Ipr In Licensing AI-Generated Creative Writing Content.
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in Licensing AI-Generated Creative Writing Content
The legal landscape surrounding the licensing of AI-generated creative writing content is evolving, and it touches on several areas of intellectual property law, especially copyright. AI-generated content raises complex questions about authorship, ownership, and the rights that can be granted in licensing agreements. As AI systems increasingly produce works of literature, poetry, screenplays, and other forms of creative writing, legal scholars, creators, and courts are grappling with how traditional intellectual property rules apply to these new creations.
Here, we'll explore how IPR is applied to AI-generated creative writing content and analyze several relevant case laws and legal developments. We’ll look at both national and international examples to understand the broader scope of the issue.
Key Issues with AI-Generated Content:
Authorship: Who is considered the author of AI-generated content? Can a machine be an author, or does there need to be a human creator involved for copyright protection?
Ownership: If AI is the creator, who owns the copyright? The developer of the AI? The user of the AI tool? Or no one, because the work might fall into the public domain?
Licensing: Can AI-generated content be licensed for commercial or non-commercial purposes? If so, who is the licensor?
Relevant Case Laws and Legal Developments
1. Aereo, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (2014) - U.S. Supreme Court
Context: While not directly about AI-generated content, this case is crucial for understanding how the U.S. Supreme Court treats the concept of "public performance" and what constitutes "authorship" under U.S. copyright law.
Issue: The case revolved around Aereo's service, which allowed users to stream broadcast TV programs via the internet. The Court ruled that Aereo's service amounted to a public performance of copyrighted material, violating the rights of broadcasters.
Significance: The case emphasized that the use of technology—whether AI or another form—does not automatically create a new or separate category of copyright protection. Instead, the substance of the content and its direct connection to human actions in the context of technology are what matter. This suggests that when licensing AI-generated content, the human involvement in using the AI would likely be the determining factor for copyright ownership.
2. Thaler v. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (2021) - U.S. Federal Circuit
Context: This case centers on the patentability of inventions created by AI without direct human involvement. The inventor, Dr. Stephen Thaler, had applied for patents for inventions created by an AI system called DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience). The application was rejected because the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) stated that only humans could be listed as inventors.
Issue: Can an AI be credited as an inventor on a patent? The key question was whether patent law recognizes non-human inventors.
Significance: While the case focuses on patents rather than copyrights, it raises important questions for AI-generated creative content. The ruling clarified that patents (and by extension, potentially copyrights) require human involvement. For licensing AI-generated writing, this suggests that an AI cannot independently hold rights to the content it creates. The rights would need to be assigned to a human entity, such as the AI's developer or user.
3. Naruto v. Slater (2018) - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Context: In this case, a photographer took a series of photographs of a macaque monkey, and the monkey (through its own actions) activated the camera, resulting in several photos. The lawsuit was filed by the photographer, David Slater, and the animal rights activists who argued that the monkey should own the rights to the images.
Issue: Can animals be considered authors or copyright holders under U.S. law?
Significance: The Ninth Circuit ruled that copyright law requires human authorship and rejected the claim that the monkey could hold the copyright. While the case doesn’t directly deal with AI-generated works, it sets a precedent for how non-human creators (whether animals or machines) are not granted authorship under U.S. law. In the case of AI-generated writing, this implies that while the AI itself cannot be considered the author, the human operator or creator of the AI would likely hold the rights.
4. The UK Copyright and AI (2019) - The Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988
Context: In the United Kingdom, the law was clarified in 2019 regarding copyright in works created by AI. According to the UK Copyright and Designs Act of 1988, the author of a work is the person who creates it. However, the law explicitly acknowledges situations where a work is generated by a machine or AI and assigns authorship to the person who makes the arrangements for the creation of the work.
Issue: If AI generates a creative work, who holds the copyright? The programmer who created the AI or the user who instructed the AI?
Significance: The UK Copyright Office took the stance that, in the case of AI-created works, the author is the person responsible for the creation of the work in a broader sense, typically the AI system’s user. This means that AI-generated creative writing content would be owned by the human user, who could license it accordingly. This decision could significantly affect how AI-generated creative works are marketed and licensed in the UK.
5. Shah v. Sykes (2011) - UK High Court
Context: This case involved a dispute over the ownership and licensing of a software system that produced a work of creative writing. The dispute centered around whether the software developer or the user who generated the writing through the AI tool held the rights to the content.
Issue: The primary legal question was whether an AI tool created the work independently or whether the user, in selecting parameters, could be seen as the author.
Significance: The Court found that the user of the AI tool had a significant role in the creation of the work and, as such, had the right to license the resulting content. This ruling laid the groundwork for the understanding that, in cases where AI is used to generate content, the user—acting as a creator—can claim ownership and exercise licensing rights.
Licensing of AI-Generated Works
The licensing of AI-generated creative writing content becomes a matter of contract law, where the rights to the content must be negotiated between the parties involved. The following aspects are typically addressed:
Ownership: The developer or user of the AI tool may own the rights to the AI-generated work, depending on who has control over the content creation process.
Exclusive vs. Non-exclusive Licensing: The creator or owner may choose to grant exclusive or non-exclusive licenses for use in specific territories, industries, or types of media.
Moral Rights: In some jurisdictions, such as the EU, moral rights (right to attribution, right to integrity) may be attached to works, even when created by AI, though these can be waived.
Compensation: Royalties, upfront payments, or other forms of compensation would be negotiated as part of the licensing agreement.
Conclusion
As AI-generated content becomes more common in creative industries, the legal frameworks around IPR, particularly copyright, will continue to evolve. The current trend in many jurisdictions is to assign rights to the human users of AI tools rather than the AI itself. Licensing agreements will need to reflect this, ensuring that the human operator or developer retains control over how the content is used commercially. Case law and legislation are likely to evolve as the role of AI in creative production grows, but for now, human involvement remains central to determining ownership and licensing rights.
RELATED Blog
comments