The birth of AI systems such as ChatGPT and Dall-E has raised great interest in the way that AI could change our society and intellectual property law is no exception to this phenomenon. AI raises important questions about the nature and intent of modern copyright law.
Copyright belongs to the author of the work, the general consensus being that an author must be a human who has applied their intellectual faculties to produce a new work. For example, the U.S. National Commission On New Technological Uses Of Copyrighted Works, 1978, concluded that computers were mere tools in the creator’s hands which assisted the creator in the realization of their creativity.
One example which sheds light on a possible answer to this question is the case of Naruto v Slater, which involved a ‘selfie’ taken by a crested macaque named “Naruto” using the camera of photographer David Slater. Mr. Slater later published the photograph in his book and was sued by the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) who alleged that Mr. Slater infringed on Naruto’s copyright by publishing the photograph.
PETA’s contention was that Naruto acted independently and autonomously in making use of Mr. Slater’s camera and therefore as the “author” of the photograph he was entitled to ownership of copyright in it. The Ninth Circuit Court in dismissing the appeal emphasized that humanity was integral to the definition of an author, and affirmed the principle that non-human actors do not fall within the definition of an author as envisioned by copyright law.
Beyond definitions, other philosophical arise in the AI debate. For one, one of the primary goals of copyright protection is to incentivize authors to produce more work and contribute to the production of knowledge that benefits society as a whole. However, It is clear that this objective serves no purpose in respect of Artificial Intelligence as it does not need nor respond to “incentive” in the way human beings do.
On the other hand, this approach overlooks the roles which humans play in the production of creative AI, and in the distribution of AI-generated works. The incentive may not lie with rewarding the AI itself, but it may lie in rewarding the programmers and other human actors involved in the commercial landscape of AI-generated works.
Another issue is: humans are accountable for the work they produce and can sue or be sued in relation to the work. However, AI is yet to be held accountable for the work it produces and sue/be sued incourt. It would appear then that it serves no purpose to give rights to an entity that is incapable of being accountable for said rights.
Some scholars argue for the expansion of the definition of an Author, thus making AI eligible to own copyright. Evidently this ongoing debate could produce some exciting results in future. #intellectualproperty#ai#artificialintelligence
Σχόλια