Can AI Be an Artist? Decoding the Legal Challenges of Machine-Made Creativity
Did you know an AI generated art in 2018 was sold for nearly half a million
dollar? Shocking, right? A piece of art which is not even created by a human
hand but by an AI (a computer-generated software) was sold for $432,500 at an
auction which was once presumed to be sold between $7000-$10000.[1] The Paris
based art collector, Obvious Art, created a portrait of "Edmond de Belamy" by
using a computer and algorithm that analyzed over 15000 human made paintings
from between 14th-20th century and created its own. But the burning question
comes- who created this painting, who has the right over this painting- the AI
itself, the engineers who designed it or the art collector who purchased it.
In this article, we will explore the exciting world of AI generated art and music. We will look at the advance technology behind this creation and some tricky legal questions about who actually owns them. How is AI changing the way we think about creativity? Can we ever call AI the real artist? And most importantly, who will get the credit or the money when the machines made something new? Join us as we discover how AI might change the future of art, music and copyright laws.
In the upcoming years, as the use of AI has grown up, chances of taking of AI over creative field have also grown. Have you ever wondered the image you are seeing, the text you are reading and the music you are listening to might be made or generated through an AI rather by a human? Interesting, right! Let me explain you with an easy example, In April last year, ghostwriter977, a TikTok user wrote and produced a song called "Heart on my sleeve". It sounded just like the Canadian rapper "Drake" and the singer-songwriter "The Weekend".
The song went viral, racking up 15 million views on TikTok and hundred of thousands of views on Spotify and YouTube.[2] But neither "Drake" nor "The Weekend" had a clue about the song. They hadn't sung a single line. Their vocals were generated by AI and this system has moved from synthesizing sounds to generating singing voices.
Current Legal Framework
If you are little bit curious about the technology of AI then you might be thinking that if an AI had created a song, then who has the right on that song. In simple words, who can claim the right over that particular song. So, lets start from the very basic, what does the copyright means which is one of the most popular and important legal frameworks.
In simple terms, copyright is a legal right given to creators for their original work whether it's fiction, non-fiction, music, art or even computer software. It grants the creator control over how their work is copied and shared. Essentially, the creator has the exclusive right to decide who can reproduce their work.[3]
To claim copyright, your creation must exist in a physical form, which means the song, article, novel or whatever you've created needs to be 'tangible' (something you can touch, see or hear in a recorded or written format. You might wonder, what about intangible ideas, speeches or discoveries? Well, that's where other legal protection comes in, like patents and trademarks.
But here's where things get tricky: copyright laws aren't always so straightforward. What happens when the creator isn't human? One famous case that really puzzled the legal system was the 'Monkey Selfie Case', where a monkey accidently took a selfie and the court had to figure out who owned the rights to the photo.[4] Similarly, when it comes to AI generated works, the law is still catching up.
So, while copyright laws protect human creators, the rise of non-human creators like AI presents new legal challenges that we are just beginning to grapple with.
Every country has different laws regarding it like US, India and many other countries say that the machine generated or non-human content does not have any right as they are not made by the humans whereas in the EU, as in many other areas, copyright law still requires human authorship, meaning that only works created by AI are not eligible for copyright protection.
One of the most popular cases about the question "who owns the creation" is Obvious Art Collective v. AI Ownership Debate. In this case as you have already read in short in the introduction that a portrait of "Edmond de Belamy" which was created by AI sold for $432,500 which was initially presumed to be sold for $7000-$10,000. The AI used a machine learning algorithm, specifically a generative adversarial network (GAN), which was trained on a dataset of 15,000 images from the 14th to the 20th centuries.
The painting became the first AI-generated art to be sold at such a prestigious auction, raising significant legal and ethical questions:
Another significant challenge is the issue of originality.[6] Copyright laws protect original works, but AI generated content is typically created by analysing vast amount of pre-existing human made data. This can make it difficult to determine whether AI works qualify as "original" under legal standards or if they merely derivative of the inputs used to train the algorithm. This ambiguity makes it harder for the creators and owners to claim the ownership.
Additionally, since AI relies on datasets that often include copyrighted material, there is a risk of infringement. AI tools may inadvertently generate content that resembles or replicates existing copyrighted works, leading to potential legal disputes. This creates a difficult situation for AI developers and users, as they must ensure that AI-generated content does not infringe on the rights of others.
Furthermore, as AI technology continues to advance, there is no clear framework for handling disputes over works generated by AI, leaving courts and lawmakers grappling with how to address ownership and protection. These challenges highlight the need for updated laws that take into account the unique nature of AI-generated content while balancing the rights of creators, developers, and the public.
Global Approaches and Landmark Cases
Countries around the world are grappling with how to address the legal complexities associated with works created by AI, with each taking different approaches. In the United States, copyright law strongly mandates human authorship, meaning that works created solely by AI are not eligible for copyright protection. However, if a human makes a substantial contribution to the creative process, such works may be eligible for protection. The European Union, on the other hand, is exploring whether works created by AI should receive limited copyright protection, especially as AI continues to evolve and becoming more autonomous in the creative process.
An important case parallel to the debate over AI authorship is the Naruto v. Slater case, commonly known as the "monkey selfie" case.[7] Although it did not involve AI, it raised fundamental questions about non-human authorship. In this case, a monkey took a selfie using a photographer's camera, leading to a legal dispute over whether the animal could hold copyright. The court ruled that copyright law only applies to human creators, reinforcing the notion that non-human entities, whether animals or AI, cannot claim intellectual property rights.
China, a leader in AI innovation, is considering legal frameworks that could provide partial copyright protection for AI-generated works, reflecting the country's forward-looking approach to technological advancement. As nations continue to grapple with these questions, landmark cases and evolving legal frameworks will play a key role in shaping the future of intellectual property in the age of artificial intelligence.
The Feilin v. Baidu Case (2020)[8]
The Feilin v. Baidu case in China became a notable event in the legal discussion surrounding AI-generated content, although it was not a formal court case in the traditional sense. In 2017, Baidu, a major Chinese technology company, created a poem called "The Spring" using its AI system called Xiaobing. This AI-created poem attracted public attention and raised the question of whether works created by AI could be eligible for copyright protection under existing laws.
Baidu's AI, Xiaobing, had learned by analyzing thousands of human-generated poems and then composed its own. When this work was published, it raised the important issue of authorship: could an AI system be recognized as the author of a creative work? The poem triggered debate over the limits of creativity and originality, specifically whether content created by AI could be considered "original" under intellectual property law, and whether copyright law could protect such works.
Although the poem did not spark any direct legal disputes, it prompted widespread discussion in China about whether the law should be developed to take into account AI's role in creative industries. Chinese officials and lawmakers began to consider whether works produced by AI deserve partial copyright protection. The Feilin v. Baidu case played a key role in ultimately opening up the conversation about AI's place in intellectual property law, and China has since been exploring frameworks that could adapt copyright laws to the age of AI.
The case reflected the global struggle to keep pace with technological advancements and their impact on traditional legal concepts of authorship and ownership.
The Way Forward: Potential Solutions
The rapid advancement of AI in creative fields presents unique challenges for intellectual property laws, particularly those related to ownership and authorship. To address these issues, several potential solutions can be considered to strike a balance between innovation and legal protection.
Conclusion
As AI continues to reshape the creative industries, it presents both exciting opportunities and complex legal challenges. The question of who owns art and music produced by AI remains unresolved, as current copyright laws are unable to fully address AI's unique role in the creative process. With differing global perspectives and landmark cases fuelling further debate, the need for updated legal frameworks is more urgent than ever. As we move forward, striking a balance between innovation and intellectual property rights will be crucial to ensure that both human creators and AI-powered works are appropriately recognised and protected in this evolving landscape.
End-Notes:
In this article, we will explore the exciting world of AI generated art and music. We will look at the advance technology behind this creation and some tricky legal questions about who actually owns them. How is AI changing the way we think about creativity? Can we ever call AI the real artist? And most importantly, who will get the credit or the money when the machines made something new? Join us as we discover how AI might change the future of art, music and copyright laws.
The Rise of AI in Creative Fields
In recent years, the use of AI has become popular in almost every industry whether it's for data analysis industry or the designing industry. Nowadays, people use AI for better ideas, and it's become very easy. You just have to put a command also known as Prompt in the AI generative tool and within one click you will get the output and more interestingly if you don't like the output then you can easily give a command to rephrase it. There is many generative AI namely, Midjourney, DALL-E, Chat GPT, Deepseek, etc and do you know what's common between them? They generate the output on the basis of input given.In the upcoming years, as the use of AI has grown up, chances of taking of AI over creative field have also grown. Have you ever wondered the image you are seeing, the text you are reading and the music you are listening to might be made or generated through an AI rather by a human? Interesting, right! Let me explain you with an easy example, In April last year, ghostwriter977, a TikTok user wrote and produced a song called "Heart on my sleeve". It sounded just like the Canadian rapper "Drake" and the singer-songwriter "The Weekend".
The song went viral, racking up 15 million views on TikTok and hundred of thousands of views on Spotify and YouTube.[2] But neither "Drake" nor "The Weekend" had a clue about the song. They hadn't sung a single line. Their vocals were generated by AI and this system has moved from synthesizing sounds to generating singing voices.
Current Legal Framework
If you are little bit curious about the technology of AI then you might be thinking that if an AI had created a song, then who has the right on that song. In simple words, who can claim the right over that particular song. So, lets start from the very basic, what does the copyright means which is one of the most popular and important legal frameworks.
In simple terms, copyright is a legal right given to creators for their original work whether it's fiction, non-fiction, music, art or even computer software. It grants the creator control over how their work is copied and shared. Essentially, the creator has the exclusive right to decide who can reproduce their work.[3]
To claim copyright, your creation must exist in a physical form, which means the song, article, novel or whatever you've created needs to be 'tangible' (something you can touch, see or hear in a recorded or written format. You might wonder, what about intangible ideas, speeches or discoveries? Well, that's where other legal protection comes in, like patents and trademarks.
But here's where things get tricky: copyright laws aren't always so straightforward. What happens when the creator isn't human? One famous case that really puzzled the legal system was the 'Monkey Selfie Case', where a monkey accidently took a selfie and the court had to figure out who owned the rights to the photo.[4] Similarly, when it comes to AI generated works, the law is still catching up.
So, while copyright laws protect human creators, the rise of non-human creators like AI presents new legal challenges that we are just beginning to grapple with.
Who Owns the Creation?
The question of ownership in AI generated content is complex and an ongoing debate. Since the content made by AI is based on algorithm and data provided to it, the question remains unanswered that who owned the right to the final product, whether the AI itself has the right, the developers who created the AI has the right or the one who has given the command has the right. However, this raises new challenges in intellectual property law, as traditional copyright principles struggle to define ownership when a machine plays such a significant role in creative process.Every country has different laws regarding it like US, India and many other countries say that the machine generated or non-human content does not have any right as they are not made by the humans whereas in the EU, as in many other areas, copyright law still requires human authorship, meaning that only works created by AI are not eligible for copyright protection.
One of the most popular cases about the question "who owns the creation" is Obvious Art Collective v. AI Ownership Debate. In this case as you have already read in short in the introduction that a portrait of "Edmond de Belamy" which was created by AI sold for $432,500 which was initially presumed to be sold for $7000-$10,000. The AI used a machine learning algorithm, specifically a generative adversarial network (GAN), which was trained on a dataset of 15,000 images from the 14th to the 20th centuries.
The painting became the first AI-generated art to be sold at such a prestigious auction, raising significant legal and ethical questions:
- Who owns the creation and intellectual property rights of the AI generated art?
- Should the creators of the AI algorithm, the art collective (Obvious), or the AI itself hold the rights to the creation?
Challenges in Protecting AI-Generated Works
The rise of AI generated art and music has brought new challenges in form of legal protection and intellectual property rights. One of the primary hurdles is that existing copyright laws were created to protect human creators, but not machines. Under current regulations, only human beings are recognized as the authors of creative work. This raises the question, how can AI generated content be protected if the law doesn't recognize the AI itself as the creator?Another significant challenge is the issue of originality.[6] Copyright laws protect original works, but AI generated content is typically created by analysing vast amount of pre-existing human made data. This can make it difficult to determine whether AI works qualify as "original" under legal standards or if they merely derivative of the inputs used to train the algorithm. This ambiguity makes it harder for the creators and owners to claim the ownership.
Additionally, since AI relies on datasets that often include copyrighted material, there is a risk of infringement. AI tools may inadvertently generate content that resembles or replicates existing copyrighted works, leading to potential legal disputes. This creates a difficult situation for AI developers and users, as they must ensure that AI-generated content does not infringe on the rights of others.
Furthermore, as AI technology continues to advance, there is no clear framework for handling disputes over works generated by AI, leaving courts and lawmakers grappling with how to address ownership and protection. These challenges highlight the need for updated laws that take into account the unique nature of AI-generated content while balancing the rights of creators, developers, and the public.
Global Approaches and Landmark Cases
Countries around the world are grappling with how to address the legal complexities associated with works created by AI, with each taking different approaches. In the United States, copyright law strongly mandates human authorship, meaning that works created solely by AI are not eligible for copyright protection. However, if a human makes a substantial contribution to the creative process, such works may be eligible for protection. The European Union, on the other hand, is exploring whether works created by AI should receive limited copyright protection, especially as AI continues to evolve and becoming more autonomous in the creative process.
An important case parallel to the debate over AI authorship is the Naruto v. Slater case, commonly known as the "monkey selfie" case.[7] Although it did not involve AI, it raised fundamental questions about non-human authorship. In this case, a monkey took a selfie using a photographer's camera, leading to a legal dispute over whether the animal could hold copyright. The court ruled that copyright law only applies to human creators, reinforcing the notion that non-human entities, whether animals or AI, cannot claim intellectual property rights.
China, a leader in AI innovation, is considering legal frameworks that could provide partial copyright protection for AI-generated works, reflecting the country's forward-looking approach to technological advancement. As nations continue to grapple with these questions, landmark cases and evolving legal frameworks will play a key role in shaping the future of intellectual property in the age of artificial intelligence.
The Feilin v. Baidu Case (2020)[8]
The Feilin v. Baidu case in China became a notable event in the legal discussion surrounding AI-generated content, although it was not a formal court case in the traditional sense. In 2017, Baidu, a major Chinese technology company, created a poem called "The Spring" using its AI system called Xiaobing. This AI-created poem attracted public attention and raised the question of whether works created by AI could be eligible for copyright protection under existing laws.
Baidu's AI, Xiaobing, had learned by analyzing thousands of human-generated poems and then composed its own. When this work was published, it raised the important issue of authorship: could an AI system be recognized as the author of a creative work? The poem triggered debate over the limits of creativity and originality, specifically whether content created by AI could be considered "original" under intellectual property law, and whether copyright law could protect such works.
Although the poem did not spark any direct legal disputes, it prompted widespread discussion in China about whether the law should be developed to take into account AI's role in creative industries. Chinese officials and lawmakers began to consider whether works produced by AI deserve partial copyright protection. The Feilin v. Baidu case played a key role in ultimately opening up the conversation about AI's place in intellectual property law, and China has since been exploring frameworks that could adapt copyright laws to the age of AI.
The case reflected the global struggle to keep pace with technological advancements and their impact on traditional legal concepts of authorship and ownership.
The Way Forward: Potential Solutions
The rapid advancement of AI in creative fields presents unique challenges for intellectual property laws, particularly those related to ownership and authorship. To address these issues, several potential solutions can be considered to strike a balance between innovation and legal protection.
- Updated copyright laws: One of the most practical solutions is to update the existing copyright framework to explicitly address AI-generated works. This could include granting limited copyright to the person or entity responsible for creating or training the AI, not the AI itself. Legislators could also define specific criteria for originality and authorship in cases where AI makes a significant contribution to a creative work.
- Co-ownership model: Another approach could be to introduce a co-ownership model, where both the human (engineer, artist, or programmer) and the AI tool share authorship rights. This would acknowledge human input as well as recognize the significant contribution of AI to the creative process.
- Licensing model: Introducing a licensing system for AI-generated content could also be a viable solution. In this model, the developer of an AI tool could license the technology to users, giving them rights over any output produced by the AI. This would ensure that the creators of the tool retain control over how their AI is used commercially, while users still get the freedom to use AI-generated content.
- Moral and ethical guidelines: Beyond legal frameworks, ethical guidelines need to be established to ensure fairness, especially in creative industries. The rights of human creators should be protected to avoid unfair competition between AI and human artists, while AI-generated work should be transparent at its core to avoid misrepresentation.
Conclusion
As AI continues to reshape the creative industries, it presents both exciting opportunities and complex legal challenges. The question of who owns art and music produced by AI remains unresolved, as current copyright laws are unable to fully address AI's unique role in the creative process. With differing global perspectives and landmark cases fuelling further debate, the need for updated legal frameworks is more urgent than ever. As we move forward, striking a balance between innovation and intellectual property rights will be crucial to ensure that both human creators and AI-powered works are appropriately recognised and protected in this evolving landscape.
End-Notes:
- A portrait created by AI just sold for $432,000. But is it really art? | Painting | The Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com
- Ghostwriter: 'Heart on My Sleeve' Artist Talks Drake AI, Grammy Drama
- What is copyright - iPleaders - https://www.ipleaders.in/what-is-copyright
- Naruto v. Slater, No. 16-15469 (9th Cir. 2018) :: Justia - https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/16-15469/16-15469-2018-04-23.html
- The Debate Over AI-Generated Art and Authentic Creativity | by Effie Liouta | Bootcamp | Medium - https://medium.com/bootcamp/the-debate-over-ai-generated-art-and-authentic-creativity-123456789
- Impact Of Artificial Intelligence on Copyright Law: Challenges and Prospects - ResearchGate - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377334695_Impact_Of_Artificial_Intelligence_on_Copyright_Law_Challenges_and_Prospects
- Naruto v. Slater, Case No. 15-cv-04324-WHO | Casetext Search + Citator - https://casetext.com/case/naruto-v-slater-2
- [The IPKat] Feilin v. Baidu: Beijing Internet Court tackles protection of AI/software-generated work and holds that copyright only vests in works by human authors - https://ipkitten.blogspot.com
Share this Article
Popular Articles
How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi
How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...
Increased Age For Girls Marriage
It is hoped that the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which intends to inc...
Facade of Social Media
One may very easily get absorbed in the lives of others as one scrolls through a Facebook news ...
Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...
The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of t...
Comments