Page 243 - Kaleidoscope Academic Conference Proceedings 2024

Innovation and Digital Transformation for a Sustainable World

Originality and Authorship: Determining whether AI- Duration and scope of copyright protection: Copyright
generated works are eligible for copyright protection raises terms designed for human creations, lasting for decades,
questions about the concept of originality and authorship. might not fit AI-generated works. The rapid production of
At the end of the day, no AI can truly capable of making AI content could lead to overly long monopolies, restricting
something without the human intervention. But the level of access and innovation. How much protection should AI-
intervention will make the question thornier. Copyright law generated works receive? What constitutes a significant part
gets murky when AI creates works with little human of the work? How are derivative works based on AI outputs
involvement. Who gets the credit? Is it the AI’s developer, judged? Can fair use exceptions be applied? These
the person who ordered the work, or the AI itself? Existing uncertainties require careful consideration to ensure
copyright laws, designed for human creators, don’t have copyright law remains adaptable to this new technology.
clear answers for these situations. This lack of clear
ownership can leave AI-generated works unprotected and The last issue could be that currently, copyright protection
creators unrecognized. Even though scholars have proposed for AI works varies greatly by country. This creates
a number of possible solution to such question, such as, uncertainty and potential loopholes for exploitation.
joint authorshio or work-for-hire-doctrine. But each of these
has their own limitations and loopholes. 7. WAY AHEAD

The ownership question ties directly into how AI-generated In the existing legislation, only a person is considered an
works can be used commercially. Without clear ownership author in his own right. But, it’s a need of the hour that laws
rules, who profits from these creations? This uncertainty must be redefined and the author should also include the
creates a roadblock for AI development and adoption. legal entity so that the companies can register themselves as
Creators and investors might hesitate to get involved in AI an author on behalf of the work generated by their AIs. At
projects if legal protections and potential financial rewards present, not only the humnas are able to create a copyright
are unclear. work but AI is also playing an important role in generating
the digital work that has been programmed. Therefore, there
Copyright law traditionally protects original works, is a need for further regulations regarding the copyright
meaning they must be independently created and show over the work generated by AI. While many countries are
some level of creativity. This concept clashes with AI- still grappling with AI regulations, some have taken steps to
generated works, which often stem from analyzing and acknowledge AI’s legal existence. A notable example is
recombining existing data. Legal frameworks built around Saudi Arabia granting citizenship to a robot named Sophia
human creators struggle to assess the originality of AI in Riyadh during 2017. Similarly, Japan established special
outputs. This ambiguity could leave AI-generated works regulations that same year, granting residency to a robot
unprotected and stifle creativity in the AI art world. named Shibuya Mirai.

Legal Status of AI: The legal status of AI as an author and Work generated by AI, either with or without human
the capacity to hold copyright under the law is a intervention qualifies for copyright protection till it has all
contentious issue. Some argue that conferring copyright the essentials of copyright because a work has been created.
protection on AI-generated works is disputable due to the AI, as a machine itself can not be protected for the work
lack of human-like attributes such as fatigue and mortality generated, it requires a person to represent it. That person
in AI systems. The level of human involvement in AI- could be an individual- programmer/user or a company that
generated works significantly impacts current copyright has collaboratively made the AI or has owned the AI. In
considerations. Finding a balance between protecting such circumstances, the company as a legal entity can be
human contribution and fostering innovation in AI creation protected for the work generated. While AI lacks the human
will be crucial. capacity for empathy and morality, some argue it could be
recognized as a legal entity with certain rights. This stems
Copyright Infringement: Concerns arise regarding from AI’s ability to perform actions traditionally requiring
copyright infringement when AI-generated content is human intelligence. For instance, a company created a
trained on protected intellectual property, leading to lawyer robot that listens to court arguments and generates
questions about the originality and uniqueness of the responses for the defendant. This case highlights how AI
output. Copyright infringement in AI is a two-fold issue, can perform tasks that seem to necessitate human-like
first is on the training phase where large amounts of data thinking.
are needed to train AI models, and this data can sometimes
include copyrighted works. Current copyright laws don’t A lawsuit against an AI image generator called “Stable
always provide clear guidelines for this scenario and second Diffusion” raises important questions about copyright and
is related to the output generated. AI models can create new AI art. The artists behind the lawsuit claim Stable Diffusion
outputs that raise copyright questions. Are these outputs uses billions of copyrighted images, including theirs, to
too similar to the copyrighted material used for training, or create new artwork without permission or compensation.
sufficiently original creations? They argue this hurts their livelihood and infringes on their
artistic rights. This case (and others like it) highlight the
need for new laws to address how AI interacts with creative

– 199 –