Copyright Battle in the Age of Artificial Intelligence:
With the rise of artificial intelligence technologies, authors are fighting a grammar battle for copyright protection against AI-generated content. However, their legal battles are predicted to be challenging as laws in Europe and North America tend to favor AI, although lawyers suggest this may change.
Recently, three US artists filed a complaint in January against AI companies and tools, namely Stable Diffusion, Midjourney, and DeviantArt. Additionally, photography agency Getty voiced concerns over the performance of Stable Diffusion, which transforms text into AI-generated images.
Controversy over the Right to Data Mining for Artificial Intelligence:
The plaintiffs are objecting to the right of artificial intelligence to process billions of texts or images, which allows the technology to be "indoctrinated" to enhance its capacity and improve its capabilities using the processed data.
In 2019, a European note was adopted by 22 EU countries, including France, that permits "right to data mining," including copyrighted content, if the data is publicly available, unless the rights holder explicitly objects.
According to Charles Bouvier, a lawyer from the Racine Law Firm, this copyright exception, which was specifically designed to facilitate the development of these technologies, went largely unnoticed.
The Legal Implications of Data Mining and AI-Generated Content:
According to U.S. law, data mining is authorized under a fair use policy, as established by a lawsuit against Google related to book digitization. The lawsuit was won by the US company, which owns the largest search engine on the internet.
The legal status of content created or generated by artificial intelligence is challenging. It is unclear whether such work can be classified as counterfeiting, particularly if an AI user requests work that imitates an author's "style" or a particular slogan.
French, European, and US laws recognize counterfeiting only when copies of a specific work exist. However, for drawings and images, unlike text, if the source is clearly identified in the created image, the question of falsification is raised clearly.
Intrusion on artists:
In Europe, the idea of "intrusion" can provide protection for artists whose work is replicated using artificial intelligence techniques, as the law penalizes the appropriation of others' efforts. If it is proven that the copies have caused financial losses for the right holders, French law allows for the right to damages. According to lawyer Marc Moussa of law firm Auguste Dupuzzi, luxury fashion brands have recently successfully sued other players in the fashion industry for copying items from their "world," whether it be the style or specific components.
In fact, the protection of intellectual property has become increasingly important as technology has advanced. With the rise of artificial intelligence and machine learning, it has become easier than ever to create exact replicas of existing works without the need for human input.
This has led to a surge in copyright infringement cases, with many artists and creators feeling helpless against the sheer scale and speed of AI replication. However, as the case of luxury fashion houses demonstrates, there are legal avenues available for those seeking to protect their creative works.
In addition to the legal system, there are also technological solutions being developed to combat AI-generated plagiarism. For example, some companies are exploring the use of blockchain technology to create an immutable record of original works that can be easily verified and authenticated.
While the rise of artificial intelligence may present new challenges for creators and copyright holders, there are also ways to fight back and ensure that original works are protected from infringement.
Commercial Use Rights:
The question of commercial use of AI-generated content is a complex issue. Who has the right to commercially exploit text, images, and videos created by AI? Can such content be sold and copyrighted?
According to lawyers, AI cannot be considered the owner, author, or responsible party for such content. Lawyer Peru notes that AI systems typically state in their terms and conditions that users are solely responsible for the way content is used, and therefore, there is nothing preventing it from being commercialized.
However, there is a need for transparency in disclosing whether the content is generated by AI technologies. A possible solution could be a transparency clause in a future European regulation on AI.
The issue of copyright remains controversial. French and European law stipulates that the right to copyright can only be claimed if the work in question is original and expresses the author's personality. As lawyer Charles Bouvier notes, this means that the author must be a real person.
Lawyer Eric Barbery argues that it would be challenging for AI users to present themselves as authors in every sense of the word.
Space Opera Theater:
No decision has been made on the matter by any court in Europe. However, the Copyright Office in the United States has finally refused to grant any copyright to comics created by artificial intelligence.
According to lawyer Pierre Biro, European courts could take a similar approach with one reservation. He cites the case of the Space Opera Theater as an example. This AI-created image won first place in the digital category at the Colorado State Art Fair competition in September last year. The producer of the image spent 80 hours retouching it to reach the final product.
Biro explains that in this case, the user played a key role, and there is room for copyright due to their efforts to moderate, select, and analyze. Therefore, AI products will follow the path taken by photography. Photography remained the product of a tool rather than a work until the Court of Justice of the European Union recognized photographers as owners of "creative choices" in 2011.
