What's New

AI and the issue of human-centricity in copyright law

Relevance

• GS Paper 2 Mechanisms, laws, institutions, and Bodies constituted for the protection and betterment of these vulnerable sections.
• GS Paper 3 Indigenization of technology and developing new technology.
• GS Paper 4 laws, rules, regulations, and conscience as sources of ethical guidance.
• Tags: #AI #CopyrightLaw #IntellectualProperty #GS2 #GS3 #GS4 #UPSC

Why in the news?

• The Biden administration issued an Executive Order on October 30 related to AI. The order is titled ‘Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (AI)’. It reflects a shift in global leaders’ perspectives on AI regulation.
• Changing Attitude Towards AI Regulation: The executive order acknowledges the significance of implementing AI with necessary safeguards. The order underscores the potential far-reaching consequences of AI for humanity. The shift in regulatory approaches is viewed as a positive development.
• Whereas the conventional economic arguments for copyright and patents focus on incentivizing authors and inventors. These arguments don’t apply to AI-generated content since machines aren’t motivated by such incentives.

AI: the Ownership and enforcement

• AI and Intellectual Property (IP) Rights: Generative AI tools like ChatGPT and Midjourney have enabled individuals with limited creative skills to produce impressive outputs using text prompts. The use of these tools has raised copyright-related concerns, including the use of copyrighted materials in AI training data and copyright ownership of AI-generated content.
• US District Court Decision in Stephen Thaler vs Shira Perlmutter
  • In a notable case, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia examined whether copyright can exist for work autonomously created by AI.
  • The case involved Mr. Thaler, who claimed that his AI system, ‘Creativity Machine,’ autonomously generated a piece of visual art.
  • Thaler applied for copyright registration, listing ‘Creativity Machine’ as the author and himself as the owner.
  • The U.S. Copyright Office rejected the application, citing the absence of human authorship.
  • Thaler challenged this rejection in the District Court.
• Legal Question on Copyright for AI-Generated Work: The primary legal issue was whether a work autonomously created by an AI system could be eligible for copyright protection.
  • The court reviewed statutory provisions, case law, and theoretical justifications for copyright protection.
  • The court’s conclusion was that human creativity was a fundamental requirement for copyright protection.
• US Copyright Office’s Position on AI-Generated Work
  • In March 2023, the Copyright Office released a document titled ‘Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence.’
  • This document explicitly stated that copyright could protect only material produced through human creativity.
  • The term ‘author’ in both the Constitution and the Copyright Act was clarified as excluding nonhumans.
• Disclosure and Public Consultation:
• • • The Copyright Office also emphasized that copyright applicants must disclose the inclusion of AI-generated content in their applications.
    • Detailed guidelines on this disclosure were provided in registration forms.
    • Additionally, the Copyright Office initiated a public consultation to address copyright-related questions raised by AI.

Comparison: U.S. and India Approach to AI and Copyright

The AI case in India

Recommendations from Parliamentary Committee Report

The 161st Report of the Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce in India suggested revising the Copyright Act 1957 and Patent Act 1970 to include AI and AI-related inventions.

These recommendations include:

• Creating a separate category of copyright protection for AI-generated works: The Committee recommended that a separate category of copyright protection be created for AI-generated works. This would ensure that AI-generated works are given the same level of protection as human-created works.
• Expanding the definition of “invention” under the Patent Act to include AI-related inventions: The Committee also recommended that the definition of “invention” under the Patent Act be expanded to include AI-related inventions. This would make it clear that AI-related inventions can be patented in India.
• Providing clear guidelines on the patentability of AI-related inventions: The Committee also recommended that the government provide clear guidelines on the patentability of AI-related inventions. This would help to reduce uncertainty and promote innovation in the field of AI.
• The recommendations aimed to potentially relax copyright and patent standards, but they lacked a comprehensive study of AI’s IP-related challenges and impact on the Indian startup ecosystem.

Cautious Approach to Extending Intellectual Property Protections

• Extending traditional IP protections to AI-generated work raises concerns due to AI’s autonomous nature.
• Conventional economic incentives for authors and inventors through copyright and patents may not apply to AI-generated content.
• Policymakers and courts in both the U.S. and India should adopt a cautious approach to maintain human-centricity in copyright law.
• A careful balance is needed to ensure that IP protections suit the evolving landscape of AI innovation and its implications on society.

Source: The Hindu

Mains question

Critically analyze the implications of registering AI as a co-author on copyright protection. Discuss the challenges and potential consequences for the intellectual property landscape.