ABSTRACT
The rise of AI has created a prolific and knotty debate on ownership and intellectual credit/rights claims over the arrays of creations for which these emerging tools are adapted. Everything gets even more entangled when AI is used to create artistic or literary works. A huge question that arises is: who deserves the credit? Is it the person who wrote the code for the AI, the developers behind the AI, or another who used AI to create their work partly? When authors create work utilizing AI and use plagiarism checkers, these tools often struggle to determine whether the content is original or was created by AI. This fact has raised a serious challenge in litigation. It’s struggling to cope, particularly with copyright laws, which protect the unique expressions of human creators. After all, these laws weren’t designed to cope with a world where those creators might not be human. Similar problems can be raised with patents, which protect new and inventive processes, especially when AI is a major player in hitting upon new ideas. These, in turn, raise questions of what’s fair. Who should be held responsible? For what, and to what end? How transparent should the creative process be?
INTRODUCTION
Progress made over the years is in terms of orthodox economics concepts and modernizing technology. That very evolution has given birth to AI—a revolutionary field of technology that is changing many industries. AI is simply a brilliant, learning, and self-operating computer program. It understands data, detects patterns, and derives conclusions—much like a human brain operates. AI does everything from image recognition and natural language understanding to playing games and driving cars.
The ownership here means who has the legal title and control over it. For creative works, it means settling who gets to say, “This is mine.” Questions of authorship are traditionally linked to being an original creator, and humans are normally considered authors. If you write a story or paint a picture, you’re the owner of that and the one who created it. Now, as AI systems produce independently, a new layer of complexity is thrown into the debate over ownership and authorship. Thus, when talking about AI, we ask, “Who should legally own and be credited for what AI produces?”[1]
It, however, is not purely a legal puzzle; it’s also a moral one. As AIs become even more sophisticated and contribute culturally to artistic and literary fields, setting clear lines and demarcating who owns and deserves the credit for AI-generated works will become imperative. We venture into a new area where machines become part of the creative process.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF COPYRIGHT AND EMERGENCE OF AI
- India was under British reign during the colonial period; therefore, the country adopted the British style of copyright laws. The Copyright Act of 1847 passed by the colonial power to mimic the British Copyright Act of 1842 framed in Britain was one of the earliest attempts to establish the safety of literature and artworks in India.
- India continued following the Copyright Act put in place during the colonial era even after obtaining independence in 1947. However, when it was realized that India needed a comprehensive law incorporating India’s unique cultural and economic environment, a new Copyright was passed in 1957. This legislation awarded authors and creators ownership of their work with provisions for fair use and protection of public interest.
- Adapting to Change: It has been revised several times to reflect technological changes and the international copyright situation for the last few years. Some of the amendments provided by the Copyright (Amendment) Act of 2012 include; Digital rights, the extended period of copyright protection, and provisions on combating online piracy.[2]
These laws have become very important as India is on its way to becoming a hub for information technology and creative industries. The ways we decide on ownership and authorship concerning works created with AI programs dictate the future of the creative industry.
SHIFTING CANVAS: UNDERSTANDING OWNERSHIP AND AUTHORSHIP IN AI-CREATED CONTENT
- Artificial intelligence (AI) is shaking up the world of creativity in ways we’re still trying to understand fully. It’s not just making things easier; it’s changing what we consider creative. When AI plays a big role in creating content, copyright laws suddenly don’t seem as clear as they used to be. The very idea of what makes someone an author is shifting. Creativity isn’t just about human effort—it’s also about what happens when people team up with smart algorithms. We’re entering a new world where AI is holding the paintbrush, and the canvas constantly changes under its touch.
- But this isn’t just about laws and who owns what. It’s about digging deeper into what it means to be a creator. We’re exploring more than just legal terms—we’re questioning the heart of creative work. How we think about ownership is also influenced by work-for-hire deals and the unique rules of different industries. These agreements recognize the various ways AI contributes to creating something new.
- Yet, beyond the legal talk, there’s a huge ethical side to consider. This is where it gets philosophical. We’re asking ourselves how to ensure everyone gets the right credit when AI and humans work together. It’s not just about following the rules but making sure things are fair. This kind of ethical debate isn’t just happening in tech; it’s all over the arts too. It’s about finding a balance. We want to keep pushing boundaries while also making sure people are paid fairly, recognized properly, and held accountable.
- The lawmakers aren’t sitting still either. They’re trying to keep up with these big changes, looking at how copyright laws must be adapted in a world where AI plays a big role in creating content. In light of this, governments, legal experts, and industry leaders are all discussing how to update legal doctrine in their countries and across the globe. They realize that creative work doesn’t care about borders regarding AI.
- As we move forward, we need a flexible and inclusive approach. It should honour individual contributions, welcome technological advances, and stay true to the ethical foundations of creative expression. This ongoing story aims to create a space where human and machine creativity come together, leading us into a new era of ownership and authorship in the age of AI.[3]
LEGAL CASES ON AI-GENERATED WORKS
1. Stability AI Case
Getty Images sued Stability AI in January 2023, accusing the latter of copying and modifying millions of photos and related metadata owned by the former in the UK. A few months later, Getty sued Stability AI again in the United States District Court of Delaware—some of the main charges around this recent court case include copyright and trademark infringement. Additionally, Getty Images also contended that some of the photos that Stability AI generated, had the watermark of Getty Images. Getty maintained that this has infringed on their rights and damaged their market reputation. For that, Stability AI should be rightly held responsible.
2. OpenAI
- A suit was filed in June 2023 by Paul Tremblay and Mona Awad who have authored many books. They accused OpenAI of copying and incorporating the data from their several books for training their AI to generate output, which was done without their knowledge or consent. They filed the suit seeking monetary compensation for the copyright violation. This case raises questions about using copyrighted literary works in AI training and authors’ rights in the digital age.
- Again in December 2023, another suit was filed against OpenAI but this time renowned newspaper publishers filed it called The New York Times. In their suit, they contended that Open AI without their consent used millions of narrations published by the New York Times to train and improve its chatbots for better and more accurate generation of its output. Their main contention was that offering information in such a manner by OpenAI calls into question the news outlet’s credibility. It has turned out to be their rival and affecting their business in the market.
These lawsuits exhibit the nature of the evolving copyright regime under technological advancement. They underline the necessity of clear directions regarding using copyright material for AI preparation. The cases bring to the fore the comprehension of potential conflicts between innovation and intellectual property rights.[4]
SUGGESTIONS
- The legislators and lawmakers have to deliberate more on, whether license requirements for content usage by AI tools are to be prohibited or allow fair use.
- While deciding on such copyright infringement cases by AI, the courts have to give proper precedent over what is okay to be used and what content is off-limits for usage by AI.
- There is an increasing tension between open-source ideology and intellectual property protection. If the AI is not made open source and the training materials used are not appropriately attributed to their source, then several ethical questions arise. The onus lies with governments and lawmakers to create a solution that is much more balanced, one that drives innovation while remaining respectful of creators’ rights.
CONCLUSION
As with all landscapes, the legal horizon keeps changing, much like the technologies it attempts to regulate. Our generation has fallen short of striking the right chord between encouraging innovations and protecting the rights of one’s hard work. The legal aspects remain an important tool in defining the landscape of generative AI and copyright within this ever-changing narrative. The outcome of these cases, and the subsequent public policy debate it spurs, will likely set key precedents about how we handle AI research and content consumption well into the future.[5]
Author(s) Name: Fathima Zohra (Kristu Jayanti College of Law, Bangalore)
References-
[1]Lim Yong Lin,’Who owns the copyright work in AI-generated art?’ (LPPLaw 2024) <https://lpplaw.my/insights/e-articles/who-owns-the-copyright-work-in-ai-generated-art/?utm_source=mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_content=articleoriginal&utm_campaign=article> accessed 12 August 2024.
[2] Devesh Singh Chauhan, ‘History of Copyright Act in India’ (Aishwarya Sandeep 07 November 2024) <https://aishwaryasandeep.in/history-of-copyright-act-in-india/> accessed 12 August 2024.
[3] Andres Guadamuz,’Artificial Intelligence and Copyright’ (WIPO Magazine October 2017) <https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2017/05/article_0003.html> accessed 12 August 2024.
[4] Ben Lutkevich,’AI lawsuits explained: Who’s getting sued?’ (TechTarget 25 June 2024) <https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/feature/AI-lawsuits-explained-Whos-getting-sued> accessed 12 August 2024.
[5] Harshal Chhabra and Kanishk Gaurav Pandey, ‘Balancing Indian Copyright Law with AI-Generated Content: The ‘Significant Human Input’ Approach’ (2023) Indian Journal of Law and Technology <https://www.ijlt.in/post/balancing-indian-copyright-law-with-ai-generated-content-the-significant-human-input-approach> accessed 12 August 2024.
