Rethinking Copyright Laws in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
Introduction
In this current age, AI has been transforming daily to a greater form where it does most of the human work (it does not include all the words). Humans are mostly dependent for most of the day-to-day works like drafting some major legal documents and in the IP Field also used for assistance in producing art, music, literature, and many more listable works. This work can be done using various AI content-generation tools present in today's internet market but while these AI-generating tools are generating content this usually raises a crucial question which is who owns AI-generated content??
Traditional copyright laws were modelled as per the age-old conditions present at that time AI tools were not present access to the internet was evolving at that time so at present times AI creation is abundant so in the present time it making it unclear whether AI-created works qualify for protection as there no laws present for the protection and in the Indian courts this has become a very a big problem to judge in the matter of AI Creations and who is the owner in these situations, so in this blog, it tries to explores global legal perspectives on this matter and through in this blog it tries to proposes a novel AI-Copyright Attribution Model (ACAM) to address all the ownership ambiguity present in the court and world.
Can AI Hold Copyright? The Legal Debate
The Human Authorship Requirement
The evolution of Copyright Law has tried to recognize and term human creativity as the foundation of authorship. Per Berne Convention, 1886, and the U.S. Copyright Act,1976 accept only the works that are being executed by humans and only those works are eligible for protection this principle was created on the idea that originality and creative intent must come from a human mind.
In the year 2023, the U.S Copyright Office has once again stood by the same stand as they had rejected copyright claims for work that had contained 100 AI-generated artwork. In that case, they had ruled that an AI System cannot receive the designation of being an “author” as the AI Systems lack human creativity and consciousness. The same thing had been amended in UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act, 1988 which had partially recognized computer-generated works but there is a catch that is the authorship is assigned to the person who made the work and submitted the work.
Due to these decisions, the requirement for human authorship created legal challenges mainly in the instances where AI becomes a sole generator for art, music, and literature, and due to this issue, the courts are facing backslash in the process of determining the question regarding who is the owner when the work is AI-Generated and human present it so the court is in a dilemma as whether to choose it as a AI Domain or create a new legal Framework.
Different Countries, Different Copyright Stances
There is no global uniformity on AI-generated copyright laws as different countries have different types of copyright approaches in this matter.
The approaches of different countries:
- United States: In the United States AI-generated works cannot be eligible to get copyright protected until and unless there is any human involvement in the process.
- European Union: The EU Copyright Directive,2019 clearly rejects AI authorship but on the other side it protects the human works in which AI has assisted, and copyright shall be given to the human who claims the ownership.
- India: The Copyrights Act, of 1957 does not directly acknowledge the issues regarding AI but in India, human rights are granted when AI is used in the creation, and the level is not explicitly mentioned in the said act which makes users or developers potential owners.
- China: In the country of China in 2023 court ruling granted full copyright to all 100 AI-generated creations but they should prove the human intellectual investment in the process of creation.
- Japan: AI-generated works are allowed to get copyright protection under specific conditions and the condition is usually assigning rights to the human commander of the AI system.
Landmark AI Copyright Cases
- Thaler v. USPTO (2022) – AI as an Inventor??
Stephen Thaler had created an AI System named DABUS AI and he had sought copyright protection for his creation and patenting for AI-generated works. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) had outrightly the application of Stephen Thaler stated that only humans can be considered as inventors or authors, and AI cannot be considered as an author or inventor.
- Naruto v. Slater
A specific animal named as monkey it was named Naruto took a selfie which led to a copyright dispute over the ownership. The U.S. courts had ruled that any non-human entities cannot be entitled to be copyright holders which enforced that AI-like animals have a major drawback of legal personhood in Copyright Disputes/purposes.
- DABUS AI Patents – Global Rejections
The invention of Thaler’s patent application was rejected worldwide as every major country rejected the invention of Thaler where every court commonly ruled that “Only natural persons can be entitled or receive a designation of author/inventors.
The AI-Copyright Attribution Model (ACAM): A New Legal Framework
To resolve AI copyright disputes, this blog introduces a structured model:
Possible Ownership Models for AI-Generated Content
- Developed-centric Model: Copyrights usually belong to the AI Developer or company that had created and trained the AI, which is very similar to software licensing, but critics argue that this approach will monopolize the content generated by AI which eventually could restrict the individual creator's rights.
- User-Centric Model: The creator who commands the AI and directs the AI-generated output will be entitled to copyright protection and treat AI as a creative tool like a camera but the courts in this matter may struggle to define what exact percentage of human content needed in the creation to determine the ownership designation.
- Joint Authorship Model: Usually, copyrights are shared between AI Developers and users which usually depends on the level of contribution, and while fairer policies this model may lead to legal battles over ownership shares.
As seen from these models presented above, they possess unique challenges so making a hybrid approach for getting the most practical solutions.
Hybrid Models
A new hybrid model can be introduced for balancing the rights of AI developers and users which offers the most transparent legal framework and these legal frameworks the copyright ownership will be awarded to the human creator which will ensure recognition of human works and the intention behind the creation but AI developers can use the exception of limited derivative rights mainly they use this provision when their AI significantly is been evident in their output.
So, to prevent corporate monopolization AI-generated works should be distinguished by a new distinct legal classification which should be designed for AI-specific licensing models and additionally present fair use provisions should be the extent to limit where it can protect AI-assisted creative works which is used for education, research and greatness of public interest and by merging this principles as hybrid models will ensure the AI innovation and human creativity to co-exist which will provide a structured, equitable and an effective copyright framework.
Why This Matters: The Future of AI and Copyright Law
1. The Risk of AI-Created Copyright Monopolies
In a situation where copyright laws favour AI developers then Tech giants like Google, Open AI, and Meta can profit from this as they monopolize AI-created content which in another version will limit the creator’s rights and create a monopolistic corporate dominance where the small creators struggle to complete so prevent these issues we can introduce balanced copyright regulations which are very necessary to protect many individuals users from maintaining an open creative system
2. Impact on Human Artists and Writers
AI-generated content is distrusting traditional creative industries which raises concerns about job displacements and unfair competition's present and if the agent rated works will receive the same copyright protection as the human-created content received. But through this, human originality will be devalued rather than revalued but a lack some major sectors such as. personal experience, emotional depth and cultural context are what a human can experience. Which makes it impossible to fully replace human creativity in air-generated works. The copyright law should. BT file should be a differentiated tool. To a level were. It can properly. Assist in work from fully generated ones, which ensures human creators properly retain their financial legal recognition.
3. AI and the Fight Against Deepfakes & Misinformation
AI has the advantage by it generated content, but there are drawbacks also for generating content. That is, the generated content can be misused for deepfakes and misinformation which creates. Fake videos alone voices and fabricated news articles which damages politics. legal and journalistic integrity is present in the nation and without proper copyright regulations, the generated misinformation could spread without any accountability. So, the from proper verification standards and legal safeguards are very much needed to prevent misuse and ensure ethical AI use in the country, which prevents many copyright issues. In the nation and the courts also, it can be proved that these measures are being provided by the legal framework.
The uncertain legal status present in current times further creates various concerns regarding who the owner is, fair attribution in the legal framework, and corporate monopolization used by tech giants in this process where additionally AI’s impacts on the human artist and the rise of various deepfakes which highlighted the urgent needs for AI copyrights laws.
A hybrid model should be introduced for balancing human creativity, AI innovation and ethical AI usage are very essential in the present time to acknowledge the present AI-related copyright challenges, and without any present decisive legal actions AI could create potential could be exploited in many ways where they can threaten, originality, fairness, and intellectual property integrity worldwide.