Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is AI that can create original outputs, such as text, images, video, audio or software code in response to a user’s prompt or request.
Can you copyright something you made with AI?
According to the U.S. Copyright Office, " ... it is well-established that copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity. Most fundamentally, the term “author,” which is used in both the Constitution and the Copyright Act, excludes non-humans."
AI is not an author.
According to ChatGPT, input models refer to the ways data is structured and processed as input into an AI system or algorithm. These models define how the AI system interprets and utilizes data to perform tasks like learning patterns, making predictions, or generating outputs. Examples include:
Conflict over LLM inputs and outputs. Infringement of Copyright or Fair Use?
Artists, authors, musicians, music and film producers, news organizations, and others believe that training an AI model using their content is an infringement of copyright. The U.S. Copyright Office sides with the creator/owner. However, there are many lawsuits brewing in the courts, with many more likely to follow, that will define what we can copyright as a new creative work in the future.
Read more about it in Axios' article, Copyright law is AI's 2024 battlefield.
The United States Copyright Office applies the human-authorship test to AI-generated works. Legal challenges have emerged regarding copyright and human authorship, including the following cases where copyright was denied.
NARUTO (a Crested Macaque) v. DAVID JOHN SLATER; BLURB, INC. - "We must determine whether a monkey may sue humans, corporations, and companies for damages and injunctive relief arising from claims of copyright infringement. Our court’s precedent requires us to conclude that the monkey’s claim has standing under Article III of the United States Constitution. Nonetheless, we conclude that this monkey—and all animals, since they are not human—lacks statutory standing under the Copyright Act.1 We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court."
STEPHEN THALER, Plaintiff, v. SHIRA PERLMUTTER - [The] "Plaintiff develops and owns computer programs he describes as having “artificial intelligence” (“AI”) capable of generating original pieces of visual art, akin to the output of a human artist. After its creation, plaintiff attempted to register this work with the Copyright Office. In his application, he identified the author as the Creativity Machine, and explained the work had been “autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine,” The Copyright Office denied the application on the basis that the work “lack[ed] the human authorship necessary to support a copyright claim,” noting that copyright law only extends to works created by human beings."
Zarya of the Dawn (Registration Letter from the U.S. Copyright Office) - "We conclude that Ms. Kashtanova is the author of the Work’s text as well as the selection, coordination, and arrangement of the Work’s written and visual elements. That authorship is protected by copyright. However, as discussed below, the images in the Work that were generated by the Midjourney technology are not the product of human authorship. Because the current registration for the Work does not disclaim its Midjourney-generated content, we intend to cancel the original certificate issued to Ms. Kashtanova and issue a new one covering only the expressive material that she created."