Generative AI tools and platforms have sparked a lively debate surrounding copyright issues, leading to legal challenges and significant implications for both copyright holders and those accused of infringement. As the capabilities and prevalence of generative AI continue to expand, the United States Copyright Office (USCO) and U.S. district courts have begun to address key concerns regarding copyright ownership, registration, and infringement.
A recent case involving the USCO highlighted the complexities faced by individuals seeking copyright protection for works created using generative AI tools. The USCO initially canceled the copyright registration of a comic book called Zarya of the Dawn, which included images generated by a generative AI tool. However, the USCO later determined that the portions of the comic book created by the human artist, Ms. Kristina Kashtanova, were eligible for copyright protection. Specifically, the text authored by Ms. Kashtanova and her arrangement of the AI-generated images were deemed protectable. By distinguishing between the text, images, and their arrangement, the USCO clarified which elements can be afforded copyright protection when generative AI is involved. As a result, the USCO re-registered the comic book, excluding the AI-generated images from the registration.
This decision by the USCO was based on the United States Copyright Act, which states that original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression are eligible for copyright protection. According to the USCO, this phrase requires human authorship, while the term original mandates independent creation and sufficient creativity.
Adhering to these statutory standards, the USCO deemed the selection and arrangement of the AI-generated images to be protectable as a compilation. Ms. Kashtanova’s exclusive efforts satisfied the requirement for human authorship, and her arrangement of the images to convey a story displayed the necessary creativity.
In contrast, the USCO determined that the AI-generated images themselves were not eligible for copyright protection as they were not individual works of human authorship. The USCO examined the process by which generative AI creates these images, emphasizing that the process differs from that of a human author. With generative AI, an individual inputs a text prompt into the platform, which then outputs images that can be refined further through additional text prompts. While Ms. Kashtanova argued that she guided the structure and content of the images through trial and error, the USCO ultimately rejected this claim, stating that she lacked sufficient control over the generated images to be considered their inventive or mastermind.
It is worth noting that the USCO’s approach aligns with that of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the context of AI-based inventions. Just as the USCO interpreted the Copyright Act, the Federal Circuit ruled that the United States Patent Act requires named inventors to be human beings.
While generative AI tools may assist individuals in obtaining limited registrations from the USCO, other legal challenges arise. Several generative AI platforms are currently involved in pending litigation related to copyright infringement.
In a proposed class action lawsuit filed in January 2023, several companies offering generative AI tools were named as defendants, with artists alleging copyright infringement. The artists claim that these platforms use their copyrighted works without obtaining the necessary licenses or consent. Although the presiding judge indicated that the complaint was likely to be dismissed during oral arguments, the plaintiffs were granted the chance to file a new complaint with additional facts to support their claims.
The legal industry is only at the beginning of potential legal claims and challenges involving generative AI. As this technology continues to develop, we anticipate an increase in legal decisions that will shape the application of copyright law and other intellectual property protections for generative AI.
In conclusion, generative AI has ushered in significant legal challenges encompassing copyright ownership, registration, and infringement. The USCO’s recent decision establishes boundaries for copyright protection in works involving generative AI, affording protection to elements created by human authors while excluding AI-generated components. As the legal landscape evolves, it is crucial for individuals to navigate these challenges and seek legal advice to ensure the adequate protection of their copyright in this rapidly evolving technological landscape.
