If you follow me on LinkedIn, it’s likely you’ve read my post on copyright concerns with AI-Generated words.
While chatbots obviously don’t have feelings and opinions, I thought it might be a good idea to hear from the horse’s mouth (or in this instance, from the mouth of one of the horses). I had a “fireside” chat with ChatGPT. It appeared to have an appreciation for certain copyright concepts. I found that interesting.
No, no pictures exist. But I’ll be reproducing my “interview” here. I hope you enjoy it and that it gives some clarity into copyright law, and its struggle to keep up with changing tech.
Abah: Are your words copyrighted?
ChatGPT: The text generated by me, as an AI language model, is not copyrighted. The intellectual property of the text belongs to the individual or organization who requested it. However, some limitations may apply depending on the intended use of the generated text, so it’s always a good idea to double-check any relevant policies or guidelines.
Abah: What do you think about copyright protection for AI-generated work?
ChatGPT: Copyright protection for AI-generated work is an interesting and complex issue that is currently being debated among legal experts and intellectual property specialists. As an AI language model, I don’t have personal opinions, but I can provide some insights on the matter.
One of the challenges with copyright protection for AI-generated work is determining who owns the copyright. Some argue that the copyright should belong to the person or entity who created the AI program or developed the dataset that the AI used to generate the work. Others argue that the copyright should belong to the AI itself, or to the person or entity who provided the input that led to the generation of the work.
Another challenge is determining the level of creativity involved in the AI-generated work. Copyright law typically protects original works of authorship that display a certain degree of creativity, but it may be difficult to determine whether an AI-generated work meets this standard, particularly if the AI is simply following pre-programmed rules or algorithms.
As AI technology continues to advance, it is likely that copyright laws and policies will need to adapt to address these and other issues related to intellectual property and ownership of AI-generated work.
Abah: Has any discourse considered how wide the dataset used by the AI could be?
ChatGPT: Yes, the size and composition of the dataset used by AI can be an important factor in determining ownership and copyright of AI-generated works. For example, if the AI system was trained on a public dataset or on data that was created or owned by multiple parties, it may be more difficult to determine who owns the copyright for any resulting works.
Moreover, depending on the nature of the dataset and the specific algorithms used by the AI, it may be possible for an AI system to produce output that is substantially similar to existing works, potentially infringing on existing copyrights. In such cases, it may be necessary to determine whether the AI-generated work constitutes a transformative use or falls under the doctrine of fair use, or whether it is a mere reproduction of existing works.
These and other issues related to copyright and AI-generated works are still being debated and explored by legal experts and intellectual property scholars. As AI technology continues to develop and become more ubiquitous, it is likely that these issues will become increasingly important and complex.
Abah: There have been instances where AI-generated works were considered an infringement on existing work. In the past, who has been held liable for such infringement?
ChatGPT: The issue of liability for copyright infringement in AI-generated works is complex and has not been fully settled in many jurisdictions. In general, liability for copyright infringement may depend on a number of factors, including the nature and extent of the infringement, the intent of the infringer, and the applicable laws and regulations in a given jurisdiction.
In cases where an AI-generated work is found to be substantially similar to an existing work and to infringe on the original author’s copyright, liability may be attributed to a number of parties. These may include the person or entity who created the AI program or who trained it on a particular dataset, the person or entity who provided the input that led to the generation of the infringing work, or the person or entity who published or distributed the infringing work.
The specific legal framework and liability rules may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the particular circumstances of the case. For example, some jurisdictions may have laws that provide safe harbors or limitations on liability for intermediaries or online service providers, while others may have strict liability regimes that place responsibility on the creator or publisher of infringing content.
As AI technology continues to develop and become more ubiquitous, it is likely that these and other issues related to liability for copyright infringement in AI-generated works will become increasingly important and complex. It is important for stakeholders to carefully consider these issues and to consult with legal experts when developing and using AI systems that generate works that may be subject to copyright protection.
Abah: It does seem like only a small number of jurisdictions actually have laws specific to AI-generated content. With this in mind, would you give a different answer?
ChatGPT: You are correct that only a small number of jurisdictions currently have specific laws or regulations that address issues related to AI-generated content and copyright infringement. As a result, the specific legal frameworks and liability rules may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the particular circumstances of the case.
In many cases, liability for copyright infringement in AI-generated works may be determined by applying existing copyright laws and principles, such as the principle of originality, fair use, or the doctrine of transformative use. The specific application of these legal principles may depend on the nature and extent of the infringement, the intent of the infringer, and the applicable laws and regulations in a given jurisdiction.
In general, liability for copyright infringement may be attributed to a number of parties, including the person or entity who created the AI program or trained it on a particular dataset, the person or entity who provided the input that led to the generation of the infringing work, or the person or entity who published or distributed the infringing work.
As AI technology continues to develop and become more ubiquitous, it is likely that these and other issues related to liability for copyright infringement in AI-generated works will become increasingly important and complex. It is important for stakeholders to carefully consider these issues and to consult with legal experts when developing and using AI systems that generate works that may be subject to copyright protection.
Abah: It seems more jurisdictions need to take this on clearly to help with clarity in the law
ChatGPT: Yes, as AI technology becomes more widespread and sophisticated, there is a growing need for legal frameworks that provide clarity and guidance on issues related to copyright and AI-generated content. While some jurisdictions have already begun to address these issues, many others have not yet developed specific laws or regulations in this area.
The lack of clarity and consistency in the legal treatment of AI-generated works can create uncertainty for stakeholders, including creators, publishers, and users of AI-generated content. In some cases, this can lead to legal disputes or deter innovation and investment in AI technology.
To address these issues, it is important for policymakers and legal experts to engage in discussions and develop legal frameworks that provide clear and consistent guidance on copyright and AI-generated content. This may involve balancing the interests of different stakeholders, including creators, users, and the general public, and considering the potential impact of AI on the legal and economic landscape.
As AI technology continues to evolve and become more integrated into our daily lives, it is likely that the legal treatment of AI-generated content will become an increasingly important and complex issue, and one that will require ongoing attention and collaboration across multiple domains.
Abah: Which jurisdictions have these AI-specific laws in place?
ChatGPT: At present, there are only a few jurisdictions that have specific laws or regulations that address issues related to AI-generated content and copyright. These include:
- European Union: In 2019, the European Union (EU) enacted the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, which includes provisions that address the liability of online content-sharing service providers, including those that use AI technologies. The directive also includes provisions on the use of text and data mining, which is a type of AI technology that involves the analysis of large volumes of data to extract useful information.
- United Kingdom: In 2018, the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) published a call for views on the implications of AI for intellectual property (IP) law, including copyright. The IPO also published a report in 2020 that provides guidance on the use of AI in the creation of IP, and how the existing legal framework can be applied to AI-generated works.
- United States: While there are currently no specific federal laws or regulations in the US that address AI-generated content and copyright, there have been a number of court cases that have dealt with related issues, such as fair use and the question of whether AI-generated works are subject to copyright protection.
- Japan: In 2019, Japan amended its copyright law to include provisions on the use of AI to create works. The amendments provide that copyright in AI-generated works belongs to the person who created the AI program, unless there is an agreement to the contrary.
It is worth noting that these laws and regulations are relatively new and their specific application and impact on the legal treatment of AI-generated content is still being determined. In many other jurisdictions, the legal treatment of AI-generated content is governed by existing copyright laws and principles, which may be applied to AI-generated works on a case-by-case basis.
Abah: Would a multilateral approach be better?
ChatGPT: Yes, a multilateral approach to addressing issues related to copyright and AI-generated content could help to promote greater consistency and clarity in the legal treatment of such works. A multilateral approach could involve international cooperation and coordination among jurisdictions, as well as the development of international standards and best practices.
One possible framework for such an approach is the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), which is a specialized agency of the United Nations that is dedicated to promoting innovation and creativity through the protection of intellectual property rights. WIPO has already begun to explore the implications of AI for intellectual property law, including copyright, and has published reports and held workshops on the topic.
In addition, the OECD has also been exploring the policy implications of AI in various domains, including intellectual property. The OECD has published reports on the topic and has held meetings to discuss best practices and policy options for addressing issues related to copyright and AI-generated content.
A multilateral approach could also help to promote greater coherence and consistency in the legal treatment of AI-generated content across different jurisdictions. This could help to reduce legal uncertainty and promote greater innovation and investment in AI technology, while also ensuring that creators and users of AI-generated content are appropriately protected under the law.
Overall, a multilateral approach to addressing issues related to copyright and AI-generated content could help to promote greater legal clarity and consistency, while also supporting innovation and creativity in the AI space.
Abah: Is there anything else you would like to share on this topic?
ChatGPT: One important point to keep in mind is that the legal treatment of AI-generated content is still a relatively new and rapidly evolving area of law. As such, there is still much debate and discussion taking place among legal experts, policymakers, and other stakeholders regarding the appropriate legal framework for such works.
In addition, as AI technology continues to develop and become more sophisticated, it is likely that new legal and policy issues will arise that will need to be addressed by the law. For example, there may be new questions regarding the ownership and control of AI systems, as well as issues related to liability and accountability for AI-generated content that is deemed to be harmful or discriminatory.
Given the pace of technological change and the complexity of these issues, it is important for policymakers, legal experts, and other stakeholders to engage in ongoing dialogue and collaboration to ensure that the legal framework for AI-generated content remains up to date and effective in addressing the challenges and opportunities presented by this emerging technology.
Abah: Thank you for your time.
ChatGPT: You’re welcome! It was a pleasure discussing this topic with you. Don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any other questions in the future.
While ChatGPT gave very general and wordy answers and avoided my question on specific liability for copyright infringement by AI, my overall verdict is that it was quite head-on with its answers.
Copyright ownership and exploitation of AI-generated work is still not a settled point of law. Issues regarding liability and accountability for AI-generated content have also been front-burner for a while. Clarity is certainly lacking and will only be present when AI-specific copyright laws are drafted.
I would like to hear your opinion. So, please feel free to like, comment and share.
