AI-Generated Content and Copyright Infringement: A Legal Analysis of OpenAI's Practices and Global IPR Challenges
Authors/Creators
-
1.
Vellore Institute of Technology University
Description
Generative AI technologies, such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT and DALL·E, are experiencing rapid growth. They have become the force which is disrupting the whole system of traditional intellectual property (IP) and have raised serious questions about authorship, ownership and the violation of rights. This paper is exploring the main challenges and dangers of AI-generated content in the legal and ethical spheres of copyright, trademark, and patent laws, and it explicitly points out the irrevocable weakness of the currently existing IP regimes tailored for human creativity. Focusing on the world at large, the research aims to shed light on the main questions that are: is it legal to use copyrighted works for the training of an AI system, can the results of the AI system violate the rights of protected works, and at what point the distinction between inspiration and replication becomes less and less clear with time. The cases of OpenAI and Perplexity AI, the lawsuits against these, perfectly serve as examples of the problems of adapting the copyright doctrines like fair use and substantial similarity which were originally meant for human-made works only to the AI-generated ones. Furthermore, there is a discussion of the issues that AI’s impact has on creative industries, in particular the paper proposes solutions to such problems, for example, the models of collective licensing and the obligation of transparency for the AI developers. This study, through the utilisation of a comparative legal study, has positioned the legal regimes of various countries such as the U.S., EU, UK, Indonesia, China, and India to highlight the weak points in the IP law and the need for international law adjustment. This paper primarily stresses the importance of the broadening of the copyright concepts so that they can be consistent with the AI-induced renaissance of creativity and economic growth while ensuring the usefulness of the working profiles of the parliamentarians and the judicial officers who are leading this field.
Files
12. Abhinaya 126-133.pdf
Files
(737.6 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:902168c359b456953d1e4ffc8e514617
|
737.6 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Identifiers
Software
- Repository URL
- https://www.aequivic.in/post/ai-generated-content-and-copyright-infringement-a-legal-analysis-of-openai-s-practices-and-global-i
- Development Status
- Active
References
- [1] Andres Guadamuz, 'Talkin' 'Bout AI Generation: Copyright and the Generative-AI Supply Chain' (2023) arXiv https://arxiv.org accessed 15 February 2025. [2] Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts Inc v Goldsmith [2023] USSC 6. [3] Google Inc v American Authors Guild [2015] 804 F.3d 202 (2nd Cir). [4] Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation). [5] California Consumer Privacy Act 2018. [6] International Telecommunication Union, 'Measuring Digital Development: Facts and Figures' (2023) https://itu.int accessed 15 February 2025. [7] Thaler v Perlmutter [2023] US District Court, District of Columbia. [8] Thomson Reuters v Ross Intelligence [2023] US District Court, District of Delaware. [9] Thaler v Vidal [2022] 43 F.4th 1207 (Federal Circuit). [10] World Intellectual Property (WIPO), 'AI and Intellectual Property' (2023) https://www.wipo.int/ai-ip accessed 18 February 2025. [11] Florian Möslein and Peer Zumbansen, 'The Black Box of AI: Transparency and Accountability in Algorithmic Decisions' (2021) 12(1) European Journal of Risk Regulation 17. [12] Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 (India). [13] Information Technology Act 2000 (India). [14] Thaler v Comptroller General of Patents Trade Marks and Designs [2020] EWHC 2412 (Pat); see also Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2020) 15(10) 753. [15] The Patents Act 1970 (India), s 2(1)(y); see also N Saha and A Bhattacharya, 'Artificial Intelligence and Patent Law in India: A Legal Analysis' (2021) 26(1) Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 33. [16] Ahmed Elgammal and others, 'Can Artificial Intelligence Be an Author? A Hybrid Approach to Authorship in the Age of AI' (2022) 73 Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 1. [17] Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market [2019] OJ L130/92. [18] Daniel J Gervais, 'The Human Cause: Artificial Intelligence, Authors and the Copyright Ecosystem' (2021) 23(1) Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 1. [19] K Johnson, 'The Exploitation of Marginalized Creators: The Impact of AI on Copyright' (2019) 2 Journal of Technology and Social Justice 48. [20] Getty Images (US), Inc v Stability AI Ltd (2023) Case No 23-c Getty Images (US), Inc v Stability AI Ltd (2023) Case No 23-cv-00135 (D Del).v-00135 (D Del). [21] Ruha Benjamin, Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code (Polity Press 2019). [22] Kate Crawford, Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence (Yale University Press 2021). [23] Daniel Gervais, 'AI Creativity and Copyright Balance' (2022) Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA. [24] William McGeveran, 'Corporate Accountability in AI Content Creation' (2023) Harvard Business Review.