Artificial Intelligence-Generated Media: Copyright Considerations
In the rapidly evolving world of artificial intelligence (AI), the question of who owns the intellectual property (IP) rights of AI-generated content has become a hot topic for debate. In Brazil, the issue remains unresolved due to a lack of regulation on AI use, but discussions are underway to address this gap.
AI systems, by nature, do not have the capacity to own IP rights because they lack legal personality. Therefore, the ownership of AI-generated content is attributed to the human or legal entity involved with the AI, such as the owner of the AI system, the developer, the trainer, the user, or the operator.
The degree of human involvement in the creation process is crucial for copyright protection under current U.S. law. The U.S. Copyright Office has ruled that works generated autonomously by AI without significant human creative input are not eligible for copyright protection. However, when a human plays a substantial role in shaping the final content, copyright applies.
In Brazil, the copyright for content involving existing images or objects remains with the original content creator, not the AI company. This is also the case in the UK, where copyright protection is granted for "computer-generated" works, with the person making the arrangements necessary for creation typically attributed as the author.
New laws, such as the recent Arkansas Act, explicitly stipulate that the person providing input or directives owns the AI-generated content, assuming no copyright infringement occurs. The owner of data used to train AI might also own the resulting trained AI model, conditional on lawful acquisition. Additionally, employers may own AI-generated works created by employees within the scope of their job duties.
However, there are significant IP risks associated with generative AI, as they often train on copyrighted data mined from the internet, potentially infringing on existing rights embedded in AI-generated content.
Brazilian lawyer Daniella Avellar, the president of the Digital Rights Commission of OAB-MG, emphasizes that the absence of specific legislation on AI-generated content creates a loophole that allows for registration of such content. She notes that it's possible to create a brand using AI-generated content and register it with the INPI (National Institute of Industrial Property), with the creator becoming the rights holder.
One example of AI-generated content gaining popularity is Marisa Maio, an AI character who has gone viral on digital platforms, mimicking cuts from a variety show. Her interviews, speeches, and interactions are all generated by a generative artificial intelligence.
In conclusion, the ownership of AI-generated intellectual property generally defaults to the human or legal entity who exercises meaningful creative control over the content or AI system. This is determined by assessing the degree of human involvement and applicable jurisdictional laws, which are actively evolving amid ongoing technological advances and legislation.
AI systems do not have the legal capacity to own intellectual property rights due to their lack of legal personality. Instead, ownership of AI-generated content is attributed to the human or legal entity involved with the AI, such as the owner of the AI system, the developer, the trainer, the user, or the operator.
In the absence of specific legislation, as in Brazil, it's possible to create a brand using AI-generated content and register it with the INPI (National Institute of Industrial Property), with the creator becoming the rights holder, emphasized by Brazilian lawyer Daniella Avellar, the president of the Digital Rights Commission of OAB-MG.
