Rethinking Copyright: The Art of Ownership in AI Outputs
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15290/eejtr.2024.08.01.04Keywords:
artificial intelligence, copyright, work, output, authorship, ownershipAbstract
The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) as a creator of music, literature and visual art has prompted a critical rethink of copyright. As AI-generated output increasingly mirrors human creativity, the central legal question becomes: who, if anyone, owns the rights to these creations? This article explores the evolving copyright debate, focusing on the challenge of defining authorship in the age of AI. It examines recent legal developments around the world, including key cases such as Thaler, Zarya of the Dawn, and AI Machinations in the United States, as well as landmark decisions from China and Europe. The article examines whether AI-generated content can be considered ‘original’ and qualify for copyright protection under existing legal frameworks. Through analysis of global jurisprudence, it compares various national approaches to AI authorship. Drawing on recent case law, the article proposes a balanced framework that both protects human authors and recognises the growing influence of AI in the creative process. The research aims to provide a way forward that encourages innovation while maintaining the clarity of copyright law in a rapidly evolving technological landscape.
Downloads
References
3Blue1Brown (2024). But what is a GPT? Visual intro to transformers | Chapter 5, Deep Learning. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjZofJX0v4M.
Abrams, H. B. (1992). Originality and creativity in copyright law. Law and Contemporary Problems, 55(2), 3–44. https://doi.org/10.2307/1191773.
Andrew (2024). How does Stable Diffusion work? Stable Diffusion Art. https://stable-diffusion-art.com/how-stable-diffusion-work/.
Aronsson-Storrier, A., & Fairhurst, O. (2024). Generative AI, originality, and the potential role of contract in protecting unoriginal works. IPKat. https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/04/guest-post-generative-ai-originality.html.
Balganesh, S. (2009). Debunking Blackstonian Copyright. Yale Law Journal, 118(6), 1126–1181. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/483/.
Barta, J., & Markiewicz, R. (2021). Prawo autorskie i prawa pokrewne. Wolters Kluwer.
Beijing Internet Court Civil Judgment (2018) Jing 0491 Min Chu 239.
Beijing Internet Court Civil Judgment (2023) Jing 0491 Min Chu 11279.
Brooks v. Bicknell, 4 F. Cas. 247 (C.C.D. Ohio 1843).
Case C-302/10 Infopaq International ECLI:EU:C:2012:16.
Case C-393/09 Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace – Svaz softwarové ochrany v. Ministry of Culture ECLI:EU:C:2010:816.
Case C-469/17 Funke Medien NRW ECLI:EU:C:2019:623.
Case C-5/08 Infopaq International A/S v. Danske Dagblades Forening ECLI:EU:C:2009:465.
Case C-683/17 Cofemel ECLI:EU:C:2019:721.
Case C-833/18 Brompton Bicycle ECLI:EU:C:2020:461.
Cases C-403/08 and C-429/08 Football Association Premier League Ltd and others ECLI:EU:C:2011:631.
Claude Masouyé, (1978). Guide to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Paris Act, 1971). World Intellectual Property Organization. https://tind.wipo.int/record/28751.
Copyright Review Board, Second Request for Reconsideration for Refusal to Register Théâtre D’opéra Spatial (SR # 1-11743923581; Correspondence ID: 1-5T5320R) (5 September 2023).
Copyright Review Board. Second Request for Reconsideration for Refusal to Register A Recent Entrance to Paradise (Correspondence ID 1-3ZPC6C3; SR # 1-7100387071) (14 February 2022).
Copyright Review Board. Second Request for Reconsideration for Refusal to Register SURYAST (SR # 1-11016599571; Correspondence ID: 1-5PR2XKJ) (11 December 2023).
Copyright Review Board. Zarya of the Dawn (Registration # VAu001480196) (21 February 2023).
Cuntz, A., & Cartsen, F., & Stamm, H. (2024). Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: An Economic Perspective. World Intellectual Property Organization. https://doi.org/10.34667/tind.49165.
Dai, Z., & Jin, B. (2023). The copyright protection of AI-generated works under Chinese law. Juridical Tribune, 13, 241–260. https://doi.org/10.24818/TBJ/2023/13/2.05.
Farmaki, D. (2023). The player, the programmer and the AI: a copyright odyssey in gaming. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 18(12), 920–928. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpad095
Geiger, C. (2024). Elaborating a Human Rights-Friendly Copyright Framework for Generative AI. IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 55, 1129–1165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-024-01481-5.
Ginsburg, J., & Budiardjo, L. (2019). Authors and Machines. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 34, 343–448. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38SF2MC24
Glasser, D. (2024). Copyrights in computer-generated works: Whom, if anyone, do we reward? Duke Law & Technology Review, 1(1). https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dltr/vol1/iss1/24.
Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546 (1973).
Goldstein, P., & Hugenholtz, B. (2019). International copyright: Principles, Law, and Practice (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Goldstein, P., Stuetzle, C., & Bischoff, S. (2024). Kneschke vs. LAION – Landmark Ruling on TDM exceptions for AI training data – Part 1. https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2024/11/13/kneschke-vs-laion-landmark-ruling-on-tdm-exceptions-for-ai-training-data-part-1/.
Goold, P. (2021). The Curious Case of Computer-Generated Works under the Copyright, Designs and Patents. Intellectual Property Quarterly, 2, 119–129. https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/25814/.
Guadamuz, A. (2016). The monkey selfie: copyright lessons for originality in photographs and internet jurisdiction. Internet Policy Review, 5(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.14763/2016.1.398.
Guadamuz, A. (2021). Do androids dream of electric copyright? Comparative analysis of originality in artificial intelligence-generated works. In J.-A. Lee, R. Hilty, & K.-C. Liu (Eds.), Artificial intelligence and intellectual property (pp. 147–176). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198870944.003.0008.
Hattenbach, B., & Glucoft, J. (2015). Patents in an era of infinite monkeys and artificial intelligence. Stanford Technology Law Review, 19, 32–51. https://law.stanford.edu/publications/patents-in-an-era-of-infinite-monkeys-and-artificial-intelligence/.
Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian, 446 F.2d 738 (9th Cir. 1971).
Hristov, K. (2017). Artificial Intelligence and the Copyright Dilemma. IDEA: The Law Review of the Franklin Pierce Center for Intellectual Property, 57, 431–454. https://ipmall.law.unh.edu/sites/default/files/hosted_resources/IDEA/hristov_formatted.pdf.
Hugenholtz, B., & Quintais, J. (2021). Copyright and artificial creation: Does EU copyright law protect AI-assisted output? IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 52, 1190–1216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-021-01115-0.
Keller, P. (2024). LAION vs Kneschke: Building public datasets is covered by the TDM exception. https://openfuture.eu/blog/laion-vs-kneschke/.
Kelley v. Chicago Park Dist, 635 F.3d 290 (7th Cir. 2011).
Kicel, J. (2024). The intersection of artificial intelligence and copyright law: Challenges and innovations. Teisės apžvalga / Law Review, 1(29), 25–40. https://doi.org/10.7220/2029-4239.29.2.
Lemley, M. (2024). How Generative AI Turns Copyright Law Upside Down. Science & Technology Law Review, 25(2), 190–212. https://doi.org/10.52214/stlr.v25i2.12761.
LG Hamburg, Urteil vom 27.09.2024 - 310 O 227/23.
Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884).
Litman, J. (1990). The Public Domain. Emory Law Journal, 39(4), 965–1024. https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/222/.
Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201 (1954).
Naruto v. Slater, 888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018).
Rahmatian, A. (2013). Originality in UK copyright law: The old “skill and labour” doctrine under pressure. IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 44, 4–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-012-0003-4
Ricketson, S., & Ginsburg, J. (2022). International copyright and neighbouring rights: The Berne Convention and beyond (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
S. Š. v. Taubel Legal (2023) 10 C 13/2023.
Shenzhen Nanshan District People’s Court (2019) Yue 0305 Min Chu 14010.
Shtefan, A. (2021). Creativity and artificial intelligence: a view from the perspective of copyright. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 16(7), 720–728. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpab093.
Söğüt, A. (2024). Dealing with AI-generated works: Lessons from the CDPA section 9(3). Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 19(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpad102.
Thaler v. Perlmutter, Civil Action 22-1564 (BAH) (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2023).
Urantia Found. v. Kristen Maaherra, 114 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 1997).
USCO (2021). Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices (3d ed.). U.S. Copyright Office.
USCO’s registration record TX0009377452. https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/detailed-record/36317712.
White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 989 F.2d 1512 (9th Cir. 1993).
Wyczik, J. (2023). Artificial intelligence and (hopefully) the death of copyright. IPKat. https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2023/09/guest-post-artificial-intelligence-and.html.
Wyczik, J. (2024). The rise of the metaverse: tethering effect and intellectual property of crypto tokens. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 19(4), 358–370. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpad124.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
1. The Author declares that he or she has created the written work and holds exclusive and unlimited copyright /both moral and property rights/ and guarantees that no third parties have rights to the work.
2. In the view of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, a work must fulfill the following criterion:
a) be a manifestation of creative work,
b) have an individual character („author’s personal stamp”),
c) have a set form.
3. The Author declares that the text has not been previously published (under the same or different title, or as a part of another publication).
4. The Author allows (grants a non-exclusive license) the publishing house of University of Białystok to use the scholarly text to:
- preserve and multiply by means of any technique; save in a digital form with no limitations as to the manner and form of digital preservation;
- upload online with no limitations as to the place and time of access.
5. The Author grants consent for editorial changes made in the work.
6. The Author grants the University of Białystok rights free of charge for the duration of property copyright with no territory limits. The University has the right to grant sublicenses in the acquired rights.
7. Granting a non-exclusive license allows the Author to preserve their rights and allows other parties to make use of the work according to sublicensing agreement with provisions identical as those of Attribution 4.0 Internacional License (CC BY 4.0), available online at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. License to all its content published from 2023 and CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 to all its content published from 2017 to 2022.
8. The Agreement has been concluded for an indefinite period of time.
9. Because of costs born in preparation of the work for publishing, the Parties oblige themselves to act in good faith and refrain from declining to grant licenses.
10. To all matters not settled herein, provisions of the Civil Code and Copyright and Related Rights Act of 1994, February 4 shall apply.
11. All disputes shall be resolved by a court of local jurisdiction for the place of seat of University of Białystok.
