INTRODUCTION
In today’s modern world, it is indisputable that technological advancements have infiltrated almost every aspect of this contemporary society.[1], in recent years Artificial Intelligence has significantly taken over creative workspace and has pervaded various sectors, revolutionizing industries from healthcare to finance, & reshaping has sparked the intersection. These Artificial Intelligence systems can think, learn and solve complex problems similarly and way better than humans. In simple terms, the advancements in data analysis and using computers have made the decision-making process much easier. In today’s industry and market environment, having a clear understanding of who owns the Intellectual Property (“IP”) is crucial for both individuals and businesses, this clarity often plays a pivotal role in determining a business growth trajectory.[2], which furthermore makes Intellectual Property (IP) ownership extremely important, however as AI-generated work becomes more common, the legal complexities have risen, at the intersection of AI and copyright Law which has genuinely become challenging to navigate. As we venture into this uncharted legal landscape, the necessity for clear guidelines, new legal frameworks and effective policymaking becomes evident.[3], additionally, courts are also currently figuring out how to enforce these laws on AI-generated content, focusing on issues such as infringement and usage rights etc. The path ahead is challenging but with continuous discussions and innovations, we can leverage the benefits of AI while maintaining fairness, respect, and responsibility. This blog aims to explore the complex relationship between copyright and artificial intelligence, examining the legal implications, challenges, and potential future development in this evolving and challenging field.
UNDERSTANDING COPYRIGHT LAW IN THE AGE OF AI
The copyright law consists of rights that are automatically provided to the creator for an original or creative work (e.g., a literary work, song, movie or software. These rights include the right to reproduce, create derivative works with it, and publicly perform or display the original work. Copyright law serves the purpose of giving creators ownership or master rights, for a specific amount of time. The work should be fixed in a tangible form to fall under the purview of copyright protection. The copyright act in India has a law protecting the creator’s work for a minimum of 60 years.
COPYRIGHT PROTECTION FOR AI-CREATED WORK
In recent years there has been an emergence in AI-based models like ChatGPT, Google Bard, Apple Intelligence DALL-E, Microsoft Bing, Meta AI, Midjourney AI & Stable Diffusion, which allows users to write a clear & concise prompt for the Artificial Intelligence system to create or generate literary, dramatic, & Artistic works.[4] It’s astonishing but it’s true that Artificial Intelligence much like humans can now produce artistic works & music creation by learning from data & patterns. In addition, according to current copyright laws, however, only human beings are acknowledged as creators. In the well-known case Naruto v Slater[5], in which a monkey named Naruto who took selfies and PETA claimed copyrights on monkeys behalf of the monkey, However, the US Court dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that animals cannot possess copyright, determining authorship entails analyzing the originality and creative contribution of the monkey as a creator because animals cannot own copyright. This case highlights the difficulties inherent in obtaining copyright for works created by artificial intelligence.
The current Indian IP law does not contain any clear provisions for extending recognition, let alone for ownership, to software and algorithms used for the creation of IP that are eligible for statutory protection. However, a very small exception to a very limited extent, can be found under Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act of 1957[6], which recognises a person as an author who creates any literary, dramatic or artistic work which is computer-generated but the creation has to be done by the author itself. However, the non-human counterpart i.e., the software/AI system itself cannot be assigned authorship of the work. Further to deeply understand the intersection of copyright and artificial intelligence with the help of this well-known case The RAGHAV case[7] In 2020, The Indian Copyright Office dealt with a significant case involving an Artificial Intelligence system called ‘RAGHAV’ which attempted to obtain copyright registration for an artwork titled ‘Suryast’. At first, the painting was disqualified on account of its not being authored by any human but later it was recognized as a jointly-authored work between the co-author alongside ‘RAGHAV’. Subsequently, a withdrawal notice was issued, to clarify the legal position of ‘RAGHAV’, emphasizing the ambiguity related to AI’s qualification as an artist under the Copyright Act.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF AI-GENERATED WORKS
There are some of the implications and challenges related to Copyright and AI are discussed below which will help us to understand easily. Some of the major challenges and implications are as follows:
AUTHORSHIP AND OWNERSHIP
One of the primary or fundamental questions in the context of Artificial Intelligence is determining the authorship of AI-generated works. If we go by the tradition copyright law presumes a human author. However, when an AI System independently Generates a creative work, it is clear who, if anyone, should considered the author. This issue is further complicated by the fact that certain legal systems mandate the presence of a human author, making it difficult to determine ownership when the creative process is automated.[8]
ORIGINALITY AND CREATIVITY
The next and primary issue surrounding AI and Copyright is protection the work must be original & have a minimum degree of creativity. AI systems, in contrast, are created based on access to huge data sets of pre-existing content which they can parse and learn from. Thus, the question that arises in this is, do the works created by AI count as original or are they just a different version of diverse content? This will force courts and legislatures to grapple with the nebulous nature of originality when it comes to AI – One Cannot always draw a clear line between inspiration and aggrandized replication.
KEY CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS[9]
BALANCING INNOVATION AND PROTECTION
The biggest key challenge or hurdle to overcome in devising regulations around works generated through Artificial Intelligence is how to strike the right balance between promoting new technological innovations and safeguarding the rights of human creators. If copyright laws are too strict, they may impede the development of AI, while if it’s too lenient, they may erode the rights of human authors.
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Aside from legal implications, however, the coming together of copyright and AI is truly a minefield of ethical questions. To whose benefit should the commercial exploitation of AI-generated works be directed? Do we owe such creation to AI in and of itself, and if so, what are the ethical and civil ramifications of such a designation?
TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTIONS
Some of the challenges associated with AI and copyright could be solved by technological tools (in particular through blockchain). Using Blockchain technology, creators and the history/origin of the digital works may be noted down transparently and it offers a non-revisable record of the author which would be useful in the determination of authorship and ownership.
CONCLUSION
The crossroads of copyright and artificial intelligence is a complex, constantly changing legal terrain. With the evolution of AI and the extension of its capability in creating, the existing framework of copyright would eventually have to evolve and take into account those corresponding issues of the AI-generated works. This will require policymakers to be in active conversation with the creators of new tech, lawyers and other stakeholders to create balanced rules that encourage innovation, but ensure creators retain their rights. The only thing we can say about the future of copyright in the age of AI is it depends on our will to find a way through these issues and our capacity to construct a legal framework in which technological progress can grow vibrant while respecting the founding tenets of intellectual property.
Author(s) Name: Aaryan M Gupta (Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut)
References:
[1] Nayantara Sanyal et al. ‘Intersection of Intellectual Property Rights and AI-Generated Works – Part I’
(Bar & Bench, 5 March 2024) < https://www.barandbench.com/law-firms/view-point/intersection-intellectual-property-rights-ai-generated-works-part-i > accessed 7 June 2024
[2] Ibid
[3] Michael Dilworth, ‘AI & Intellectual Property: Artificial Intelligence Legal Implications’ (Dilworth IP, 4 March 2024) < https://www.dilworthip.com/resources/news/artificial-intelligence-and-intellectual-property-legal-issues/ > accessed 7 June 2024
[4] Nagesh Karale ‘Intersection Of Artificial Intelligence & Intellectual Property Rights : Challenges and Opportunities’ (iPleaders, 28 February 2024) < https://blog.ipleaders.in/intersection-of-artificial-intelligence-and-intellectual-property-rights-challenges-and-opportunities/ > accessed 8 June 2024
[5] Naruto A Crested Macaque v David John Slater & Ors [2018] U.S 888 F.3d 418
[6] The Copyright Act 1957, s2(d)(vi)
[7] King Stubb and Kasiva, ‘The Divergence In Copyright Recognition For AI-Generated Works: An In-Depth Analysis Of Ankit Sahni’s Case In The US And India’ ( King Stubb & Kasvia, 8 January 2024) < https://ksandk.com/intellectual-property/divergent-copyright-recognition-ai-generated-works-sahnis-case-us-vs-india/ > accesed 8 June 2023
[8] Jason Smith, ‘Intersection of AI and Copyright: Ownership, Challenges, and Solutions’ (Medium, 29 April 2024) < https://medium.com/@corpbiz.legalsolutions/intersection-of-ai-and-copyright-ownership-challenges-and-solutions-67a0e14c7091#:~:text=The%20intersection%20of%20AI%20and%20copyright%20creates%20intricate%20issues%20regarding,balance%20innovation%20and%20copyright > accessed 9 June 2024
[9] ibid
