Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Copyright law has long struggled to keep pace with advances in technology, and the debate around the copyrightability of AI-assisted works is no exception. At issue is the human authorship requirement: the principle that a work must have a human author to be eligible for copyright protection. While the Copyright Office has previously cited this "bedrock requirement of copyright" to reject registrations of a "monkey selfie" (Naruto v. Slater) and a work purportedly authored by "celestial beings and transcribed … by mere mortals" (Urantia Foundation v. Kristen Maaherra), recent decisions have focused on the role of human authorship in the context of artificial intelligence (AI).
The Office first tackled the registrability of AI-assisted works in its Kashtanova decision, canceling a previously issued registration of a graphic novel titled Zarya of the Dawn when it learned that the images in the novel were generated using Midjourney, an AI tool that creates images in response to user prompts. Kashtanova detailed to the Office her "creative, iterative process" for generating the images, including "multiple rounds of composition, selection, arrangement, cropping, and editing for each image in the Work." The Office determined, however, that while Kashtanova's textual authorship and selection, coordination, and arrangement of the novel's written and visual elements were eligible for protection, the images themselves were not the product of human authorship and therefore not copyrightable.
In March 2023, the Office issued guidance consistent with its Kashtanova decision, addressing the copyrightability of works containing AI-generated material. While the guidance contemplates that some such works could be copyrightable, it did not provide any examples of what contributions a user of an AI system would need to make to satisfy the human authorship requirement. Rather, the Office broadly stated that it will consider, on a case-by-case basis, "whether the AI contributions are the result of 'mechanical reproduction' or instead the author's 'own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible form.'" Where the user merely inputs a prompt, and the AI technology "produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response," the Office considers that the "traditional elements of authorship" are produced by a machine and therefore not the work of a human author.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
A novel legal self-help technique to secure artificial intelligence data and programs is known as Poisoning AI. This technique involves modifying the AI algorithm to intentionally produce specific erroneous results.
In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed the issue of whether purchasing market competitors’ search engine keyword terms, known as “conquesting,” constitutes trademark infringement.
The DOJ has proposed a rule that would regulate certain transactions involving bulk sensitive personal data. The rule would implement a complex regulatory framework, with civil and criminal enforcement, that is similar to sanctions and export licensing regimes. It also implicates federal cybersecurity requirements, government contracting and CFIUS actions.
The legal industry is at an inflection point, grappling with challenges that range from rising client demands to technological disruption. There are five critical areas where firms can take a proactive, strategic approach, including actionable insights and recommendations for navigating 2025 and beyond.
The Second Circuit’s decision is notable in that it signals a reversal of the recent trend of dismissals of VPPA claims in courts across the country and could trigger a significant increase in VPPA lawsuits. Although organizations have grappled with VPPA claims for several years, this decision is another red flag to organizations to take immediate steps and ensure compliance with privacy laws to mitigate the risks of VPPA claims.