Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Copyright law has long struggled to keep pace with advances in technology, and the debate around the copyrightability of AI-assisted works is no exception. At issue is the human authorship requirement: the principle that a work must have a human author to be eligible for copyright protection. While the Copyright Office has previously cited this "bedrock requirement of copyright" to reject registrations of a "monkey selfie" (Naruto v. Slater) and a work purportedly authored by "celestial beings and transcribed … by mere mortals" (Urantia Foundation v. Kristen Maaherra), recent decisions have focused on the role of human authorship in the context of artificial intelligence (AI).
The Office first tackled the registrability of AI-assisted works in its Kashtanova decision, canceling a previously issued registration of a graphic novel titled Zarya of the Dawn when it learned that the images in the novel were generated using Midjourney, an AI tool that creates images in response to user prompts. Kashtanova detailed to the Office her "creative, iterative process" for generating the images, including "multiple rounds of composition, selection, arrangement, cropping, and editing for each image in the Work." The Office determined, however, that while Kashtanova's textual authorship and selection, coordination, and arrangement of the novel's written and visual elements were eligible for protection, the images themselves were not the product of human authorship and therefore not copyrightable.
In March 2023, the Office issued guidance consistent with its Kashtanova decision, addressing the copyrightability of works containing AI-generated material. While the guidance contemplates that some such works could be copyrightable, it did not provide any examples of what contributions a user of an AI system would need to make to satisfy the human authorship requirement. Rather, the Office broadly stated that it will consider, on a case-by-case basis, "whether the AI contributions are the result of 'mechanical reproduction' or instead the author's 'own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible form.'" Where the user merely inputs a prompt, and the AI technology "produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response," the Office considers that the "traditional elements of authorship" are produced by a machine and therefore not the work of a human author.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
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.
Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.
The next company general counsel to slide a morality clause across the desk for a celebrity or web influencer to sign shouldn't be surprised if that talent also whips out a morals clause, one to cancel the contract if the company's brand acts immorally.
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.