AI (Artificial intelligence) is rapidly growing and changing the tech industries drastically, and also its impact seeming in the legal field which raises a concern about the ownership of the AI generated content or works, particularly in the realm of copyright and patent laws. Few years back the courts, legislators and regulators have raised with this issues that, whether AI-generated content can be possible to copyrighted, whether AI developers are responsible for using the copyright materials to rain their Virtual Models to make efficient for readers, and whether the existing IPR laws is ready to adapt new technologies. These various questions have significant implications for creatives, tech companies, and also for the legal practitioners.
In the Fastly growing landscape of artificial intelligence (AI), the essence of AI and copyright law has become a most important point on the perspective of legal parlance. Recently developed tech field have highlighted the challenges and increase the complexities in determining the ownership of AI created works. This article explores the evolving legal landscape surrounding the copyrightability of AI created works, determining the key court decisions regulatory positions and what will be future of copyright law in the AI.
What is AI-generated content?
Similar to other types of content, AI-generated content can include text, photos, audio, or video, which is created by virtual assistant called as (AI) artificial intelligence models. These models, during the training they were store large data about the various topics, which has the result to produce the content from the store dataset. Popular content generative AI models – such as ‘ChatGpt, CoPilot, LLaMA and IBM Granite’ – applies depth learning techniques to the data in the form of words, pictures, sound, or video affects the human creation.
Current legal landscape for AI generated content
The current copyright laws and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Act provide protection against the violation of human-created works, such as books, audio, video, and art. These laws proposed extensive rights to the inventor, allowing them to control how their work is used and distributed.
However, the legal landscape now features gray areas and uncertainty due to the rise of AI-generated content.
According to a recent article in the Harvard Business Review, “the current IP system is ill-equipped to handle the existing challenges arising from Generative AI. This article proposed that the existing copyrights or patent lats may not have enough provision to address such issues as ownership, infringements, and fair use when it comes to AI created works.
Moreover, a report by Built in, highlights the ambiguity surrounding AI and copyright law, noting that “there is no clear consensus on whether AI-generated works can be copyrighted, and if so, who owns the copyright. “The report also points out that while some countries, such as the United States, require human authorship for a work to be eligible for copyright protection, others, like the United Kingdom, have started to recognize computer-generated works as copyrightable.
The US Copyright Office has also acknowledged the challenges posed by AI and is actively exploring the issue. In a recent event focused on AI and copyright, the office brought together experts from various fields to discuss the implications of AI-generated content and the need for updated legal frameworks.
Intellectual property rights: it’s importance in the age of AI
IPR are the legal privileges like fundamental rights, granted to the inventor or creator of particular things which never has been created before to safeguard their intellectual work for a specific period of time. These legal rights only grant the inventor or his assignee, to sole right to protect their creation from copyrighting by the other person for a specific amount of time. Article 27 of UDHR (universal declaration of Human Rights) described these intellectual rights as:
27(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
This it the one of significant body that supervise the globally to protect the IPRs, is the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). In the first international treaties, IPR introduced as the most significance of intellectual property, which were held in the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883) and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886).
Objectives of IPR
The term “intellectual property” (IP) refers as any original work which were came out from the human thoughts, or human mind, including, text, arts, science, technology or any other fields.
Intellectual property rights are proposing the following objectives:
- IPR provides, people earn some profit as well gain popularity from their creation or their works.
- Allowing Protection against the violation of the intellectual property rights of the creator or innovator.
- To promote an environment where individuals’ assurance for their creativity and innovation to do not compromised, ensuring fair recognition and ownership for their works.
The future of AI generated content
As we know that the AI Continuously growing, there is a need to establish as such legal framework which will keep pace with its advancements, maintain proper legislation, to protect individuals’ intellectual property rights of their creation or innovation. some relevant key questions for the future include:
- Will courts establish a set of rules and regulations for AI Training and its standard of use as well?
- How will the collaboration of AI-human be treated under copy right law?
- Will the upcoming amendments to copyright laws gain traction?
The intersection of AI and copyright laws, rapidly evolving legal battleground, impacting lawyers, artists, tech companies and policymakers alike. With ongoing courts decision and recent developments, saying up to date is essential for everyone, determining the core challenges of Intellectual property and technology law.
Global legal perspective over the AI generated content
The rapidly growing AI industry has led to legal consequences worldwide, particularly in the context of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) laws. With individuals having easy access to AI tools for generating content, there is a higher risk of violating innovators’ intellectual rights. Recognizing this issue, many countries have raised concerns and are working toward creating laws that keep pace with AI advancements, ensuring that innovation is protected while adapting to the evolving digital landscape.
Different countries have taken varying approaches to address these challenges, as follows:
- USA: In the U.S., the Copyright Office, ruled that AI- generated content works with human entities only, except are not eligible for copyright protection. For instance, in Thaler v. Perlmutter, the court rejected an AI-generated image’s copyright, emphasizing that “authorship requires human involvement.” Means that non-human entities are not eligible for copyright protection under the US copyright law.
- European Union: The European Union (EU) law, particularly under the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (2019), continues to emphasize human creativity as the foundation for copyright protection. However, ongoing discussions are exploring how AI-generated content could fit into this legal framework, especially as AI tools become more advanced. Similar to the United States, AI-generated works without human creative input are not eligible for copyright protection under EU law.
- United Kingdom: UK law is more flawless. Under the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988, computer-generated works are eligible for copyright, with authorship attributed to the “person making the arrangements.” This provides a legal precedent for AI- generated content to be protected under specific conditions.
- The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, along with its amendments, does not explicitly mention AI-generated works. Currently, the law requires a human author for intellectual property protection. However, with the rapid growth of the tech industry, AI-generated content is becoming increasingly common, leading to a growing discourse on adapting Indian IP laws. Legal experts in India are advocating for amendments that recognize AI as a tool rather than an author, ensuring that authorship is attributed to the individuals or entities responsible for designing, training, or deploying AI systems. Additionally, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) has been actively monitoring global trends to recommend necessary legal reforms that align with emerging AI developments.
The Impact on the legal field
The AI-generated content rapidly transforming the legal education and impact on the legal career as well. Traditionally law firms, charges to his client on the based of billable hours, however AI’s skill drastically improve the efficiency is challenging this system. Since AI has ability to complete the tasks faster through the AI tech model (without help of human reasoning), there is a growing demand for new price method, fixed fee and value-based billing. As a result, the law firms are encouraged to move away from billing by the hour for AI-driven task and instead offer fixed fees for Ai- driven services. This makes the legal service more effective and affordable to the general public and helps to increase efficiency as well.
Additionally, client are moving those law firm which already adopted AI model to lower costs, which is increased the competition level among other firms to implement AI solution. Moreover, some law firms developing their own AI based model, which help to get better result from others to improving contract reviews, automating compliance tacking, and providing instant legal risk assessments. For instance, Linklaters LLP has developed an ‘AI sandbox’ to test and implement AI tools, helping manage risks and compliance more effectively. In this perspective, SC justice B.R. Gavai said.
To promote responsible AI usage, legal education must emphasize the critical review of AI-generated content for accuracy and legal validity. AI tools should be viewed as supplements rather than replacements for human legal reasoning.” He further says that “that technology is reshaping the legal profession, and law schools must evolve accordingly Future lawyers must be proficient not only in traditional legal principles but also in navigating the complex legal landscape of technology, innovation, and digital governance,” he further added.
The reasoning of court on the AI generated content
Despite that, a number of recent court rulings have brought attention to the issue with conventional copyright regulations and aided in the creation of material using AI technologies. The decision in the US copyright office v. Narutov case, which concerned a photograph taken by a wild monkey, will determine whether the conceptual tradition of copyrights principles are applied in this instance.
In this troubling case, the US courts decided that since animals are not human, they cannot claim copyright, which also applies to works produced by artificial intelligence.
Even though this case was unrelated to AI or acentric, it produced a body of literature that would support the argument against adding non-human authors to the list of works covered by US copyrights.
The other noteworthy case that is comparable is “Thaler v. Comptroller General of Patents 2020,” in which Dr. Stephen Thaler submitted patent applications in the UK, citing DABUS as the inventor of “an AI system.” The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) denied the application, arguing that an AI system cannot be considered an inventor under UK patent rules and that only natural persons are eligible to be inventors. This case established a precedent that, in the UK, an AI-generated innovation cannot be copyrighted in the absence of genuine human inventorship. Similar decisions have been rendered in situations involving the US, Europe, and Australia.
Given the growing role of AI in creativity and content creation, the aforementioned examples highlight the need for a review of current legal frameworks. As AI systems become more capable of producing creative content, lawmakers and judges will need to reconsider how to recognize and safeguard these kinds of works.
Conclusion
The Rising Tech industry improving the AI reliability more efficient, which can be the reason of violate copyright law or Intellectual property right of the individual. Over the AI created works has several legal debates, as there various AI tools available in the market which create artworks, text, music and other creative work, which raises the question that whether the Ownership of the AI created works will rely on who? It is remaining the major challenge. Traditionally, copyright laws were designed for human creators, However, there is no clear definition of AI-generated content, which places it in a legal gray area.
To resolve these complexities, courts and policymakers are now tasked with adapting existing IPR laws.
There are various important arguments why AI-created works should belong to the developers or users who initiated the AI, but others believe it should remain unprotected due to the lack of human creativity. The court cases involving AI-generated content emphasize the necessity of precise laws that strike a balance between copyright protection, fair ownership, and innovation. Moving forward, lawmakers must establish new policies to ensure that intellectual property laws evolve alongside technological advancements, safeguarding both human creativity and AI-driven innovation.
Reference
1] AI, Copyright, and the Law: The Ongoing Battle Over Intellectual Property Rights.
[2] Federal Court Sides with Plaintiff in the First Major AI Copyright Decision.
[3] Case Tracker: Artificial Intelligence, Copyrights, and Class Actions.
[4] IP in the Age of AI: What Today’s Cases Teach Us About the Future
[5] AI and Intellectual Property Rights
[6] Every AI Copyright Lawsuit in the US, Visualized
[7] An End-of-Year Update to the Current State of AI-Related Copyright Litigation
[8] Legal Battles Over AI and Copyright: Emerging Trends in Intellectual Property
[9] Talkin’ ‘Bout AI Generation: Copyright and the Generative-AI Supply Chain
