[KnowledgePlus] Who Owns a Masterpiece Painted by an AI? | Australian Lawyer, Adrienne Park

Описание: [KnowledgePlus] Who Owns a Masterpiece Painted by an AI? | Australian Lawyer, Adrienne Park

✅ Like, Subscribe👍 Hit the bell ❤️

Today, we're talking about the AI co-author debate and what the future holds for AI copyright ownership. We're exploring this topic thanks to an article written by lawyer Adrienne Kyoungjin Park.

Ms. Park is an Australian-qualified lawyer, and she actively works as an advisor and evaluation committee member for various companies and public organizations, such as Laon Law Firm, KORAIL, and the international NGO Global Civic Sharing. We've got a really interesting story for you today, so be sure to watch!

----------------
The emergence of AI is shaking the very concept of creation, redefining what it means to be a creator.

We've seen AI evolve from a mere learning tool and data collector into something more. It can now collaborate with humans to produce original content and even engage in artistic activities based on its vast database.
This has brought us to a critical question, and it’s one we are all seeking an answer to: Can a work created by AI be recognized as intellectual property?
Under current copyright law, the title of "creator" has been reserved exclusively for humans. This principle was recently reinforced by the U.S. Copyright Office, or USCO.

In its 2023 guidelines, the USCO stated unequivocally that "works generated by AI alone are not eligible for copyright registration." This makes their position clear: without human creative involvement, a work cannot be protected by copyright.

But what happens when humans and AI collaborate to create something? In such cases, the work might be eligible for partial copyright, depending on the degree of human contribution. And to understand this better, it’s helpful to look at a key legal case involving AI.

A recent case that brought this issue into the spotlight involves author Kristina Kashtanova. In September 2022, she applied to copyright her graphic novel Zarya of the Dawn, which was created using the AI tool Midjourney. Initially, the copyright was granted for the entire work.
However, when the Copyright Office later learned that the images were AI-generated, they revisited their decision. The Office declared that because copyright protection requires clear evidence of human authorship, the AI-generated images in Zarya of the Dawn were not eligible for that protection.
This decision is grounded in current U.S. Copyright Law, which explicitly requires "human authorship."

As stated in Title 17 of the U.S. Code, copyright protection applies to "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression."
The U.S. Copyright Office further clarifies this in its official compendium, where Section 313.2 specifies which works lack human authorship:
"The Office will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author."

Based on these rules, images generated independently by AI cannot be protected. Copyright registration is only possible with clear, creative intervention from a human.

In response, Kashtanova argued that she used Midjourney simply as a tool, much like a photographer uses a camera. However, the Copyright Office rejected this argument. They concluded that the images generated by Midjourney lacked sufficient human creative input and, as a result, did not grant copyright protection for the images themselves.

This brings us to the core of the problem: can the act of "indirect creation"—using prompts to guide an AI—be enough to warrant copyright? For now, it seems the answer is no, and that recognizing it might be premature.

But it's almost certain that a time will come when these indirect creations will be legally recognized. However, we need to consider what that future means. If that day comes, it could signify that humanity has entered an era of subjugation to AI. The primary differences between humans and AI are our emotions and our unique ability to create. If our creative capacity is outsourced to AI, all that remains is human emotion.

There's no doubt that using prompts effectively to create stunning works of art requires a unique artistic talent. After all, even when using the same AI, the results vary dramatically based on how the prompts are crafted. At this point, it's worth taking a moment to reconsider the true meaning of the word "creation."