Copyright In Machine-Generated Swahili Gospel Song Compositions.
I. Core Legal Principles
1. Human Authorship Requirement
Most copyright systems require a human author.
2. Originality
A work must originate from the author and involve at least minimal creativity.
3. Fixation
Dialogue must be recorded (script, screenplay, transcript, etc.).
4. AI Status
AI cannot legally own copyright. The key question becomes:
Did a human exercise sufficient creative control?
II. Major Case Law on Authorship & Originality
1. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.
Background
Rural Telephone published a white pages directory. Feist copied listings. Rural claimed copyright.
Legal Issue
Does effort alone ("sweat of the brow") create copyright?
Supreme Court Ruling
No. Copyright requires:
Independent creation
Minimal creativity
Importance for AI Tagalog Dialogues
If an AI generates:
“Hindi kita kayang kalimutan, kahit ang Maynila’y magunaw.”
The dialogue is only protected if:
A human selected, shaped, or creatively arranged it.
It reflects human creative judgment.
Mere AI output without human intellectual contribution may fail originality.
Key Principle:
Creativity—not effort—is the standard.
2. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony
Background
A photograph of Oscar Wilde was challenged as not being authored by a human (since a camera mechanically captured it).
Ruling
The Court held:
A photograph is copyrightable because the photographer makes creative choices (pose, lighting, composition).
Application to AI
If AI is used like a camera:
The human who prompts, edits, revises, structures scenes, and selects final dialogue may qualify as the author.
But if AI independently creates dialogue without meaningful human control, authorship is questionable.
Key Principle:
A machine can be a tool—but only humans can be authors.
3. Naruto v. Slater
Background
A monkey took a selfie. Animal rights activists sued claiming the monkey owned copyright.
Court Holding
Only humans can own copyright. Non-humans lack standing.
Importance for AI
AI, like the monkey, is not a legal person.
It cannot:
Own copyright
Be an author
Transfer rights
Thus, if AI autonomously generates Tagalog cinematic dialogue, there may be:
No copyright at all
Or copyright only in human contributions
Key Principle:
Non-humans cannot be authors under copyright law.
4. Thaler v. Perlmutter
Background
Stephen Thaler tried to register artwork created solely by his AI system (“Creativity Machine”).
Court Decision
The court held:
Copyright requires human authorship.
Fully autonomous AI-generated works are not protected.
Direct Impact on AI Tagalog Dialogues
If someone inputs:
“Write a dramatic Tagalog breakup scene set in 1940s Manila.”
And publishes the AI output without editing, the work:
Likely cannot be copyrighted in the U.S.
Because there is no human creative authorship
However, if the user:
Rewrites lines
Edits structure
Adds character development
Modifies emotional pacing
Then those human contributions are protected.
Key Principle:
Pure AI output = no copyright
Human-modified AI output = partial protection possible
5. Infopaq International A/S v. Danske Dagblades Forening
Background
Concerned short extracts (11 words) from newspaper articles.
Ruling
Even small portions are protected if they reflect the author's intellectual creation.
Relevance to Tagalog Dialogue
Even a short line like:
“Sa bawat patak ng ulan, pangalan mo ang naririnig ko.”
May be protected if it:
Reflects creative expression
Shows individuality
This case strengthens protection for cinematic dialogue as expressive literary work.
Key Principle:
Original expression—even short dialogue—can be protected.
6. University of London Press Ltd v. University Tutorial Press Ltd
Background
Concerned exam papers and originality.
Court Holding
Originality means:
The work originates from the author.
It is not copied.
Application
If AI is trained on:
Existing Tagalog screenplays
Famous Filipino films
Known movie dialogue
There is risk that generated dialogue could be:
Derivative
Substantially similar
Which may infringe original works.
7. Baker v. Selden
Background
Concerned distinction between idea and expression.
Ruling
Copyright protects expression—not ideas.
Application to AI Dialogue
AI-generated dialogue tropes like:
“Forbidden lovers”
“Political betrayal”
“War-torn Manila romance”
Are not protected as ideas.
Only the specific wording in Tagalog is protected.
III. Philippine Law Perspective
Under the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (RA 8293):
Literary works (including scripts and dialogue) are protected.
Protection requires intellectual creation.
The Philippines generally follows:
Berne Convention standards
Civil law originality principles
Although there is no Supreme Court ruling yet directly on AI authorship in the Philippines, courts would likely:
Require human intellectual participation
Deny protection to fully autonomous AI outputs
IV. Ownership Scenarios
Scenario 1: Pure AI Output
No editing. Direct copy-paste.
Likely result:
No copyright (based on Thaler)
Public domain risk
Scenario 2: Human-Guided Creation
Prompt engineering + revisions + creative restructuring.
Likely result:
Copyright in the human-authored elements
AI treated as tool (like camera in Burrow-Giles)
Scenario 3: Collaborative Film Production
If AI dialogue is integrated into a movie:
The producer may own:
The audiovisual work
But not necessarily the AI-generated text unless sufficiently human-authored
V. Derivative Work Risk in Tagalog Cinema
If AI generates dialogue that resembles:
Classic Filipino melodrama
Famous Tagalog film lines
Well-known teleserye scripts
There may be:
Substantial similarity claims
Infringement risk
The test applied:
Access to original work
Substantial similarity in expression
VI. Policy Debate
Courts and scholars debate:
Argument FOR protection:
Humans design prompts
AI is advanced tool
Creativity still human-directed
Argument AGAINST protection:
No human intellectual conception
AI predicts text statistically
Protection would undermine human authorship doctrine
VII. Conclusion
The legal position across jurisdictions is increasingly clear:
AI cannot be an author.
Pure machine-generated Tagalog cinematic dialogue likely lacks copyright.
Human creative intervention is essential.
Only original expression—not ideas—is protected.
Short but creative dialogue can qualify for protection.
Derivative similarity remains a major risk.
Practical Rule
If you are using AI to generate Tagalog cinematic dialogue:
✔ Rewrite and creatively shape it
✔ Add human creative structure
✔ Document your creative process
✔ Avoid similarity to existing Filipino films
Without meaningful human input, the work may fall outside copyright protection.
RELATED Blog
comments