023 Sony World Photography Awards used GAI to create their winning work; however, the award was later forfeited when it was found that the artist used GAI to create it. GAI programs also have been used to write substantive and pictographic books — such as the more than 200 e-books on online bookstores that list ChatGPT as an author or co-author. Users galore also produce succinct or lengthy summaries of existing authored works with GAI. This may seem beneficial, however, a recently filed copyright infringement lawsuit, Silverman et al. v. Open AI Inc., No. 3:23-cv-03416 (District Court, N.D. California, July 7, 2023), claims that to produce books and summarize others, the GAI platform must "ingest" copyrighted books to learn what they are about and to account for their writing style — something the program allegedly did to plaintiff's copyrighted work, without her permission.
Scenarios like these raise many questions about how GAI and intellectual property rights intersect. What are the intellectual property risks a company takes when it prompts GAI to generate a unique output? Can a company use GAI to imitate the image and/or likeness of a celebrity for commercial purposes, such as a company advertisement? In this rapidly evolving area of law, it's essential to carefully consider the intellectual property law principles at play before using GAI for your commercial business endeavors.
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.
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.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?