The US Copyright Office on AI Creativity Rights: A New Era of Authorship?
Last week, the US Copyright Office released its detailed report and comprehensive guidelines on the issue of copyright protection and AI-generated work.
Copyright in the Constitution
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
The Copyright Office’s determination is a fascinating exploration of the intersection of artificial intelligence and the very concept of authorship and creativity.
Notice of Inquiry
Prior to issuing the report, the agency issued a Notice of Inquiry, where they invited comments on AI-related policy issues.
The agency asked five key questions that are reflected in their final determination.
Is existing law sufficient?
The Copyright Office determined, "Questions of copyrightability and AI can be resolved pursuant to existing law, without the need for legislative change."
Case study: the painting "Oblivious"
The above artwork, called Oblivious, was a project I did using Midjourney and Adobe Photoshop, which I documented in this article.
I wanted to create a work evocative of Hopper’s Nighthawks, but that could stand on its own.
The future of copyright and AI
I think we’re going to see a number of issues (and a ton of litigation) where this gray area comes into effect, where there is some question of whether a work was mostly human-authored, mostly AI-authored, or a collaboration of both human and AI.
Conclusion
The US Copyright Office’s determination on AI creativity rights sets a new standard for authorship and creativity. The report concludes that existing law is sufficient to resolve questions of copyrightability and AI, without the need for legislative change. The case study of the painting "Oblivious" highlights the complexities of AI-generated work and the importance of creativity in the artistic process.
FAQs
Q: What is the purpose of the Notice of Inquiry?
A: The Notice of Inquiry was issued by the Copyright Office to invite comments on AI-related policy issues and to gather input from the public and experts alike.
Q: What are the five key questions asked by the Copyright Office in the Notice of Inquiry?
A: The five key questions are:
- Does the Copyright Clause in the US Constitution permit copyright protection for AI-generated material?
- Under copyright law, are there circumstances when a human using a generative AI system should be considered the "author" of the material produced by the system?
- Is legal protection for AI-generated material desirable as a policy matter?
- If so, should it be a form of copyright or a separate sui generis right?
- Are any revisions to the Copyright Act necessary to clarify the human authorship requirement?
Q: What is the significance of the report’s conclusion on existing law being sufficient?
A: The report’s conclusion that existing law is sufficient to resolve questions of copyrightability and AI means that new legislation is not required to address the issue.
Q: How does the case study of the painting "Oblivious" relate to the report’s findings?
A: The case study highlights the complexities of AI-generated work and the importance of creativity in the artistic process, which is in line with the report’s findings that existing law is sufficient to resolve questions of copyrightability and AI.
