Page 242 - Kaleidoscope Academic Conference Proceedings 2024

2024 ITU Kaleidoscope Academic Conference

focus on the unique creative output produced by AI, not the involved. A unique case, Naruto v. Slater, explored whether
underlying ideas or data used in its creation. an animal (a monkey in this instance) could own the
copyright to a selfie it took. U.S. law doesn’t grant
With this, we can easily support the protection of AI- copyright to animals, so the court ruled that the photo
generated work under copyright but the major problem lies belonged to the public domain, meaning anyone could use
with the question that who will be protected for the work- it freely.
the programmer, the user, or the AI itself?
Singapore’s copyright law is clear: authorship belongs to
5.1. India humans, not machines. This preference for human
involvement was highlighted in a court case Asia Pacific
As per the Copyright Act, 1957 of India, only the person Publishing v Pioneers & Leaders. The court established
can be the author/ owner of the work. Section 17 (b) of the four key criteria for copyright protection. While the law
Act also states that “in the case of a photograph taken, or a didn't initially specify who could be an author, the court
painting or portrait drawn, or an engraving or a ruled that copyright doesn’t extend to non-humans like
cinematograph film made, for valuable consideration at the machines. This aligns with the law’s original intent to grant
instance of any person, such person shall, in the absence of rights only to natural persons, not companies, emphasizing
any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the the human element in creative work.
copyright therein”. So, if a photograph is taken or a
painting has been made by an AI, the owner will be the The European Union’s main copyright law, the recently
person on whose instance the work has been done by the updated Copyright Directive (2019), aims to modernize
AI. In such a case, the user of the AI tool can be considered copyright rules across member states for the digital age.
as the owner. This includes acknowledging AI-generated works. The law
grants copyright protection to original literary works,
Indian copyright law grants authorship of computer- including those by AI, as long as they meet creativity
generated creative works to the person who initiates their standards. However, it doesn’t specify who owns the
creation. This implies a human is still considered the copyright for AI creations. In such cases, existing copyright
driving force behind the AI, even if it plays a major role. laws likely apply, meaning ownership goes to the human
While India’s 1957 Copyright Act doesn’t directly define who created the AI (the programmer, for instance).
“author” for artistic and literary works, section 2(d)
provides a framework. Australia excludes machine-generated works entirely, while
Taiwan considers them “community property” not eligible
5.2. Outside India for copyright.

Here’s a look at the different situations across various Given above it could be inferred that there’s no global
countries with how copyright law applies to the creative consensus on copyright protection for AI works. Human
outputs of Artificial Intelligence: contribution to the creative process plays a crucial role in
many countries and the concept of AI as an independent
author is not yet recognized in copyright law.
Countries like Japan and Germany currently limit copyright
protection to works with human-created “thoughts or
sentiments.” AI-generated works, even with human Protecting AI as an independent author is not a feasible idea
intervention, might not qualify under this view. as ultimately it needs to be supported by a legal person. For
all legal-related matters, only a legal entity can fulfill the
requirements therefore, even though the protection can be
China protects AI-generated works, but only if humans play
a significant role in the creation process. This includes granted to the AI-generated work the author/owner of that
selecting data formats or setting parameters for the AI. A work needs to be a legal entity only. The need is to now
court case in China Shenzhen Tencent v Shanghai Yingxun elaborate the legislations on the contents developed using
sheds light on how AI-generated works are treated under the AI. This is a rapidly evolving area, and legal
copyright law. The court acknowledged that outputs from frameworks are likely to adapt as AI technology continues
AI tools like Dreamwriter can be copyrighted. However, to to advance.
claim copyright, the person claiming authorship (usually
the AI’s owner) must still show the work has some level of 6. KEY ISSUES
intellectual creativity, as required by Chinese law.
This paper has highlighted the intricate questions at the
The UK and the US don’t explicitly exclude AI-generated intersection of copyright and AI. By unraveling these
works. The UK considers the person who sets up the AI complexities, we can work towards a framework that
system as the “author.” In the US, copyright protection fosters innovation while ensuring proper protection for both
hinges on human authorship. The creator might be eligible human creators and AI developers.
for copyright if they use AI as a tool, but the AI itself
cannot be an author. The US Copyright Office has even This framework will likely need to address several key
rejected claims where minimal human intervention was issues:

– 198 –