Generative AI – Intellectual property cases and policy tracker

Summary

A number of music publishers (comprising Concord, Universal and ABKCO) brought an action against Anthropic in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee Nashville Division (the case has been ordered to be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California). The complaint has been brought in order to "address the systematic and widespread infringement of their copyrighted song lyrics" alleged to have taken place during the process of Anthropic building and operating its AI models referred to as 'Claude'.  In particular, the complaint notes that when a user prompts Claude to provide the lyrics to a particular song, its response will provide responses that contain all or significant portions of those lyrics. Further, when Clause is requested to write a song about a certain topic, the complaint alleges that this can involve reproduction of the publishers' copyrighted lyrics – for example, when asked to write a song "about the death of Buddy Holly", it responded by generating output that copies directly from the song "American Pie".

The complaint contains claims relating to direct copyright infringement, contributory infringement, vicarious infringement, and DCMA claims (removal of copyright management information).   

In its response to the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, Anthropic argues that the Plaintiffs devised 'special attacks' in order to evade Claude's built-in guardrails and to generate alleged infringements through 'trial and error'.  It also relies upon the use of copyrighted material as inputs as 'fair use'.

Impact

This was the first case involving the music industry, and also the AI tool developer Anthropic. There are a number of websites which currently aggregate and publish music lyrics – however, this is through an existing licensing market by which the publishers license their copyrighted lyrics.

Summary

This complaint, which has been brought by two news organisations in the US District Court Southern District of New York, is unusual because it does not include claims for copyright infringement. Instead, it alleges violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in that thousands of the Plaintiffs' works were included in training sets with the author, title, and copyright infringement removed.

Impact

Presumably, copyright infringement claims have not been included, because the works in question are perhaps not registered.

Summary

In May 2020, Thomson Reuters and West Publishing Corporation (the Plaintiffs) filed a claim for copyright infringement against ROSS Intelligence Inc. (ROSS). In their claim, the Plaintiffs allege that ROSS “illicitly and surreptitiously” used a third-party Westlaw licensee, LegalEase Solutions which in turn, hired a subcontractor, Morae Global to access and copy the Plaintiffs’ proprietary content on the Westlaw database. It is alleged that ROSS used the content to train its machine learning model to create a competing product.

The Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and damages that they have suffered as a result of ROSS’ direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringement and intentional and tortious interference with contractual relations.

In the Memorandum Opinion issued in September 2023, Judge Stephanos Bibas denied the Platintiffs and ROSS's cross-motions for summary judgment finding that only a jury can evaluate the four factors required for the fair-use defence to copyright infringement. These four factors are: (1) the purpose and character of the use, (2) the nature of the copyrighted work, (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for the copyrighted work. 

Impact

If this goes to trial, the case will be one of the first to test whether copyright owners can prevent businesses using copyrighted works for the purpose of training machine learning models for AI tools.

Summary

This case concerns whether copyright can be registered in a creative work made by artificial intelligence – specifically a piece called 'A Recent Entrance to Paradise' which was created autonomously by an AI tool (the AI tool, Creativity Machine, was created by Dr Thaler who listed the system as the work's creator and himself as the 'Copyright Claimant' as 'a work-for-hire to the owner of the Creativity Machine').

The work was denied registration by the US Copyright Office on the basis there was no human author to support a claim to copyright registration. The proceedings in the US District Court for the District of Columbia seek to overturn the USCO refusal to register. The case was therefore a judicial review hearing of the Copyright Office's decision as a final agency decision.

Following cross motions for summary judgment, on 18 August 2023, Judge Beryl A. Howell issued an Order (and accompanying Memorandum Opinion) dismissing the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment.

The Judge concluded that the Registrar had not acted arbitrarily or capriciously in reaching its conclusion that the copyright registration should be denied.    

Dr Thaler has filed a Notice of Appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The US Copyright Office has filed its Reply Brief in which it asserts that human authorship is a basic requisite to obtain copyright protection, based on a straightforward application of the statutory text, history and precedent.  The Brief argues that the Copyright Act's plain text and structure establish a human authorship requirement. In terms of precedent, since the 19th century, the Supreme Court has recognised human creativity as the touchstone of authorship. It further argues that Dr Thaler has offered no sound reason to depart from these 'bedrock principles'.

Impact

Unusually, the question here was purely a legal one: are AI-generated works (created autonomously without any human input) copyrightable?

Thaler's argument is that AI generated works deserve copyright protection as a matter of policy. The Judge said that "copyright has never stretched so far, however, as to protect works generated by new forms of technology absent any guiding human hand … human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright".

The position on whether content created by AI generators is protectable differs from country to country (as noted below re the position in the UK as compared to the US). We have written about this here. 

See below also for the US Copyright Office Statement of practice in relation to works containing material generated by AI, which is to the effect that only the human created parts of a generative AI work are protected by copyright.

It appears that in presenting argument to the Court, the Plaintiff implied a level of human involvement in the creation of the work, that was not in accordance with the administrative record before the Copyright Office which was to the effect that the work had been generated by the AI system autonomously and that he had played no role in its creation.

Summary

As part of its study of the copyright law and policy issues raised by AI systems, the USCO sought written comments from stakeholders on a number of questions. It had received over 10,000 comments by December 2023. The questions cover the following areas:

1. The use of copyrighted works to train AI models – the USCO notes that there is disagreement about whether or when the use of copyrighted works to develop datasets is infringing. It therefore seeks information about the collection and curation of AI datasets, how they are used to train AI models, the sources of materials and whether permission by / compensation for copyright owners should be required.
2. The copyrightability of material generated using AI systems – the USCO seeks comment on the proper scope of copyright protection for material created using generative AI. It believes that the law in the US is clear that protection is limited to works of human authorship but notes that there are questions over where and how to draw the line between human creation and AI-generated content. For example, a human's use of a generative AI tool could include sufficient control over the technology – e.g., through selection of training materials, and multiple iterations of prompts – to potentially result in output that is human-authored. The USCO notes that it is working separately to update its registration guidance on works that include AI-generated materials.
3. Potential liability for infringing works generated using AI systems – the USCO is interested to hear how copyright liability principles could apply to material created by generative AI systems.  For example, if an output is found to be substantially similar to a copyrighted work that was part of the training dataset, and the use does not qualify as fair use, how should liability be apportioned between the user and the developer?
4. Issues related to copyright – lastly, as a related issue, the USCO is also interested to hear about issues relating to AI-generated materials that feature the names of likeness, including vocal likeness, of a particular person; and also in relation to AI systems that produce visual works 'in the style' of a specific artist.

In July 2024, the USCO published Part 1 of its Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, focusing on Digital Replicas (also called 'deepfakes').  Based on the input received, the USCO has concluded that a new federal law is needed to deal with unauthorised digital replicas, as existing laws do not provide sufficient legal redress. This would cover all individuals, not just celebrities. However, whilst the paper also notes that creators have concerns over AI outputs that deliberately imitate an artist's style, it does not recommend including style in the coverage of the new legislation at this time.    

Separately, a No Fakes Bill (Nurture Originals, Foster Art and Keep Entertainment Safe Bill) has also been proposed in the US Senate. The No Fakes Bill also proposes to enact federal protection for the voice and visual likeness of individuals. The Bill is endorsed by a number of associations representing performers and rights holders, and from within the creative community.

Impact

The issues raised in the Notice are wide-ranging and some are before the Courts for determination. One key issue to resolve is whether the use of AI in generating works could be regarded as akin to a tool like a typewriter in creating a manuscript. Using a typewriter does not result in the manuscript being uncopyrightable in the same way as using Photoshop does not result in a photo taken by a photographer being uncopyrightable. This is the approach that GitHub takes in respect of its Copilot service (for example) where it notes that "Copilot is a tool, like a compiler or pen" and, as a result, its position is that the code produced from GitHub Copilot's should belong to the individual who used the tool. However, again, the legal position as to authorship/ownership is not so clear-cut. Whilst GitHub has no interest in owning Copilot-generated source code that is incorporated into a developer's works, it's not clear whether the terms in Copilot's terms of use effectively assign IP rights to the developer. It is also not clear whether there could be any instances where the use of extensive and carefully worded prompts could ever result in someone being able to claim copyright in the material generated by an AI tool by claiming that the author has ultimate creative control over the work. The USCO had previously considered this in its Statement of Practice. These are just a few issues on which clarity is needed.

Summary

Introduced by Democratic Representative Adam Schiff, The Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act would require a notice to be submitted to the Register of Copyrights prior to a new generative AI system being released, providing information on all copyrighted works used in building or altering the training dataset. It would also apply retroactively to existing genAI systems.

Impact

The Bill has attracted widespread support from across the creative community including from industry associations and Unions such as the Recording Industry Association of America, Copyright Clearance Center, Directors Guild of America, Authors Guild, National Association of Voice Actors, Concept Art Association, Professional Photographers of America, Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, Writers Guild of America West, Writers Guild of America East, American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, American Society for Collective Rights Licensing, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Society of Composers and Lyricists, National Music Publishers Association, Recording Academy, Nashville Songwriters Association International, Songwriters of North America, Black Music Action Coalition, Music Artist Coalition, Human Artistry Campaign, and the American Association of Independent Music.

Summary

In 2021, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) consulted on potential changes to the UK's IP framework as a result of AI developments (importantly, this was before the increased levels of interest following the launch of ChatGPT etc).

In particular, a number of policy options were considered relating to the making of copies for the purposes of text and data mining (TDM), a crucial tool in the development and training of AI tools. Currently, an exception is in place under UK copyright law to allow copying for the purposes of TDM, but only where it is for the purpose of non-commercial research, and only where the researcher has lawful access to the works.

Alongside retaining the current exception, or simply improving the licensing environment for relevant works, the consultation sought views on three alternative options:

• Extend the TDM exception to cover commercial research.  
• Adopt a TDM exception for any use, with a right-holder opt-out – modelled on the recent TDM exception introduced in the EU. This would provide rights holders with the right to opt-out individual works, sets of works, or all of their works if they do not want them to be mined.
• Adopt a TDM exception for any use, with no right-holder opt-out – similar to an exception in Japan for information analysis, and also in Singapore.

In June 2022, the UKIPO published the then Government’s response to the consultation, which was in favour of the widest and most liberal of the options under discussion, i.e., a TDM exception for any use, with no right-holder opt-out. Specifically, it was noted that the widening of the exception would ensure that the UK's copyright laws were "among the most innovation-friendly in the world", allowing "all users of data mining technology [to] benefit, with rights holders having safeguards to protect their content". The main safeguard identified for rights holders was the requirement for lawful access.

Following widespread criticism, however, in particular relating to concerns from the creative industries, the then Minister for Science, Research and Innovation confirmed in February 2023 that the proposals would not proceed.

However, following the Sir Patrick Vallance Pro-Innovation Regulation of Technologies Review on Digital Technologies, which called upon the Government to announce a clear policy position, the Conservative Government's response confirmed that it had asked the UKIPO to produce a code of practice. The code of practice was intended to provide balanced and pragmatic guidance to AI firms to access copyright-protected works as an input to their models, whilst ensuring protections are in place on generated outputs to support right holders such as labelling. The Government suggested that an AI firm that committed to the code of practice could expect to have a reasonable licence offered by a rights holder. If a code of practice could not be agreed or adopted, however, legislation may have to be implemented.

In an interim report on governance of AI by the House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee (dated 31 August 2023), 'the Intellectual Property and Copyright Challenge' was identified as one of the 12 challenges of AI governance. Representatives of the creative industries reported to the Committee that they hoped to reach a mutually beneficial solution with the AI sector, potentially in the form of a licensing framework. Meanwhile, in its report on Connected tech: AI and creative technology (dated 30 August 2023), the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee welcomed the former Government's rowing back from a broad TDM exception, suggesting that it should proactively support small AI developers, in particular, who may find it difficult to acquire licences, by considering how licensing schemes can be introduced for technical material and how mutually beneficial arrangements can be agreed with rights management organisations and creative industry bodies. Further, it stressed to the Government that it "must work to regain the trust of the creative industries following its abortive attempt to introduce a broad text and data mining exception".

In its response to the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee's report on AI and the creative industries, the former Government confirmed that it was not proceeding with a wide text and data mining exception and reiterated its commitment to developing a code of practice to "enable the AI and creative sectors to grow in partnership". 

In the report of the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee on 'Large Language Models and Generative AI' (published 2 February 2024), the Committee noted that the voluntary IPO-led process was welcome and valuable but that debate could not continue indefinitely, and if process remained unresolved by Spring 2024, the Government must set out options and prepare to resolve the dispute definitively, including legislative change if necessary. However, following reports in The Financial Times that the code of practice had been shelved, this was confirmed by the Government in its response to the AI White Paper consultation published on 6 February. 

Impact

Following the change of Government, monitor closely for the new Government's proposals in relation to AI, both generally and in relation to the treatment of copyright works. Whilst the King's Speech made reference to the Government intending to "…seek to establish the appropriate legislation to place requirements on those working to develop the most powerful artificial intelligence models", no further information has yet been provided. Given the reference to 'appropriate legislation', we anticipate that there will be further consideration of this issue, including we assume consultation with relevant stakeholders. 

Summary

In contrast to the approach adopted in most other countries, copyright is available in the UK to protect computer-generated works (CGWs) where there is no human creator. The author of such a work is deemed to be the person by whom the necessary arrangements for the creation of the work were undertaken, and protection lasts for 50 years from the date when the work was made.

How this applies in relation to content created with generative AI is currently untested in the UK.  In its consultation in 2021, the Government sought to understand whether the current law strikes the right balance in terms of incentivising and rewarding investment in AI creativity. 

Some have criticised the UK provision for being unclear and contradictory – a work, including a CGW, must be original to be protected by copyright, but the test for originality is defined by reference to human authors, and by reference to human traits such as whether it reflects their 'free and expressive choices' and whether it contains their 'stamp of personality'. 

From an economic perspective, meanwhile, it has been argued that providing copyright protection for CGWs is excessive because the incentive argument for copyright does not apply to computers. Further, some argue from a philosophical viewpoint that copyright should be available to protect only human creations, and that granting protection for CGWs devalues the worth of human creativity.

The consultation proposed the following three policy options, with the Government ultimately deciding to adopt the first option of making no change to the existing law at present:

• Retain the current scheme of protection for CGWs
• Remove protection for CGWs
• Introduce a new right of protection for CGWs, with a reduced scope and duration

Impact

Having consulted, the Government decided to make no changes to the law providing copyright protection for CGWs where there is no human author, but said that this was an area that it would keep under review. In particular, it noted that the use of AI in the creation of these works was still in its infancy, and therefore the impact of the law, and any changes to it, could not yet be fully evaluated.

In view of recent developments, it is clear that this policy approach may need to be revisited sooner rather than later.

We discussed this and the comparison with the approach in the US in our article here (and see further below).

Summary

On 12 July 2024, the EU AI Act was published in the Official Journal of the EU. Now that it has been published, the compliance deadlines can be calculated as set out below.

In relation to copyright, the Act contains provisions relating to obligations on general-purpose AI systems around compliance with EU copyright law (including relating to text and data mining and opt-outs under the EU Digital Single Market Copyright Directive) and transparency around content used to train such models (in the form of sufficiently detailed summaries, which will be by reference to a form template to be published by the proposed AI Office). There is also a requirement that certain AI-generated content (essentially 'deep fakes') be labelled as such.

Impact

The Act will enter into force 20 days after publication in the Official Journal (i.e., on 1 August 2024), and be fully applicable 24 months after its entry into force, i.e., on 2 August 2026 (though certain provisions will be applicable sooner, and others at 36 months). There are staggered dates for when different parts of the Act will take effect:

• 6 months after coming into force, provisions concerning banned AI practices take effect (i.e. 2 February 2025)
• 1 year after coming into force, provisions on penalties, confidentiality obligations and general-purpose AI take effect (i.e. 2 August 2025)
• 2 years after coming into force, the remaining provisions take effect (i.e. 2 August 2026)
• 3 years after coming into force, obligations for high-risk AI systems forming a product (or safety component of a product) regulated by EU product safety legislation apply (i.e. 2 August 2027)

Summary

In March 2023, the US Copyright Office published a Statement of Policy setting out its approach to registration of works containing material generated by AI.

The guidance states that only the human created parts of a generative AI work are protected by copyright. Accordingly, only where a human author arranges AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that ‘the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship’ or modifies AI-generated content ‘to such a degree that the modifications meet the standard for copyright protection,’ will the human-authored aspects of such works be potentially protected by copyright. 

This statement follows a decision by the USCO on copyright registration for Zarya of the Dawn ('the Work'), an 18-page graphic novel featuring text alongside images created using the AI platform Midjourney. Originally, the USCO issued a copyright registration for the graphic novel before undertaking investigations which showed that the artist had used Midjourney to create the images. Following this investigation (which included viewing the artist’s social media), the USCO cancelled the original certificate and issued a new one covering only the text as well as the selection, coordination, and arrangement of the Work’s written and visual elements. In reaching this conclusion, the USCO deemed that the artist’s editing of some of the images was not sufficiently creative to be entitled to copyright as a derivative work.

Impact

The boundaries drawn by the USCO in relation to works created by generative AI confirm there are challenges for those that wish to obtain protection for such works. Developments should continue to be tracked, including in relation to ongoing litigation (see above).