🐈
» Forums » Clients » Attention Clients !! You do not own content g...
Page options
sajal36
Community Member

Attention Clients !! You do not own content generated by generative AI tools

If you are creating contents like articles, blogs, images, code etc. thorugh generative AI tools than you do not own that contents, according to the U.S. Copyright Office.

 

That means anyone can reproduce it without your permission, display it and sell it.

 

Copyright Office Launches New Artificial Intelligence Initiative 

 

This make it more essential to detect contents generated thorugh generative AI tools. However, copyright can protect only human created material.

6 REPLIES 6
86c631fc
Community Member

Wow! Actually, this is good news because AI is competing with human skills, but all we know is that there is no competition between them. AI is ruining the careers of many freelancers, though it is helpful, but people are misusing it.

25005175
Community Member

The actual text puts them on pretty shaky ground. Prompt-based generative AI require human input. Excellent AI content requires the user to carefully craft the series of prompts in the "conversation". How long does the prompt need to be, how granular do the specific instructions need to be, before there is sufficient "human intervention" to be deemed "human authorship"? There will be some interesting courtroom debates, to be sure.

 

 

sajal36
Community Member

I believe as per guidance if AI is using human prompts and produces complex responses like images, text etc.. than it is considered machine generated content (authored) not human. On the other hand if there are sufficient content to support human Orginality than it will only copyright the human generated work that do not effect the AI tool generated material.

One thing looks clear - that individual may not be able to own or copyright all the content.

re: "There will be some interesting courtroom debates, to be sure."

 

Yeah. This really is unexplored territory.

 

A lot of opinions get thrown out there about the legality of all this. And about the ethics of all this.

But they're just opinions.

 

And even if courts rule on this, the rulings will be legal OPINIONS.

 

Even if those legal opinions are enforceable, there will be people who will disagree with those opinions.

Ultimately, I think the MORE IMPORTANT decider will be the court of public opinion.

 

For example:

Maybe the courts DON'T render an opinion about whether it is cool or not to have ChatGPT or some other AI handle all your texting between you and your girlfriend.
But then there are movies made about this and people talk about this and it is discussed on Reddit or whatnot, and people decide that's not cool.
"Should you break up with a guy if you find out that he doesn't actually read your texts or write his replies?"
This question could be answered "yes."
And it won't matter what the courts say, or that they haven't said anything. Society will frown on this.

 

"Content ownership" in relation to AI-generated content may indeed be discussed in future court rulings. But it will also require cultural acceptance of new ideas in order to be meaningful.

IP attorneys is going to be most sought-after and busy job for next decade or so.

25005175
Community Member

US intellectual property laws need a partial overhaul. Judges are literally using case law from the copyright sector to fill in the gaps of the existing patent laws. The first-to-file doctrine is ridiculous. And there needs to be some overhaul of the USPTO, because some patents are getting awarded when the evidence says that they shouldn't, like the patent that MIT received for toroidal propellers (US 10,836,466 B2) - the patent application literally shows prior art from an earlier patent application of toroidal propellers, proving that MIT did not invent them.

 

ETA: The earlier patent was US 6,736,600, which was awarded over a decade before the MIT patent was even filed. It expired in 2020, a few months before the MIT patent was awarded.

Latest Articles
Learning Paths