Creativity, Originality, Ownership: The IPR Puzzle of AI-Generated Works

In 2023, headlines erupted when a photographer refused an award with a confession of submitting an AI generated submission and sparked controversy when he coined the term ‘promptography’ with the contention of expanding beyond the ‘traditional limits’ of creativity. By 2024, a dramatic surge in generative AI is reshaping the fundamental dynamics of production in aspects ranging from customer service to content creation across all industries. This overhaul has ripple effects in the existing frameworks of Intellectual Property Rights revolving around the question of originality, ownership and infringement.

𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗖𝗼𝗽𝘆𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗔𝗜 𝗔𝗿𝘁

The notion of copyright related to AI-generated works revolves around two primary issues: the usage of pre-existing creative works to train data models and the concept of "derived works" based on user prompts. Current legislation primarily guarantees copyright to "original work," a definition that lacks clarity in an era dominated by AI-driven creativity.

𝗔𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗲𝗻 𝘃. 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗔𝗜

The Case of Andersen v. Stability AI addresses the first concern of 'derived creative works' produced by AI. In this case, three artists complained about unauthorized usage of their creative works to train the data model which is ultimately leading to generation of works ‘close’ to their pre-existing works. The court ruled in favor of Stability AI pointing out the lack of 'substantially similar' content. However, the judgment also points to a contemporary need for regulating licensing of creative works of the content creators to train the AI models and determine the ambit of ‘free use’ in the context of research or educational purposes. This would ensure respecting the intellectual property rights of the rightful creator and a sustainable ecosystem for thriving creativity ahead.

𝗥𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗢𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝗔𝗜-𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸𝘀

To guarantee copyright in an intersection of 'original work’ and AI generated tasks through the prompt of a user, future legislations have a standard reference of the doctrines of originality in various jurisdictions which attempts to define the parameters of novelty and effort in producing the work. The current scenario calls for redefining the threshold of originality relating to AI-generated works and credits for the same. The contention exists that there's a significant role of both the prompt given and the pre-existing creative works which generates the final work. The 𝙎𝙬𝙚𝙖𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙗𝙧𝙤𝙬 doctrine of the United Kingdom does not state absolute newness as a requirement for 'novelty' of ideas. Similarly, the doctrine of 𝙈𝙤𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙪𝙢 𝙤𝙛 𝘾𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙩𝙮 from the US and 𝙎𝙠𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙅𝙪𝙙𝙜𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙏𝙚𝙨𝙩 of Canada too emphasizes on effort and uniqueness in presentation of an idea. These principles pave the way for recognizing human-AI collaboration in producing creative works while defining necessary human involvement alongside AI processing.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗗𝗔𝗕𝗨𝗦 𝗖𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗢𝘄𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗜𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲𝘀

A landmark U.S. federal court decision regarding patentability in the DABUS case established that only inventions with human owners can be patented, denying legal personhood to AI. This raises complex questions about rightful ownership: Should it belong to the developer of the algorithm, the creators whose works were used to train the model, or the user who provided specific prompts? Further, the onus of accountability due to the faults generated by AI complicates the concepts of rights, duties and liabilities which are clouded by ambiguities of granting ‘personhood’ to AI.

Ensuring a balanced approach that recognizes and credits human contributions in AI-assisted work is crucial for leveraging AI, with its capability to overview pre-existing creations and evolve the direction of new creations to better novelty and innovation, as a complement to human creativity.

mentblue
hashtag#AI hashtag#Innovation hashtag#CreativeArt hashtag#IPR hashtag#Owner hashtag#Algorithm