The idea that the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) could potentially benefit from learning to read and understand open source software code is one that has sparked a lot of conversation. However, the question of whether this type of learning is “fair use” is still an ambiguous one. Moreover, it is also a matter of balancing the costs and benefits of such learning against the potential damages that could be incurred from its misuse. In this article, we discuss some of these issues and examine the impact they might have on the AI industry.
AI lawsuits Are Beginning to rise
While the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy has announced plans to develop an AI Bill of Rights, critics are calling for more checks and balances. Excessive regulation can slow down important research and stifle innovation. In addition, too many companies lack transparency about how they use data.
The European Commission is preparing legislative measures to address these issues. These measures will likely affect companies active in the AI space. However, these efforts are not likely to address broader societal impacts, like the impact of AI on vulnerable populations.
One of the main barriers to AI is data. Companies may not know where their data is. This can lead to disparate outcomes and create a lack of protection for vulnerable groups. Ultimately, this can inhibit the development of new and beneficial AI technologies.
Another area where AI technology could negatively affect vulnerable groups is when algorithms are used to generate content. This could include works produced by tools like Stability AI, a tool that generates derivative works from original images. Many artists have complained that these tools use billions of copyrighted images without their permission.
Some AI systems are already designed to produce content in the style of a particular artist. But the line between emulating a style and wrongful copying isn’t always clear.
In addition, there are a number of international efforts aimed at creating scaled frameworks for the good governance of AI. For example, the OECD and UNESCO have developed guidelines for proper AI usage. Meanwhile, the World Economic Forum has released a practical toolkit for HR and law enforcement.
A recent roundtable discussion in Arizona explored this issue. Experts discussed how AI biases often occur as a result of poor data quality. They also highlighted a lack of privacy and diversity.
It’s critical that we understand how we can mitigate these biases. Developing a participatory framework for AI governance would allow consumers and industry to better input into the design of AI systems. Eventually, we need to move toward a more inclusive economy.
Non-verbatim copying can be infringing
It may be surprising to hear that copying and executing a piece of software is actually infringing, but it isn’t as if you can simply install the software onto your device and get going. Aside from the technical constraints, the absence of a workable market also means that you will have to make your own arrangements to get access to the code or pay the price if you decide to download it in the first place.
In order to be able to do this, you’ll need to look to the internet for help. This is because most software is developed by individual developers who are not in a position to obtain permission to use someone else’s code. For example, Google’s Android is a commercially valuable product that sold $42 billion in 2015. Nevertheless, the company has a clear monopoly on the market for mobile software.
The best way to deal with this problem is to establish a fair sharing policy. You should also take measures to ensure that you don’t infringe on the copyright of other people. As part of your policy, you should also be sure that you offer the license document in an accessible format. Also, you should make it a point to communicate this information to others. If you don’t do this, you could find yourself in court.
The GitHub Copilot program is an example of this. This program is a web service that generates short snippets of code based on users’ training data. These snippets are then incorporated into a user’s own projects. While these snippets are likely to not supersede the original repository, the process is a good way to learn about the source’s capabilities. However, the code may or may not contain snippets derived from the training data.
GitHub’s Copilot is a slick product that has the potential to be a big hit. Nonetheless, it is not without its share of controversy. Although the company has been transparent about its motives, some observers have questioned the value of the product as a whole.
Shutterstock’s collaboration with OpenAI allows the creation of images using a model that has only been trained on images licensed to Shutterstock
Shutterstock is a leading global creative platform that connects creators and creators with artists. They provide a comprehensive library of images, videos, and music. The company has offices in more than 150 countries and is headquartered in New York City.
The company’s recent push into generative AI is part of an effort to position itself as a leader in emerging technology and to promote ethical storytelling. Its new fund will compensate contributors who have their work used by AI models. This is the first major creative platform to do this in this way.
A key part of Shutterstock’s generative AI initiative is the launch of the Contributor Fund. In this fund, photographers, designers, and other contributors will receive compensation whenever their content is used to train an artificial intelligence model.
While the company’s spokesperson did not detail the percentage of revenue that the creators will receive, the company did say that payouts would be made every six months. The company also plans to pay royalties on the use of an intellectual property.
Shutterstock and OpenAI are collaborating to bring seamless image generation capabilities to the company’s users. This includes training the DALL-E machine learning model on proprietary Shutterstock data. Using this data, the model can now create images based on text prompts.
Shutterstock will continue to work with OpenAI on the next iteration of the system. In the coming months, the company expects to introduce the system to its clients.
In addition to Shutterstock’s partnership with OpenAI, the company also announced its new text-to-image generator. Users will be able to use the generator to translate images into text descriptions or captions. Also, the company has signed an agreement with LG AI Research to develop a synthetic media engine that can turn text prompts into images.
To ensure the resale of IP rights, the company will pay artists and designers when their work is used in training AI models. This will include contributions to the Contributor Fund and royalties on sales.
The Shutterstock and OpenAI partnership will enable customers to generate images instantly. Customers can use the DALL-E 2 generative AI system to interpret a text prompt and produce multiple images.
Google’s unwillingness to roll over
As AI advances rapidly, it will take on an ever-growing role in our lives. It will gather personal information for marketing campaigns, as well as use big data to root out radical thinking. Yet, we have not yet reached an ethical level in which AI can be trusted to protect our privacy. While there are many wonderful researchers and thinkers within the community, it is time for regulation to move behind innovation.
One solution is class action lawsuits, which are designed to test ideas and ensure that they are fair and equitable for all. The purpose is not to shut down AI, but to make it more transparent and ethical for all.
In the US, Google has spent astronomical legal fees to defend the use of thumbnail photos, software interface specifications, and news headlines. However, in the future, the legal system will be challenged by a broader influx of lawsuits. If class actions are successful in making AI fairer, it could be a devastating setback for the industry.
GitHub’s Copilot is one example of a model being accused of stealing open source code. This program is designed to mimic human actions and is trained on repositories of open source code. Some programmers have reported that Copilot has copied long sections of licensed code without attribution.
Microsoft is also being sued for reproducing open source code using AI. Last week, the company’s CEO, Satya Nadella, said that it would be “unacceptable” to scrape code from the Web and use it in generative AI models.
The ostensible class action suit was filed last Friday, and the court has not certified it as yet. But the suits are a publicity stunt, and they will thwart innovation in the generative AI field. Their emergence will likely spark a cottage industry of plaintiff’s lawyers, who will seek to make a windfall.
Ethical AI should avoid attribution of agency to software, organizations, or individuals. And it should be particularly careful not to anthropomorphize AI systems. Several prominent AI experts have spoken out against the lawsuits.
Israeli Copyright Law governs incidental uses of copyrighted works
A new Israeli Copyright Law is set to come into force this month. This law is a comprehensive reform and is long overdue. The new law will replace the mandatory Copyright Ordinance, of 1924. It will also address technological developments.
One of the key changes is that the new law identifies a number of categories of copyrighted works and explains their significance. For example, a work of art is a protected category of work, while a sound recording is not. In addition, the new law has a number of other interesting provisions.
It is worth noting that the law provides a special exemption for photographs taken by public authorities. These images will be made available in the public domain after 70 years of the photographer’s death. However, such an exemption is not applied to works taken by private organizations.
There are other notable changes, including a newly defined category of phonograms, which are now protected as a separate category. Another change is the inclusion of a slew of illustrative fair use scenarios, including the ones listed below.
For example, a work of art is no longer required to contain an artistic element. An artistic work may have a purely literary or narrative function, or be a purely musical work.
Moreover, a number of new laws have been enacted in recent years. This includes the National Library act, which requires the Israeli National Library to provide free and open access to the general public, through advanced technological means.
Another significant change is the new statutory regime that specifically excludes infringements from the past. For example, the law prohibits making copies of lawfully made outside Israel with the intent of reselling them within Israel. On the other hand, there are no anti-circumvention measures in the new law. That said, future legislation on electronic commerce will have to address this issue.
The rights of AI-generated works
As the use of AI in creative works grows, new legal issues are arising. How should ownership rights be allocated to the different parties involved in the creation process? What are the benefits and disadvantages of different ownership allocation methods? These questions are important because copyright law provides exclusive rights to the owner of a work, including the right to reproduce and publish it.
Several countries, such as the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the United States, have yet to rule on whether the degree of human involvement is sufficient to make AI-generated outputs protectable under copyright law. The UK Intellectual Property Office has asked respondents to consider how they would like to see AI-generated works protected in the future.
In the United States, the Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988 define an author as “any person who, by writing, painting, sculpting, carving, printing, or any other means, makes an arrangement of materials”. It is unclear to what extent human involvement in the creation process should be required to render an output protectable under copyright law.
Similarly, China has emphasized the creation of natural persons. Although the courts have not decided whether AI-generated outputs should be protected under copyright law, they have concluded that the process of creating an AI-generated artwork is not an original work of authorship.
Ultimately, the debate over copyright subsistence reveals the uncertainty of the different ownership allocation methods. Ownership of AI-generated creative work may be assigned to the user of the software, to the developer, or to the AI itself.
One option for allocating property rights to AI-generated outputs is the so-called AI-owner rule. This rule is a variation of the traditional approach in which the software developer owns the AI system and grants the user a license.
Other potential owners of AI-generated works include the developer or third-party data provider. Alternatively, AI-generated outputs can be protected under sui generis rights, such as audio or video data. However, these options require considerable legal expertise and are not necessarily universally justified.
There are also concerns about patent protection for AI-generated outputs. In South Korea, for example, the question of permissive use is still unresolved. Hopefully, progress will be made on this issue soon.
Finally, the new Israeli Copyright Law is a step towards protecting the country’s creative output. Besides allowing more comprehensive protection for photographic and sound recording works, the law will ensure that Israel retains its place as a world leader in the production and distribution of music and other audiovisual media.
Is copyright protection available for works that are created by artificial intelligence? And if so, how is it governed? In this article, we take a look at both the US and UK approaches to the question.
Copyright laws for AI-generated images can be a bit of a mystery. A few companies have claimed to own the rights to the imagery, while others have released the images into the public domain. Regardless of which approach you to choose, it’s important to understand what copyright protection means and how it works.
The most obvious example is using a generated image to create a work of art. As with other creative endeavors, copyright law is often difficult to determine. This is especially true when artificial intelligence is involved. However, there is at least one case where an AI-generated image managed to secure a legal victory.
Using an AI-generated image to create a piece of artwork can be a smart move. It can help eliminate the need for an artist to draw an image from scratch, and it can allow you to create art that is incredibly creative and highly detailed. In addition, it can also help you avoid the potential pitfalls of right-clicking a random picture from the internet. If your AI generates a good-looking image, it can be a nice alternative to paying for a professional photographer to do it for you.
Creating a work of art is an enticing prospect for many, but there are a number of challenges to be faced if you decide to try. In the first place, you will likely have to prove that your AI-generated artwork is truly worthy of copyright protection. And if you don’t, you may end up being sued for infringement. You could also be putting yourself at risk if you use a work of AI-generated artwork for commercial purposes.
For instance, you may be using an AI-generated image to create a photo collage that includes other artwork, or you may be creating an entire work from start to finish. Whether or not you can actually copyright your AI-generated content depends on where you are based and what you intend to use the image for. There’s no one-size-fits-all solution. Your best bet is to get legal advice.
Lastly, if you’re generating a work of art that incorporates elements from other artwork, you may be infringing on the copyright of that artwork. For instance, you may have used an image from a famous painting, but if you repurpose that image for your own use, you are infringing on the copyright of the original work.
Despite some initial legal hiccups, copyright law for AI-generated images is evolving. Some companies have decided to register the work as an “original work of authorship,” while others have opted for a joint-authorship arrangement. Both methods of registration require the creators to follow the requirements of the DALL*E 2 and adhere to the terms of the project.
In the end, the most effective way to copyright an AI-generated image is to do it right. That means assuming that the AI is the creator of the work and then making sure that you follow the applicable terms of the tool or service.
US approach to copyright
With the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) to produce “art,” courts in several jurisdictions have begun to address the ownership of AI-generated works. In addition, many countries are evaluating intellectual property protection frameworks. These include the United States and the United Kingdom. While some jurisdictions have taken a stance in favor of AI-generated works, others have taken a broader approach.
Some courts have found that non-human expression is ineligible for copyright protection. This is especially true in the US where only humans may be able to register for copyright. However, this does not mean that the resulting work is copyrighted. Rather, it requires fact-intensive investigation under four fair use factors.
One of the questions in the US approach to copyright for works created by an AI is who owns the work. The owner of a computer-generated work can be either the creator of the software or the user of the software. An AI-generated work can be copyrighted if the owner has legal control over the machine or has a license to create the work. There are other potential owners, such as a third-party data provider, an AI developer or an AI software user.
Copyright law has been evolving in recent years, and the Copyright Office is bound by Supreme Court precedent to define the authorship of a work. Specifically, the Copyright Act defines an author as the person who makes the arrangements for the creation of the work. Despite this definition, courts in recent cases have suggested that only humans are able to be the author of a work. Nevertheless, the US Copyright Office has recently rejected requests for the copyright of AI-generated artwork.
There are a number of reasons why the US approach to copyright for works created on artificial intelligence is different from the UK’s. Firstly, the UK provides 50-year copyright protection for computer-generated works. It also has a more favorable approach to protecting works for which copying is a non-expressive automated process.
Another reason is that in the United Kingdom, AI-generated work will not fall into the public domain. Therefore, it will be more difficult for a software developer to claim ownership of the work. Moreover, the UK approach to copyright for works created by artificial intelligence is likely to be more efficient in the long run.
A further argument in favor of the US approach to copyright for works created from artificial intelligence is that it helps protect the cultural values associated with the creative act. In other words, it ensures that companies can keep investing in technological developments without fear of losing their investment. Additionally, it prevents companies from appropriating another’s work and selling it for commercial gain.
Ultimately, the decision in Thaler v The Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (DABUS) has significant implications for copyright law in the U.S. Although the decision is not yet final, it appears that the Copyright Office has taken Thaler’s explanation of the law for granted.
UK approach to copyright
The question of copyright protection for works created by an AI has prompted a broad debate. There are various reasons why the issue has been raised. Some commentators point out that legislation in the UK and other Commonwealth jurisdictions already addresses this issue. But others argue that the concept of copyright protection for works created by artificial intelligence is not yet established. This article looks at recent rulings in this area and considers how copyright protection should be applied to the latest developments in this field.
An AI-generated work is a piece of art crafted by an artificial intelligence system, usually based on big data. Compared to works created by software, such as a painting, it is unpredictable and random, and the output is not inherently original. However, the creative process behind an AI-work is still subject to the guiding hand of a human actor. Therefore, the creation of such a work should be protected under copyright law.
It is also possible for an AI system to be recognized as an inventor or author, as in the case of Thaler v The Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (‘DABUS’). The High Court of England and Wales rejected the appeal but acknowledged the potential to register DABUS as the owner of an AI invention.
The issue of whether an AI system should be registered as an inventor is important, as it provides an alternative legal basis for protecting AI-generated works. As such, a new sui generis right should be developed in order to protect such works. Such a right would protect against verbatim copying of AI-generated works and would also give the holder the ability to stop AI artists from selling their work.
The idea of protecting AI-generated works by applying the work-made-for-hire doctrine is also a good way to ensure that the creator is accountable for his or her work. In this way, the owner of an AI-generated work could be the user, the software developer, or another third-party data provider.
Another rule that may provide some legal clarity is the AI owner rule. Under this doctrine, AI-generated work would be owned by the software developer, who would in turn be the owner of the final output. The owner must be able to legally control the system and have the factual right to use it. Moreover, the owner must be able to assign the rights of the resulting work to another party.
Another important aspect of copyright law is the principle of originality. When a work is created by an AI, the resulting work must have substantial similarity to other known works to qualify as a sui generis work. For example, a rapping robot should not be awarded a patent for producing a hit song, as it is unlikely that any other rapping robot has done this. Ultimately, it is up to the courts to apply a literal interpretation of the Copyright Act.