AI-Generated Content In Copyright Law; An Analysis
In the dimly lit studio of the future, a robot dances with a paintbrush, strokes
of vibrant colours blossoming across the canvas. A melody hums from its metallic
core, weaving harmonies unlike any ever composed by human hands. These are not
scenes from science fiction, but the nascent reality of AI-generated art, where
machines paint masterpieces and compose symphonies. But within this dazzling
spectacle lies a critical question: can art birthed by algorithms claim the
legal cloak of copyright, or must it remain forever locked in the shadowy wings
of artistic limbo?
This is the crux of our dilemma, a legal pirouette where copyright law, accustomed to the grace of human creation, stumbles upon the pixelated canvas of AI-generated content. While human artists have long basked in the spotlight of legal protection, AI's authorship remains a nebulous enigma, its creative spark an alluring yet enigmatic question mark.
Can algorithms truly claim the mantle of artists, or are they merely sophisticated mimics, echoing pre-existing steps under the guise of novelty? It is this dance between artistry and algorithm, originality and imitation, that we must untangle before the curtain falls on this digital renaissance.
But can AI's algorithmic orchestra truly conjure such magic? Or are its compositions mere mechanical replications, lacking the soul of human inspiration? This is where the debate becomes a discordant waltz. Opponents of AI copyright hear in its outputs a derivative cacophony, a digital pastiche stitched together from fragments of human ingenuity.
They argue that AI merely plays a digital jukebox, rearranging familiar melodies without composing a single note of its own. To grant it authorship, they warn, is to rewrite the very score of copyright, devaluing human creativity and unleashing a wave of robotic plagiarism.
Instead of just grumpy critics shaking their heads at the weird sounds AI makes, there are others who hear something totally different. They see AI not as a robot stuck on repeat, but as an artist with a mind-blowing paintbox, splashing colors no one's ever seen before. It's not just rehashing old tunes, it's cranking out whole new songs, painting landscapes that would make your brain explode, and writing music that makes you feel things you never thought possible. To shut AI out of the copyright game, these folks say, is like locking up a brand new band before they even get to play their first gig - a total waste of musical magic.
So, where do we stand in this AI vs. copyright showdown? Does AI get its own spotlight or stay in the shadows? This ain't a one-man show, it's a wild dance party where the lawyers with their rulebooks and the artists with their crazy ideas have to figure out how to move together. Only by letting both sides speak their piece the legal eagles with their gotta-follow-the-rules attitude and the artistic rebels with their world-changing visions can we write a copyright law that works for both humans and robots. It's like choreographing a brand new dance number, one where everyone gets to bust a move and the whole world gets to see the coolest show ever.
Originality: Originality is the basic yardstick used to evaluate a work, where a sufficient amount of intellectual creativity and judgment has gone into its creation. Section 13(1) of the Indian Copyright Act 1957 states that copyright subsists in "original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works".[1]
Authorship: In the case of a literary, dramatic, or artistic work created during the course of employment or under a contract of service, the author of such a work shall be the first owner of the copyright, in the absence of a contract to the contrary.[2]
Fixation: Fixation implies that a work is expressed in a tangible medium, meaning that the work exists in some permanent form. The Copyright Act of 1957 lays down that copyright subsists in a literary, dramatic, or musical work only if it is recorded in writing or otherwise[3].
India's copyright landscape, like a vibrant, evolving mural, bears the marks of historical influences and contemporary challenges. As the brushstrokes of AI dance across the digital canvas, understanding this legal terrain becomes crucial.
Our copyright story begins in 1875, rooted in the Copyright Act enacted under British rule. This act, heavily influenced by the British Copyright Act of 1842, laid the foundation for protecting literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works. However, it primarily served the interests of colonial power, with limited emphasis on indigenous creativity.
Post-independence, India's artistic spirit sought a legal frame that resonated with its own cultural tapestry. The Copyright Act of 1957 marked a pivotal shift, broadening the scope of protection to include cinematographic works, sound recordings, and unpublished works. Notably, it also introduced the concept of "moral rights," granting authors certain non-economic rights even after assigning copyright.
In the 21st century, India's copyright law has continued to adapt. The Copyright (Amendment) Act of 2012[4], inspired by international developments, ushered in technological advancements like computer-generated works and digital rights management. However, the question of AI-generated content remains largely unaddressed, leaving a crucial blank space on the legal canvas.
The current state of copyright law in India lacks specific provisions addressing AI-generated works or recognizing AI as an author. The Indian Copyright Act of 1957 does not explicitly mention AI-generated works or AI as an author. Recent legislative developments and court rulings have highlighted the challenges in copyright protection for AI works. The Act requires works to be original and creative to qualify for protection, but it does not explicitly define "originality," leaving it to the courts to determine.
In contrast, the US and EU have also grappled with the issue of AI-generated works in copyright law. The US Copyright Office has stated that it will register an AI-generated work if it is created by a human, but it will not register a work created by a machine or an AI program. In the EU, the European Copyright Directive does not specifically address AI-generated works, leaving it to the member states to interpret and apply the directive to such works.
The international dimensions of the debate on copyright and AI reflect the global challenge of adapting existing copyright laws to technological advancements. As AI technology continues to advance, it is essential for copyright laws to evolve to strike a balance between protecting the rights of copyright owners and fostering innovation. The lack of specific mention of AI in copyright laws globally underscores the need for a comprehensive and internationally consistent approach to address the legal implications of AI-generated works.
Arguments Against AI Copyright Protection
Derivative Nature of AI Content: One of the arguments against AI copyright protection is the derivative nature of AI content. Some commentators assert that AI-generated works lack true originality and should not receive copyright protection, arguing that AI programs are like other tools that can be used to create works[7]. The Indian Copyright Act [8]and laws in other jurisdictions require works to be original and creative to qualify for protection. However, the definition of "originality" is not explicitly addressed in the Indian Copyright Act, leaving it to the courts to determine.[9]
Absence of Human Authorship: The argument against AI copyright protection due to the absence of human authorship is supported by the stance of the US Copyright Office and courts, which emphasize the requirement of human authorship and creativity for AI-generated works to be eligible for copyright protection[10]. The traditional understanding of copyright law is that only works created by a human can be protected by copyright. However, with the latest types of artificial intelligence, the computer program is no longer just a tool; it actually makes many of the decisions involved in the creative process without human intervention[11].
The absence of human authorship raises questions about the feasibility of enforcing copyright laws in the context of AI-generated works. As AI technology becomes increasingly integrated into the creative process, it becomes increasingly difficult to determine who the actual creator is, whether it is a human or an AI program[12]. This raises questions about the practical difficulties of identifying and monitoring AI-generated content for copyright infringement.
Moreover, granting exclusive rights to AI could stifle human creativity and lead to unauthorized use of copyrighted materials. The Copyright Office in the US has consistently denied intellectual property protection for AI-generated works, insisting on the necessity of human authorship and creative control over the work's expression.[13]
Potential for Plagiarism and Exploitation: Granting exclusive rights to AI-generated works raises the potential for plagiarism and exploitation, potentially stifling human creativity and leading to unauthorized use of copyrighted materials. The use of copyrighted works to train AI models and the copyrightability of material generated using AI systems are also issues that need to be addressed.[14]
Challenges in Enforcement and Identification: Copyright laws struggle with robot writers! Who owns the ideas? The robot, the person using it, or someone else? Robot writers blur the lines, mixing old ideas in new ways. It's hard to tell if they're just clever or stealing. Robot writing changes fast too, making it super tricky to catch!
Different countries have different rules about copying, making things even messier. To fix this, smart people, robot builders, and law makers need to team up. We need special tools to find stolen ideas, clear rules about who owns what, and ways to teach robots to play fair. Then, robot writers can do cool things without stealing, and everyone can be happy!
Human-AI Collaboration: Another argument is the growing trend of human artists collaborating with AI tools, suggesting that AI acts as an instrument of creation alongside human input. The use of AI in the creative process can enhance human creativity and lead to new forms of expression. The Copyright Office in the US recognizes the possibility of AI-assisted works being eligible for copyright if they exhibit human authorship and creativity. The use of AI in the creative process can lead to new forms of expression and enhance human creativity.
Incentivizing AI Development: One of the arguments for AI copyright protection is the importance of copyright protection for encouraging further investment and innovation in AI-powered creative tools. Copyright protection can incentivize the development of AI-generated content, leading to advancements in the field and the creation of new forms of expression. The Copyright Office in the US recognizes the possibility of AI-assisted works being eligible for copyright if they exhibit human authorship and creativity.
Spectrum of Authorship: Another argument is the need to expand the concept of authorship to acknowledge the collaborative nature of AI-assisted creation, recognizing both human and AI contributions. The use of AI in the creative process can lead to new forms of expression and enhance human creativity. The Copyright Office in the US has consistently denied intellectual property protection for AI-generated works, insisting on the necessity of human authorship and creative control over the work's expression. [16]However, it also recognizes the possibility of AI-assisted works being eligible for copyright if they exhibit human authorship and creativity.[17]
Adapting the Definition of Authorship: Another potential solution is to redefine authorship to encompass collaborative, human-AI creative processes. This would acknowledge both human and AI contributions in the creative process, potentially leading to a more comprehensive understanding of authorship in the context of AI-generated works.
Implementing Fair Use Exceptions: Expanding fair use provisions to account for the use of AI-generated content for educational, research, or critical purposes is a potential solution to the challenges of AI copyright protection. Fair use is an exception from copyright that allows the use of copyrighted materials without the owner's consent for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research[19].
Given the unique nature of AI-generated content, it is important to consider the potential application of fair use in the context of AI-generated works. This approach would provide flexibility for the use of AI-generated content in ways that benefit society, such as in educational and research settings, while still respecting the rights of copyright owners.[20]
International Cooperation and Harmonization: As AI technology becomes increasingly integrated into the creative process, the legal framework governing copyright protection will undergo significant and ongoing changes. International cooperation and harmonization of copyright laws can help ensure consistency and clarity in the treatment of AI-generated content across different jurisdictions. This is particularly important given the borderless nature of digital content and the potential for AI-generated works to be distributed and accessed globally.
The evolving nature of AI technology calls for a reevaluation of copyright laws to address the unique characteristics of AI-generated content. The debate is ongoing, and it is essential to consider the implications of AI on copyright law in a rapidly evolving technological landscape.
Conclusion
The debate surrounding AI and copyright is a complex one, with compelling arguments on both sides. Those wary of AI copyright protection highlight concerns about derivative content, plagiarism, and enforcement challenges. They argue that AI lacks the spark of true originality and that granting it copyright could stifle human creativity.
However, proponents of AI copyright protection point to the emergence of genuine creativity in AI-generated works, the increasing trend of human-AI collaboration, and the potential to incentivize AI development. They emphasize the need for a legal framework that acknowledges the evolving nature of authorship and fosters innovation while protecting existing rights.
Ultimately, finding a solution that balances the interests of both human creators and AI developers is crucial. This will require a nuanced approach that acknowledges the unique characteristics of AI-generated content and considers solutions like new legal frameworks, redefined authorship, fair use exceptions, and international cooperation. Only through continued dialogue, legal reform, and ethical considerations can we navigate this uncharted territory and ensure a harmonious future for both human and AI creativity.
The dance between AI and copyright has only just begun. The stage lights are on, the music is playing, and both sides are stepping into the spotlight. But to truly make this a masterpiece, we need all the dancers-artists, developers, lawyers, policymakers, and everyone in between-to keep the conversation going. We need to refine the steps, polish the choreography, and most importantly, listen to the rhythm of this new era. Only then can we create a copyright law that allows both human and AI creativity to flourish, painting a breathtaking future on the canvas of innovation.
End-Notes:
This is the crux of our dilemma, a legal pirouette where copyright law, accustomed to the grace of human creation, stumbles upon the pixelated canvas of AI-generated content. While human artists have long basked in the spotlight of legal protection, AI's authorship remains a nebulous enigma, its creative spark an alluring yet enigmatic question mark.
Can algorithms truly claim the mantle of artists, or are they merely sophisticated mimics, echoing pre-existing steps under the guise of novelty? It is this dance between artistry and algorithm, originality and imitation, that we must untangle before the curtain falls on this digital renaissance.
But can AI's algorithmic orchestra truly conjure such magic? Or are its compositions mere mechanical replications, lacking the soul of human inspiration? This is where the debate becomes a discordant waltz. Opponents of AI copyright hear in its outputs a derivative cacophony, a digital pastiche stitched together from fragments of human ingenuity.
They argue that AI merely plays a digital jukebox, rearranging familiar melodies without composing a single note of its own. To grant it authorship, they warn, is to rewrite the very score of copyright, devaluing human creativity and unleashing a wave of robotic plagiarism.
Instead of just grumpy critics shaking their heads at the weird sounds AI makes, there are others who hear something totally different. They see AI not as a robot stuck on repeat, but as an artist with a mind-blowing paintbox, splashing colors no one's ever seen before. It's not just rehashing old tunes, it's cranking out whole new songs, painting landscapes that would make your brain explode, and writing music that makes you feel things you never thought possible. To shut AI out of the copyright game, these folks say, is like locking up a brand new band before they even get to play their first gig - a total waste of musical magic.
So, where do we stand in this AI vs. copyright showdown? Does AI get its own spotlight or stay in the shadows? This ain't a one-man show, it's a wild dance party where the lawyers with their rulebooks and the artists with their crazy ideas have to figure out how to move together. Only by letting both sides speak their piece the legal eagles with their gotta-follow-the-rules attitude and the artistic rebels with their world-changing visions can we write a copyright law that works for both humans and robots. It's like choreographing a brand new dance number, one where everyone gets to bust a move and the whole world gets to see the coolest show ever.
Fundamental Principles of Copyright Law
To lay the foundation for understanding the arguments surrounding AI and copyright, we should explain the cornerstones of copyright law itself.Originality: Originality is the basic yardstick used to evaluate a work, where a sufficient amount of intellectual creativity and judgment has gone into its creation. Section 13(1) of the Indian Copyright Act 1957 states that copyright subsists in "original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works".[1]
Authorship: In the case of a literary, dramatic, or artistic work created during the course of employment or under a contract of service, the author of such a work shall be the first owner of the copyright, in the absence of a contract to the contrary.[2]
Fixation: Fixation implies that a work is expressed in a tangible medium, meaning that the work exists in some permanent form. The Copyright Act of 1957 lays down that copyright subsists in a literary, dramatic, or musical work only if it is recorded in writing or otherwise[3].
India's copyright landscape, like a vibrant, evolving mural, bears the marks of historical influences and contemporary challenges. As the brushstrokes of AI dance across the digital canvas, understanding this legal terrain becomes crucial.
Our copyright story begins in 1875, rooted in the Copyright Act enacted under British rule. This act, heavily influenced by the British Copyright Act of 1842, laid the foundation for protecting literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works. However, it primarily served the interests of colonial power, with limited emphasis on indigenous creativity.
Post-independence, India's artistic spirit sought a legal frame that resonated with its own cultural tapestry. The Copyright Act of 1957 marked a pivotal shift, broadening the scope of protection to include cinematographic works, sound recordings, and unpublished works. Notably, it also introduced the concept of "moral rights," granting authors certain non-economic rights even after assigning copyright.
In the 21st century, India's copyright law has continued to adapt. The Copyright (Amendment) Act of 2012[4], inspired by international developments, ushered in technological advancements like computer-generated works and digital rights management. However, the question of AI-generated content remains largely unaddressed, leaving a crucial blank space on the legal canvas.
Pallete of cases:
India's courts have played a vital role in interpreting and refining copyright law. Cases like Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Pictures Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. [5]and R.G Anand vs M/S. Delux Films & Ors [6] shed light on the concept of originality and its application to creative works. These cases, while not directly addressing AI, offer valuable insights into the legal standards that might be applied to future challenges in this domain.The current state of copyright law in India lacks specific provisions addressing AI-generated works or recognizing AI as an author. The Indian Copyright Act of 1957 does not explicitly mention AI-generated works or AI as an author. Recent legislative developments and court rulings have highlighted the challenges in copyright protection for AI works. The Act requires works to be original and creative to qualify for protection, but it does not explicitly define "originality," leaving it to the courts to determine.
In contrast, the US and EU have also grappled with the issue of AI-generated works in copyright law. The US Copyright Office has stated that it will register an AI-generated work if it is created by a human, but it will not register a work created by a machine or an AI program. In the EU, the European Copyright Directive does not specifically address AI-generated works, leaving it to the member states to interpret and apply the directive to such works.
The international dimensions of the debate on copyright and AI reflect the global challenge of adapting existing copyright laws to technological advancements. As AI technology continues to advance, it is essential for copyright laws to evolve to strike a balance between protecting the rights of copyright owners and fostering innovation. The lack of specific mention of AI in copyright laws globally underscores the need for a comprehensive and internationally consistent approach to address the legal implications of AI-generated works.
Arguments Against AI Copyright Protection
Derivative Nature of AI Content: One of the arguments against AI copyright protection is the derivative nature of AI content. Some commentators assert that AI-generated works lack true originality and should not receive copyright protection, arguing that AI programs are like other tools that can be used to create works[7]. The Indian Copyright Act [8]and laws in other jurisdictions require works to be original and creative to qualify for protection. However, the definition of "originality" is not explicitly addressed in the Indian Copyright Act, leaving it to the courts to determine.[9]
Absence of Human Authorship: The argument against AI copyright protection due to the absence of human authorship is supported by the stance of the US Copyright Office and courts, which emphasize the requirement of human authorship and creativity for AI-generated works to be eligible for copyright protection[10]. The traditional understanding of copyright law is that only works created by a human can be protected by copyright. However, with the latest types of artificial intelligence, the computer program is no longer just a tool; it actually makes many of the decisions involved in the creative process without human intervention[11].
The absence of human authorship raises questions about the feasibility of enforcing copyright laws in the context of AI-generated works. As AI technology becomes increasingly integrated into the creative process, it becomes increasingly difficult to determine who the actual creator is, whether it is a human or an AI program[12]. This raises questions about the practical difficulties of identifying and monitoring AI-generated content for copyright infringement.
Moreover, granting exclusive rights to AI could stifle human creativity and lead to unauthorized use of copyrighted materials. The Copyright Office in the US has consistently denied intellectual property protection for AI-generated works, insisting on the necessity of human authorship and creative control over the work's expression.[13]
Potential for Plagiarism and Exploitation: Granting exclusive rights to AI-generated works raises the potential for plagiarism and exploitation, potentially stifling human creativity and leading to unauthorized use of copyrighted materials. The use of copyrighted works to train AI models and the copyrightability of material generated using AI systems are also issues that need to be addressed.[14]
Challenges in Enforcement and Identification: Copyright laws struggle with robot writers! Who owns the ideas? The robot, the person using it, or someone else? Robot writers blur the lines, mixing old ideas in new ways. It's hard to tell if they're just clever or stealing. Robot writing changes fast too, making it super tricky to catch!
Different countries have different rules about copying, making things even messier. To fix this, smart people, robot builders, and law makers need to team up. We need special tools to find stolen ideas, clear rules about who owns what, and ways to teach robots to play fair. Then, robot writers can do cool things without stealing, and everyone can be happy!
Arguments for AI Copyright Protection
Emerging Forms of Creativity: One of the arguments for AI copyright protection is the potential for AI to exhibit genuine creativity and produce unique, original works beyond imitation. AI has emerged as a revolutionary force in content creation, generating works that challenge traditional concepts of authorship and copyright. [15]Modern machine learning algorithms, when applied to artistic, musical, or literary works, learn from human-provided input and autonomously make creative decisions. This evolving form of creativity raises profound questions about copyright.Human-AI Collaboration: Another argument is the growing trend of human artists collaborating with AI tools, suggesting that AI acts as an instrument of creation alongside human input. The use of AI in the creative process can enhance human creativity and lead to new forms of expression. The Copyright Office in the US recognizes the possibility of AI-assisted works being eligible for copyright if they exhibit human authorship and creativity. The use of AI in the creative process can lead to new forms of expression and enhance human creativity.
Incentivizing AI Development: One of the arguments for AI copyright protection is the importance of copyright protection for encouraging further investment and innovation in AI-powered creative tools. Copyright protection can incentivize the development of AI-generated content, leading to advancements in the field and the creation of new forms of expression. The Copyright Office in the US recognizes the possibility of AI-assisted works being eligible for copyright if they exhibit human authorship and creativity.
Spectrum of Authorship: Another argument is the need to expand the concept of authorship to acknowledge the collaborative nature of AI-assisted creation, recognizing both human and AI contributions. The use of AI in the creative process can lead to new forms of expression and enhance human creativity. The Copyright Office in the US has consistently denied intellectual property protection for AI-generated works, insisting on the necessity of human authorship and creative control over the work's expression. [16]However, it also recognizes the possibility of AI-assisted works being eligible for copyright if they exhibit human authorship and creativity.[17]
Potential Solutions and Future Directions
Exploring New Legal Frameworks: One potential solution to the challenges of AI copyright protection is the creation of new categories of intellectual property rights specifically for AI outputs. This could involve developing guidelines for the copyrightability and ownership of AI-generated content, ensuring that AI-generated works are protected under copyright law[18].Adapting the Definition of Authorship: Another potential solution is to redefine authorship to encompass collaborative, human-AI creative processes. This would acknowledge both human and AI contributions in the creative process, potentially leading to a more comprehensive understanding of authorship in the context of AI-generated works.
Implementing Fair Use Exceptions: Expanding fair use provisions to account for the use of AI-generated content for educational, research, or critical purposes is a potential solution to the challenges of AI copyright protection. Fair use is an exception from copyright that allows the use of copyrighted materials without the owner's consent for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research[19].
Given the unique nature of AI-generated content, it is important to consider the potential application of fair use in the context of AI-generated works. This approach would provide flexibility for the use of AI-generated content in ways that benefit society, such as in educational and research settings, while still respecting the rights of copyright owners.[20]
International Cooperation and Harmonization: As AI technology becomes increasingly integrated into the creative process, the legal framework governing copyright protection will undergo significant and ongoing changes. International cooperation and harmonization of copyright laws can help ensure consistency and clarity in the treatment of AI-generated content across different jurisdictions. This is particularly important given the borderless nature of digital content and the potential for AI-generated works to be distributed and accessed globally.
The evolving nature of AI technology calls for a reevaluation of copyright laws to address the unique characteristics of AI-generated content. The debate is ongoing, and it is essential to consider the implications of AI on copyright law in a rapidly evolving technological landscape.
Conclusion
The debate surrounding AI and copyright is a complex one, with compelling arguments on both sides. Those wary of AI copyright protection highlight concerns about derivative content, plagiarism, and enforcement challenges. They argue that AI lacks the spark of true originality and that granting it copyright could stifle human creativity.
However, proponents of AI copyright protection point to the emergence of genuine creativity in AI-generated works, the increasing trend of human-AI collaboration, and the potential to incentivize AI development. They emphasize the need for a legal framework that acknowledges the evolving nature of authorship and fosters innovation while protecting existing rights.
Ultimately, finding a solution that balances the interests of both human creators and AI developers is crucial. This will require a nuanced approach that acknowledges the unique characteristics of AI-generated content and considers solutions like new legal frameworks, redefined authorship, fair use exceptions, and international cooperation. Only through continued dialogue, legal reform, and ethical considerations can we navigate this uncharted territory and ensure a harmonious future for both human and AI creativity.
The dance between AI and copyright has only just begun. The stage lights are on, the music is playing, and both sides are stepping into the spotlight. But to truly make this a masterpiece, we need all the dancers-artists, developers, lawyers, policymakers, and everyone in between-to keep the conversation going. We need to refine the steps, polish the choreography, and most importantly, listen to the rhythm of this new era. Only then can we create a copyright law that allows both human and AI creativity to flourish, painting a breathtaking future on the canvas of innovation.
End-Notes:
- Copyright Act, 1957, 13(1), India Code.
- Copyright Act, 1957, 2(d), India Code.
- Copyright Act, 1957, 14, India Code.
- Copyright (Amendment) Act of 2012, Act No. 27 of 2012 (India).
- Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Pictures Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., AIR 1987 Del 13.
- R.G Anand v. M/S. Delux Films & Ors., 1978 AIR 1613.
- Congressional Research Service, Generative Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Law (Sept. 29, 2023)
- The Copyright Act, 1957 (No. 14 of 1957)
- Howard B. Abrams, Originality and Creativity in Copyright Law, 55 Law & Contemp. Probs. 3 (1992).
- Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, 88 Fed. Reg. 16190, 16192 (Mar. 16, 2023) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 202).
- Savare, Matt, Bryan Sterba & David Cassidy, The Copyright Conundrum Protection for AI Works (Nov. 28, 2023)
- Sarah Bro, Shawn C. Helms, Alya Sulaiman, Kavya Rallabhandi, Author or Algorithm: Recent Developments at the Intersection of Generative AI and Copyright Law, (September 14, 2023), available at https://www.mwe.com/insights/author-or-algorithm-recent-developments-at-the-intersection-of-generative-ai-and-copyright-law/.
- U.S. Copyright Office Review Bd., A Recent Entrance to Paradise, 2 (Feb. 14, 2022), available at https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/a-recent-entrance-to-paradise.pdf
- Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: Notice of Inquiry and Request for Comments, 88 F.R. 59942, 59945 (Aug. 30, 2023).
- Rita Oka, AI Authorship and Copyright: Challenges and Implications, LinkedIn (Oct. 26, 2023), available at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ai-authorship-copyright-challenges-implications-rita-okafor-4itqc/
- U.S. Copyright Office Review Bd., A Recent Entrance to Paradise, 2 (Feb. 14, 2022), available at https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/a-recent-entrance-to-paradise.pdf
- U.S. Copyright Office, Artificial Intelligence and Copyright, 88 Fed. Reg. 52008 (Aug. 30, 2023), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/30/2023-18624/artificial-intelligence-and-copyright:
- Husen Memon, Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: Legal Implications and Future Trends, International Intellectual Property Law Association (May 22, 2023), https://iipla.org/artificial-intelligence-and-intellectual-property-legal-implications-and-future-trends/
- Diana Bikbaeva, AI and Copyright Crash Course: Analysis of How Fair Use Criteria May Apply to Generative AI, The CommLaw (October 10, 2023), https://commlawgroup.com/2023/ai-and-copyright-crash-course-analysis-of-how-fair-use-criteria-may-apply-to-generative-ai/
- Cala Coffman, Does the Use of Copyrighted Works to Train AI Qualify as Fair Use?, Copyright Alliance (April 11, 2023), https://copyrightalliance.org/copyrighted-works-training-ai-fair-use/
Award Winning Article Is Written By: Mr.Uday Bansal
Authentication No: FB50770205009-5-0224
Law Article in India
Legal Question & Answers
Lawyers in India - Search By City
LawArticles
How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi
How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...
Increased Age For Girls Marriage
It is hoped that the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which intends to inc...
Facade of Social Media
One may very easily get absorbed in the lives of others as one scrolls through a Facebook news ...
Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...
The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of t...
The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India: A...
The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a concept that proposes the unification of personal laws across...
Role Of Artificial Intelligence In Legal...
Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing various sectors of the economy, and the legal i...
Please Drop Your Comments