“As long as the activity performed by an AI system can be fairly characterized as integration rather than innovation, it should be allowed to use such systems to create content that can then be protected by copyright, trademark, or patent. .”
Today’s artificial intelligence (AI) systems can generate a staggering variety of content, including text-based works, audio, video, images, programming code, product designs, and technical papers. In many cases, the output from AI systems is virtually indistinguishable from humans. This trend is expected to accelerate further in the coming years.
As content generated solely by AI systems cannot be protected under existing intellectual property laws, here are practical guidelines for human authors who wish to protect content created with the assistance of AI systems. indicate.
Contributing documentation
The first recommendation for human authors is to thoroughly document their own contributions as well as the AI system’s contributions during the authoring process. Document types depend on the type of content being generated and the process used to generate that content. Such documents may be important for obtaining valuable protection under current U.S. copyright, trademark, and patent law.
Distinguish between innovation and synthesis
A second recommendation for human creators concerns demonstrating that AI systems were only used for synthesis, not innovation, when arriving at AI-assisted content. Innovation and integration are two different concepts that are often used interchangeably, but have different meanings in the context of intellectual property law.
Innovation generally refers to the process of creating something new or improving an existing idea or product. It requires human creativity and involves a good degree of originality and ingenuity. Synthesis, on the other hand, generally refers to the process of combining existing elements to create something new. Synthesis can be done by both humans and AI systems, but it doesn’t tend to require the same level of originality or creativity as innovation.
This distinction between synthesis and innovation can be expressed in the field of copyright law as the difference between an idea and a specific expression of that idea, or in the field of patent law as the difference between aggregation and novel combination.
Copyright of creators using AI
When it comes to copyright, it is well established that US copyright law (Title 17 USC) covers original works of authors created by humans. A little bit of originality and creativity is required, but the work must come from humans.
To this end, guidelines recently issued by the U.S. Copyright Office require human creators to indicate in their copyright registration application which elements were created by humans and which were created by AI systems. there is.look Haopyright registration information: Works containing materials generated by artificial intelligence, Federal Register 2023-05321, 3/16/23. The Copyright Office considers the extent to which AI contributions have been used to determine whether human-provided components are sufficient to warrant copyright protection on a case-by-case basis.
Creators wishing to copyright their AI-assisted work must keep detailed records and other evidence of the extent to which AI systems contributed to the final work. The greater the amount of human input in the process, the better the results.
There are several ways humans can use AI systems to create the final product. This includes stages in the input data, changes in the AI generation process, and adjustment or modification of the AI generation output through post-curation processing. Maintaining a copy of the input data provided to the AI system, any adjustments made to the system, and a copy of the underlying unaltered version of the content generated by the AI system is the ultimate responsibility of human authors. It is very important in being able to demonstrate the creative component that you have contributed to your work.
Trademarks of creators using AI
In the field of trademarks, which covers both federal and state registrations in the United States, the actual process used to produce a particular mark is less important. Any trademark rights that a party may have in a particular mark are based on the extent to which the party uses the mark to identify the source of goods or services offered under the mark (e.g., use of the mark as a trademark). case, etc.). To the extent that the trademark does not infringe rights held by others. Whether the mark was created by a human, an AI system, or a collaborative effort of both has little impact on this decision.
Nonetheless, it is advisable to fully document the generation, use and use of AI systems in the clearance search for any particular mark to ensure that the party using the mark has the right to adopt and use the mark. Recommended. When using an AI system to create trademarks, it is important that the AI system does not inadvertently generate trademarks that are so similar that they are confusingly similar to these other trademarks. For example, using training data containing competitor marks can be very damaging in subsequent trademark infringement disputes involving AI-generated marks.
Patents, AI, product development
Finally, when it comes to patents, the USPTO has made it clear that AI systems cannot be inventors. Therefore, under existing US patent law (Title 35 USC), it is recommended to limit the scope of the use of AI in the development of new products in terms of utility or design patents. If an AI system is utilized in the preparation of a patent application, such as to create ornamental designs or assist in drafting claims, all such uses should be addressed in case their validity is challenged. Must be fully documented. The resulting patent is then created. The extent to which an AI system assists the product development process should be documented with sufficient evidence that it is just an integration, not an innovation.
In short, as long as the activities performed by AI systems can be fairly characterized as integration rather than innovation, such systems should be allowed to be used to create content protected by copyright, trademark, or patent. is. Full documentation of contributions by both human and AI team members is essential to ensure maximum protection.
Image Source: Deposit Photo
Image ID: 641767484
Author: Berit Kessler
