AI-generated content can now be copyrighted…sometimes

The U.S. Copyright Office has added consideration to who owns AI-generated works in the era of ChatGPT.

This week, federal agencies(opens in new tab) New guidance on AI and copyright law says it is possible to assign ownership to AI-generated works on a “case-by-case” basis.

“The Secretariat will consider whether the contribution to AI is the result of ‘mechanical duplication’ or a substitute for the author’s ‘original mental conception’. [the author] It gave us a tangible form,” said Sheila Perlmutter, director of the Copyright Office.

Fundamentally, the work depends on how the person uses AI to generate the content. As we saw on ChatGPT and Bing Chat, you can encourage them to write poems in the style of William Shakespeare or sing about Jimmy Buffett’s chicken wings. However, since generative AI produces “correspondingly complex written, visual, or musical works,” the Secretariat argues that “the ‘traditional elements of authorship’ are determined and implemented by technology.” are not recognized as copyrighted works. Users don’t count because they have no creative control over how the AI ​​interprets and presents their work.

Tweet may have been deleted
(opens in new tab)
(opens in new tab)

On the one hand, the user “can select or arrange the AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way” to be an original work based on the user’s creativity, and such work can be copyrighted. There is a nature. Ultimately, “what matters is how much creative control humans have over the presentation of their work,” Perlmutter said.

If this all sounds vague and confusing, it is because it is. This is a whole new area of ​​copyright law, and the sudden popularity of generative AI has forced the Copyright Office to deal with it. More recently, there have been other nasty copyright lawsuits, including the author of a selfie taken by a monkey. The agency ultimately ruled not to grant copyright, saying that copyrighted works must be created by humans.

AI chatbots have become so sophisticated that the lines between human and machine-generated work are increasingly blurring. In theory, the Copyright Office’s policy is that it “will not register works created by machines or mere mechanical processes that operate randomly or automatically without the creative input or intervention of a human author.” is pretty clear, despite the rambling sentences. But in reality, using AI to “brainstorm” ideas or “collaborate” on works of art is a murky business.

Perlmutter concluded its statement by saying, “The Secretariat continues to monitor new facts and legal developments related to AI and copyright.” She only mentioned the Copyright Office, but it perfectly sums up collective sentiment about AI.