Who Owns Artificial Intelligence Creations?
Artificial intelligence (AI)-driven machines—text, images and music—are new areas for the industry that pose strategic questions for the creative business. This week, an influential US media outlet tested articles created with the help of AI. It can be seen that AI can create objects quite efficiently. But for many artists and creative professionals, this AI poses a threat. Because, this technology can copy human-made art based on data obtained in training (machine learning) without any kind of permission. This has threatened the market of artists. Some see this as involving intellectual property theft.
Recently, music streaming platforms including Spotify and Apple were asked by Universal Music Group to block AI systems from scraping their songs. Investors are pouring billions of dollars behind AI. This investment is highly dependent on the creativity of AI. All in all, there are three types of debates about AI-made art or creative work.
What the creators of the original material of the imitated art will get
Last January, a group of artists sued London-based Stability AI, a maker of image-making software. The lawsuit alleges that the company used artists' works in data training and infringed their intellectual property rights by imitating those works. Cartoonist Sarah Anderson, one of the plaintiffs, told the New York Times that artists should have a say in the use of data and should be compensated for it.
Getty Images has also sued Stability AI in the UK and US. They allege that the company has "brazenly violated" intellectual property rights in millions of their images. Getty argues that such plagiarism is outrageous; Because, they have agreements to license data for machine learning. Stability AI has not yet responded to these allegations.
Fair use of the artist's work
Stanford Law School program director Mark Lemley said copyrighted works can be used without permission in articles, criticism or other "transformative" works. In these cases, the robots have traditionally been exempted from liability. However, the courts will not be too sympathetic to such imitations of AI machines in the future.
Lemli called for a new set of acceptable standards for using copyrighted material in machine learning. Where intellectual property purposes will prevail. Educational use only may be permitted. However, permission is not granted if reproduction is intended. And there is also the question of who will be responsible for the infringement of intellectual property of new technologies. The user who directs the technology, not the organization that developed the technology, is responsible. Or both?
Who will own the art created by AI?
Now only human-made works of art are copyrighted. But who gets intellectual property rights to artworks created in part by AI? Some engineers say they will claim intellectual property rights over their devices.
Last February, the US Intellectual Property Office did not grant intellectual property rights to AI-generated images for a novel based on images. However, the government likened the AI tool to hiring an artist. However, such comparisons may not exist until the use of the technology reaches a general level. All in all, the issue of intellectual property will be complicated in the case of creations made with such technology.
