Language

AI-generated Works: Lingering Doubts over the Authorship

Author: Yingying Zhu, Partner at BEIJING MINGDUN LAW FIRM

Email: zhu.yingying@mdlaw.cn

Date: July 24, 2024



With the flourishing of AI technology, works created by AI could outpace and exceed those done by humans in many aspects, as AI is being trained using deep learning algorithms to analyze vast amounts of data and to learn patterns, styles, and structures, while human brains normally cannot compete in that depth of training. While people around the world are enthusiastic about the continued pushing-back of boundaries for literary and artistic creations by AI, in the copyright realm, some fundamental questions remain to be answered-Who is the author of the works generated by AI? Who owns the copyright to the AI generated content? Currently, those questions could have very different answers in China and in the US.

 

Beijing Internet Courts Judgment vs. U.S. Copyright Office’s Decision

 

1. The AI-generated Image Spring Breeze brings Tenderness" Case in China

In a copyright infringement case before the Beijing Internet Court (BIC), the plaintiff Li used artificial intelligence Stable Diffusion to generate the disputed image by inputting prompt words and published the image under the name of "Spring Breeze brings Tenderness". Later, the plaintiff Li found that the defendant Liu published an article in a content sharing public platform and used the disputed image in the first page of the said article. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant used and published the image the plaintiff created without permission, which violated the plaintiff's right of information network communication and also the plaintiff's right to authorship.

After trial, the BIC held that the disputed image in this case showed differences from the previous works. From the perspective of the generation process of the image, the plaintiff Li obtained the first image by entering prompt words and setting relevant parameters, and then the plaintiff continued to add prompt words, modified parameters, and constantly adjusted and amended, and finally obtained the image. The BIC considered that this adjustment and amendment process also reflects the plaintiff's aesthetic choice and personal judgment”. In the absence of contrary evidence, the BIC concluded that “the disputed image was independently completed by the plaintiff Li, reflecting the plaintiff's personalized expression and it belongs to the works of art under the plaintiffs authorship. Accordingly, the BIC ruled that the defendant infringed upon the plaintiffs copyright and the defendant is ordered to post a public statement of apology, eliminate the negative impact, and compensate the plaintiff for economic losses1.

 

2. The AI-generated Images Zarya of the Dawn Case in the US

In this US case, shortly after registering the Work titled Zarya of the Dawn, a “comic book” consisting of mixed texts and images, the U.S. Copyright Office (“USCO”) became aware of statements on social media attributed to the artist Kashtanova that she had created the images in the comic book using artificial intelligence Midjourney. The USCO, after reviewing the letter from Kashtanova’s lawyer, decided to cancel the copyright registration, arguing that “the process (of creating the images) is not controlled by the user because it is not possible to predict what Midjourney will create ahead of time.” The artist Kashtanova objected that she has played an active role in guiding the creation of the images through “hundreds of thousands of prompts” and through making corrections to some of the outputs using image-editing software. The USCO was unconvinced, asserting that “the process described … makes clear that it was Midjourney – and not Kashtanova – that originated the ‘traditional elements of authorship’ in the images”. Then the USCO approved the registration for the texts and arrangement of images2 of the comic book under the authorship of Kashtanova, but denied protection for the individual images within the comic book. 

Based on the cases discussed, it can be inferred that in China, the judge holds that the human-users act of entering and adding prompt words and setting and modifying parameters for the AI-generated work is considered a sufficient creative input to qualify for copyright protection while the US Copyright Office does not currently offer protection for literary and artistic works generated by AI because such works are not considered the product of human authorship. The cases above illustrate a lack of coherent global approach when it comes to the determination of authorship over the AI-generated works.

 

Discussion

 

1. The Idea-Expression Dichotomy 

In determining the appropriate scope of copyright protection in the AI era, it seems essential to come to the very basics of the copyright law, that is, the idea-expression dichotomy, which is a widely recognized principle in copyright law defining that ideas are not protectable under copyright laws, but expressions of those ideas can be legally protected.

In a typical AI generated content scenario, human-user provides prompts in the format of short phrases or sentences to AI, while AI, by processing those prompts, can automatically generate original image or literary contents that imitate human-created artworks or articles. The question of who the author is seems simpler if it could be determined who contributes to the ideas and who contributes to the expressions.

In the opinion of the renowned Chinese copyright law scholar Mr. Wang Qian, for freehand sketching and drawing software, when the human user creates, the users thoughts directly act on the expression. For example, when an artist wants to draw an "apple", the artist needs to choose the color of the "apple", draw the general outlines, and deploy his or her thoughts to dominate the forms of expression, and then the final creation as well.

However, in AI drawings, the thoughts generated in the user's mind cannot dictate the specific forms of expression generated by the AI. Although the two, the drawing software and AI, are both tools, in the traditional drawing method, people are still involved in the creation and the use of tools to express, but in AI drawings, people only provide ideas, and AI completes the expression part independently3. 

Deducing from the Idea-Expression Dichotomy, which is a globally recognized cornerstone of copyright law, the human-user contributes to the ideas while AI contributes to the expression of such ideas. If the authorship could ever be vested in a non-human, that is, a software application or a machine, AI should be the author of the works generated by AI, and AI owns the copyright to the AI generated content.

 

2. AI the Author or AI just pieces Everything together?

In the view of the author (who is not AI, by the way) of this Article, AI does not do the expression part either-the expression has been done by numerous human authors and artists who originated the various elements that confirm to the prompts entered into the AI by the user. AI is not the author. AI just pieces everything together.

As mentioned above, AI is being trained using deep learning algorithms to analyze vast amounts of data and to learn patterns, styles, and structures created by humans. AI is good at mimicking but not so good at creating. The creation process has been done by numerous human authors and artists over the centuries in human history. AI searches from its training materials these prior works and grabs the elements confirming to the prompts entered by the user and then pieces the relevant elements together to generate the final work, which, in the authors view, is hardly a creation process.

That is why protecting the real author behind the content generated by AI is so important to accommodate the tremendous advancements in AI technology. In this direction, recently, a bipartisan group of senators in the US introduced a new bill The Content Origin Protection and Integrity from Edited and Deepfaked Media Act (“COPIED Act”) to make it easier to authenticate and detect artificial intelligence-generated content and protect journalists and artists from having their work gobbled up by AI models without their permission. The COPIED Act would direct the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) to set up standards and guidelines that help prove the origin of content and detect synthetic content, like through watermarking4. 

The danger of AI plagiarism” also poses another problem - if the human user becomes the legitimate right holder of any AI generated work just by entering prompts, setting parameters and making adjustments, AI might be utilized as a tool of plagiarism at no cost to the human user, leaving the copyright and title of the real author behind the content generated by AI in great peril.

 

Conclusion

 

With the breathtaking development and advancing of AI technology, the lingering doubts and fierce debates over the authorship of AI generated works have been on the rise globally in recent years. The vastly different approaches of legal authorities in China and the US shows that there is a lack of coherent global recognition of the role played by AI in the creating or generating of literary and artistic works. Simply put, AI is developing too fast, while the law is left behind.

When one attempts to answer the question of authorship within the context of AI-generated works, it becomes apparent that there is no straightforward answer, and it would be difficult to find out or set a unified global approach at the current stage. Furthermore, the protection of human copyrighted content and other fundamental rights such as the personality rights (images, likeness, voice, etc.) of people from AI plagiarism” during the AI training or data feeding processes also presents significant legal, ethical and practical challenges.

 

 1.Beijing Internet Court, (2023) Jing 0491Min Chu No. 11279.

 2.Robert J. Kasunic, U.S. Copyright Office, Zarya of the Dawn (Registration # VAu001480196) (2023).

 3.See https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1802456776111016522&wfr=spider&for=pc.

 4.See https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/11/24196769/copied-act-cantwell-blackburn-heinrich-ai-journalists-artists.



  • Related information More
  • 点击次数: 1000003
    2024 - 10 - 11
    Author: Yingying Zhu, Partner at BEIJING MINGDUN LAW FIRMEmail: zhu.yingying@mdlaw.cnDate: October 12, 2024 IntroductionUnder the Personal Information Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China (the “PIPL”), “sensitive personal information” (the “SPI”)  is defined as “the kind of ‘personal information’ (the “PI”)  that the leakage or illegal use of which could easily lead to the violation of personal dignity of data subject or harm to the data subject’s personal or property safety, including, but not limited to, information on biometric identification, religious beliefs, specific identity, health care, financial accounts, and personal whereabouts, etc., and the PI of minors under the age of fourteen1.” Only PI hand...
  • 点击次数: 1000005
    2024 - 07 - 26
    Author: Yingying Zhu, Partner at BEIJING MINGDUN LAW FIRMEmail: zhu.yingying@mdlaw.cnDate: July 24, 2024With the flourishing of AI technology, works created by AI could outpace and exceed those done by humans in many aspects, as AI is being trained using deep learning algorithms to analyze vast amounts of data and to learn patterns, styles, and structures, while human brains normally cannot compete in that depth of training. While people around the world are enthusiastic about the continued pushing-back of boundaries for literary and artistic creations by AI, in the copyright realm, some fundamental questions remain to be answered-Who is the author of the works generated by AI? Who owns the copyright to the AI generated content? Currently, those ques...
  • 点击次数: 1000017
    2024 - 02 - 23
    Author: Yingying Zhu, Partner at BEIJING MINGDUN LAW FIRMEmail: zhu.yingying@mdlaw.cnDate: February 21, 2024Introduction There is a motto that you might be told as a kid: no one is born a winner; everyone is born a chooser-making choices as to who you want to be. However, when you grow up, you find that, sometimes with great frustration, this motto might not be true because some people are born with a sliver spoon in mouth while others are not as lucky. In the commercial world, there are products who are born winners-those with a Geographical Indication (hereinafter, the “GI”) which is a sign that identifies products that originate from a specific geographic location and possess certain qualities or reputation due to their origin. Some examples of domestic GIs in China are Kweichow Mo...
  • 点击次数: 1000021
    2024 - 01 - 18
    Author: Yingying Zhu, Partner at BEIJING MINGDUN LAW FIRMEmail: zhu.yingying@mdlaw.cnPublished: January 17, 2024China has a multiagency system for protecting geographical indication (GI) products. GIs can be registered as collective or certification trademarks before the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA). GI products can also gain protection from the former General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine. Primary products produced through farming can be protected as GIs of agricultural products before the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs. This multiagency system has proven to be burdensome, inconvenient, and sometimes confusing, especially to foreign GIs.To address resounding calls for reform, on September 18, 2023, CNIPA released...
× WeChat official account
Beijing Mingdun Law Firm www.mdlaw.cn
Copyright 2008 - 2020 Beijing Mingdun Law FirmRhino Cloud Provides Enterprise Cloud Services
X
1

QQ设置

3

SKYPE 设置

4

阿里旺旺设置

5

电话号码管理

6

二维码管理

展开