Tag Archives: content

The Legal Implications of AI-Generated Content in Copyright Law

The Legal Implications of AI-Generated Content in Copyright Law

The influence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is expanding in diverse domains, as seen in natural language processing tools like GPT-3, image recognition software such as Google Lens, and product recommendation engines, including Amazon’s product suggestion system. AI is gaining traction in the art world, exemplified by the sale of “Edmond de Belamy,” a portrait generated by AI, for an unprecedented $432,500 in an auction. Nonetheless, the increasing involvement of AI in creative pursuits raises copyright concerns.

When it comes to training AI models, the use of copyrighted materials is considered to be in a legal grey area. As it stands now, copyright laws do not safeguard any creation that is wholly generated by AI, regardless of whether it stemmed from a human-crafted text prompt. While fair use laws permit the use of copyrighted material under certain conditions without the owner’s permission, the ongoing legal disputes could disrupt this status quo and bring uncertainty in the future of AI model training.

Undoubtedly, the advent of generative AI has revolutionized our lifestyle, labor practices, and artistry output within a mere few months. In turn, the inundation of AI-fabricated written works, pictures, and tunes, alongside the mechanisms through which they were created, has stimulated a plethora of intricate legal inquiries. These challenge our understanding of ownership, fairness, and the core foundation of innovation.

Can AI-generated art Be Copyrighted?

The issue of whether AI-generated art can be protected under copyright laws has been a contentious topic, with various opinions and viewpoints. The U.S. Copyright Office has taken the position that creations made by non-human entities, including machines, are not eligible for copyright protection. Consequently, the product of a generative AI model cannot be considered copyrightable.

The fundamental challenge lies in the way generative AI systems operate. These models learn by identifying and replicating patterns found in data. Thus, the AI system must first learn from human creations to produce output such as written text or images. For example, if an AI-generated image resembles the art of Japanese artist Yokoyama Taikan, it would have been trained using actual pieces of art created by the human artist. Similarly, to generate written content in the style of J. K. Rowling, the AI system would need to be trained with words written by J. K. Rowling.

However, according to current U.S. copyright law, these AI systems – which encompass image and music generators, as well as chatbots like ChatGPT – cannot be regarded as the creators of the content they produce. Instead, their outputs result from a culmination of human-generated work, much of which is copyrighted in some form and sourced from the internet. This does not mean that AI-generated works are necessary in the public domain. Another example if a company uses AI to generate content, that company may still have proprietary rights to that content, such as a trade secret or patent.

This raises a perplexing question: how can the rapidly evolving artificial intelligence industry be harmonized with the intricate details of U.S. copyright law? This is a question that creative professionals, companies, courts, and the U.S. government are all grappling with as they navigate the complexities and nuances of AI-generated content and intellectual property laws.

Will Copyright Issues Get Tougher When Humans and AI Do The Work Together?

The issue of copyright protection for creative works resulting from collaboration between humans and machines is complex. According to the Copyright Office, if a human arranges or selects AI-generated material creatively or modifies it in a sufficiently creative way, copyright protection will only apply to the human-authored components of the work, not the AI-generated material itself. The issue of copyright protection for works created jointly by humans and machines is less clear, and registration applications must name all joint authors.

The use of generative AI for creating artistic works can also lead to copyright infringement concerns if the output shows similarities to pre-existing works on the internet. These models are often trained on existing works found online, which may lead to similarities to previous works. While there are cases where a human creatively selects or arranges AI-generated material or modifies it, resulting in copyright protection for only the human-authored aspects of the work, the situation becomes murky regarding works jointly created by humans and machines. It’s a requirement to name all joint authors, including potentially the AI, in applications for registration. It may be challenging to ascertain whether generative AI output is a derivative work or infringes upon the rights of previous authors.

Lawsuits

Getty Images has taken legal action against Stability AI, accusing the company of unlawfully copying over 12 million photos from Getty Images’ collection and utilizing them in generative AI systems without proper permission or licensing. Stability AI is not alone in facing lawsuits related to generative AI. With the launch of generative AI by numerous companies such as Microsoft, OpenAI, and GitHub, creative industries are beginning to file lawsuits over the co-opting or use of copyrighted work by AI. In addition to Getty’s case, a group of artists has also sued Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt for alleged mass copyright infringement via the use of their work in generative AI systems. These lawsuits are bringing to light the legal implications of using generative AI, which is becoming an increasingly common practice.

Legal action of collective nature was instituted against GitHub, Microsoft, and OpenAI. The motion claimed that the AI-powered coding aide GitHub Copilot infringed copyright laws by generating code derived from code licensed under open source, which is publicly accessible. Copilot provides programmers with suggestions for novel code based on their existing code in real-time. As per the legal action, Copilot’s code-generating software was trained on code that was subject to copyright, without obtaining the necessary authorization. Furthermore, the program creates new code that is akin or identical to the original work. This is the premier lawsuit to be brought involving generative AI. The case aims to attain class-action status, and if it prevails, it could potentially affect the whole AI industry and how it utilizes publicly available code for training models.

Microsoft, GitHub, and OpenAI have submitted a motion to dismiss the legal action. They argue that Copilot produces unique code and that the code generated is not merely identical copies of the data used for training.

These are some lawsuits that were filed lately involving generative AI. The resolution of the legal action and its influence on the AI industry remains unknown.

Ending Remarks

Copyright law is a fundamental aspect of protecting intellectual property and encouraging creativity. It gives creators the right to control their work’s use, distribution, and adaptation and encourages them to create more by offering them exclusive rights. Creative Commons licenses provide even more options for creators to choose the level of protection they want for their work.

As AI technology advances, it becomes increasingly involved in the creative process. With AI’s ability to generate original content and collaborate with humans, there is a growing need for a legal framework that addresses the copyright protection of collaborative works involving AI. It is crucial to strike a delicate balance between safeguarding the rights of creators and nurturing innovation and originality. It is difficult to predict the exact trajectory of copyright law as it pertains to AI-generated works. Still, it is undeniable that as AI technology becomes increasingly integrated into the creative process, the legal framework governing copyright protection will undergo significant and ongoing transformation.

 

Source: https://thedatascientist.com/the-legal-implications-of-ai-generated-content-in-copyright-law/

Anndy Lian is an early blockchain adopter and experienced serial entrepreneur who is known for his work in the government sector. He is a best selling book author- “NFT: From Zero to Hero” and “Blockchain Revolution 2030”.

Currently, he is appointed as the Chief Digital Advisor at Mongolia Productivity Organization, championing national digitization. Prior to his current appointments, he was the Chairman of BigONE Exchange, a global top 30 ranked crypto spot exchange and was also the Advisory Board Member for Hyundai DAC, the blockchain arm of South Korea’s largest car manufacturer Hyundai Motor Group. Lian played a pivotal role as the Blockchain Advisor for Asian Productivity Organisation (APO), an intergovernmental organization committed to improving productivity in the Asia-Pacific region.

An avid supporter of incubating start-ups, Anndy has also been a private investor for the past eight years. With a growth investment mindset, Anndy strategically demonstrates this in the companies he chooses to be involved with. He believes that what he is doing through blockchain technology currently will revolutionise and redefine traditional businesses. He also believes that the blockchain industry has to be “redecentralised”.

www.anndy.com
j j j

Does content moderation on platforms like OpenSea amount to censorship?

Does content moderation on platforms like OpenSea amount to censorship?

What are the responsibilities of blockchain companies when it comes to freedom of expression? A controversial cartoonist finds out the boundaries.

“I would describe myself as a transgressive artist,” the conservative cartoonist who calls himself Stonetoss, told Forkast.News. On Nov. 20, Stonetoss released 5,000 non-fungible tokens based on characters found in his work, listing them on Rarible and OpenSea NFT marketplaces. Calling his cartoon characters “Flurks,” Stonetoss said the sale was a huge success, selling out in just over 20 minutes for a total of 420 ETH worth US$1.8 million.

But hours later, both Rarible and OpenSea pulled the Flurks series from their listings without offering an explanation why, adding fuel to the debate over content moderation in the growing NFT marketplace.

Stonetoss is no stranger to controversy — he says he has received death threats in the past — which is why he only wished to be identified by his artist name. His cartoons often depict right-wing interpretations of issues regarding race, LGBT+ rights and vaccine mandates. While the Flurks themselves do not contain any explicit commentary, they do contain imagery relating to these themes, such as Confederate flags and red MAGA hats that are popular with Donald Trump supporters. Stonetoss believes his art was delisted due to the politics that he is associated with, rather than based on the actual content of his NFTs.

But is getting kicked off OpenSea and Rarible a troubling form of “censorship” and an infringement of artistic freedom, as Stonetoss says, or is it within these companies’ right to include only content that they like? With OpenSea alone controlling over 98% of the Ethereum trading volume market share, according to DuneAnalytics, do these blockchain marketplaces have a moral obligation to do more to defend freedom of expression, even if the views may be odious to a majority of its users — especially for a blockchain-powered industry that often champions decentralization as a safeguard to censorship?

Industry leaders themselves seem divided on these issues, and the extent of obligation and responsibilities of blockchain companies when it comes to freedom of expression.

“Whenever we talk about decentralization, it’s not about a cowboy town where you could just come in with anything,” Anndy Lian, founding member of NFT creative studio Influxo, told Forkast.News. “You have to follow the rules.”

Just as a physical gallery has the right to decide what art they wish to exhibit, Lian says NFT platforms are no different — and just because an expression exists as an NFT does not excuse it from the cultural consequence of its message.

“If the artist or the artwork is subjective, there is a chance that it will be removed,” Lian said. “This has nothing to do with [whether it’s an] NFT or not. This happens in the art world, in galleries too. This is surely not about decentralization and decentralization is not about just freedom.”

But others say that’s not really a choice when dealing with centralized systems like OpenSea or Rarible, when combined they effectively control the NFT marketplace — until better systems come along.

“If a company makes a decision that a user doesn’t like, they have the option to leave,” says said Corey Petty, chief security officer at decentralized messaging app and Web3.0 browser, Status, in an interview with Forkast.News. “If you don’t have that option, then companies can do whatever they want and you just can’t do anything about it. Which leads us to where we are today. [They] made a decision. What are you going to do? Leave? There are no other options.”

Stonetoss says he feels singled out by the right-wing politics usually associated with his brand rather than individual Flurks being offensive. The NFTs that got delisted from OpenSea and Rarible also contain symbols associated with the left, such as the rainbow pride flag and the communist hammer and sickle.“If I was a no-name artist, this would not have been the controversy or it would have not have received the reaction that it did,” Stonetoss said in a Zoom audio interview with Forkast.News with the camera turned off.

According to Rarible staff, the platform does not de-list items based on political affiliation. According to OpenSea’s terms of service, OpenSea will delist NFTs if they are determined to incite hate or violence against others.

“The delisting of my NFTs on Rarible and OpenSea was probably the result of a mass report because this is the technique [campaigners] have tried to use many times. The NFTs themselves, I maintain, are benign.”

But least one Twitter user spoke out about the inclusion of some of those symbols on NFTs hosted on the platforms, who said they are anything but benign: “I am losing followers for calling out a project blatantly using confederate flags in their NFTs. I am a racial minority, I grew up in the south, and my uncle was murdered because of the color of his skin.”

Another user in the same thread summarized the debate surrounding the use of the Confederate flag — which represented the slavery-defending states of America’s South, which lost the nation’s Civil War over 150 years ago but is still clung to with nostalgia by some Whites in America — by replying: “Sorry to hear this, I’m from the South and don’t know the pains of dealing with being a minority, I also know people that love the south who don’t look at the confederate flag as racist, I guess it’s hard to know people’s hearts and perspective, we can all learn and grow and show love.”

Neither OpenSea of Rarible had contacted Stonetoss to notify him of the delisting by the time he spoke with Forkast.News. At least one Flurk displayed on the homepage of Stonetoss’s website is wearing a cowboy hat and carrying a Confederate flag.

Rarible and OpenSea did not respond to Forkast.News inquiries for comment.

Will Stone decentralized Web3.0

As the world enters the realm of Web 3.0, Stonetoss’ story represents the glaring need — or cautionary tale, depending on your perspective — of how a decentralized version of the internet built around blockchain technology can dramatically change the gate-keeping powers and kind of content of public platforms.

“What we have is an emergent property of how the internet was built in the first place, that is the client-server model,” said Petty, of Status.”When you aggregate data and pool things like this, it’s inevitable that the people who are custodians of that information will take advantage of it” — including trying to control it in a way to maximize profits.

“That’s where we are today,” Petty added. “We build applications, they aggregate data. They then learn they can monetize that data; they optimize the application for monetization, not the end user.”

With a total trading volume of over US$13 billion, according to DappRadar, OpenSea might be the most important venue for digital artists to find buyers for their NFTs. Stonetoss says his delisting from the OpenSea NFT marketplace was not only a blow to him financially but also might have chilled creators of other controversial art. While Flurks holders are still able to transact peer-to-peer — his NFTs are de-listed but not deleted from the Ethereum blockchain — the infrastructure and culture is not yet available to allow the community to trade with the same ease as they would on a platform like OpenSea.

While the Flurks are not locked out of being traded — Stonetoss also sells them through his own website — OpenSea and Rarible have such an outsized influence on the market that any NFT collection that is not listed on one of these platforms is at a significant market disadvantage.

If the decision-making power to list or not list NFTs for sale were decentralized, would Stonetoss’s Flurks have suffered the same fate?

The moderating voice

In August this year, a series of 7,000 NFTs based around the popular meme Pepe the Frog — a mascot of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement in 2019 as well as a symbol championed by America’s far-right —  was removed from the OpenSea NFT marketplace after the character’s original creator filed a notice of copyright infringement with the platform.

OpenSea was quick to remove the content on copyright infringement grounds, but investors were left holding millions of dollars worth of NFTs with no significant marketplace left to trade them.

But when a collection of NFTs that look a lot like Flurks went up on OpenSea, the unauthorized copycat series remains listed on the site.

But should Stonetoss one day decide he wants to enforce his copyright, a truly decentralized platform is likely not going to act on user complaints.

“There is a long history of art that is transgressive and there should be a place for it,” Stonetoss said, admitting he would have trouble finding a physical gallery to display his work, which is why his medium has always been online.

“Those sorts of avenues are even more susceptible to people complaining about having a particular piece of art up,” Stonetoss said. “So, on the whole, I’m actually very optimistic; the whole de-listing event has been a little disappointing in that regard, but I guess it’s part of the growing pains of this sort of technology.”

Original Source: https://forkast.news/does-opensea-censor-nft-content/

Anndy Lian is an early blockchain adopter and experienced serial entrepreneur who is known for his work in the government sector. He is a best selling book author- “NFT: From Zero to Hero” and “Blockchain Revolution 2030”.

Currently, he is appointed as the Chief Digital Advisor at Mongolia Productivity Organization, championing national digitization. Prior to his current appointments, he was the Chairman of BigONE Exchange, a global top 30 ranked crypto spot exchange and was also the Advisory Board Member for Hyundai DAC, the blockchain arm of South Korea’s largest car manufacturer Hyundai Motor Group. Lian played a pivotal role as the Blockchain Advisor for Asian Productivity Organisation (APO), an intergovernmental organization committed to improving productivity in the Asia-Pacific region.

An avid supporter of incubating start-ups, Anndy has also been a private investor for the past eight years. With a growth investment mindset, Anndy strategically demonstrates this in the companies he chooses to be involved with. He believes that what he is doing through blockchain technology currently will revolutionise and redefine traditional businesses. He also believes that the blockchain industry has to be “redecentralised”.

www.anndy.com
j j j