第473期

本日分享的文章介绍了诸如ChatGPT等生成式人工智能所引发的版权问题，包括公道使用原则、会不会构成著作权保护的客体等。目前，生成式人工智能引发了大量版权争议，在美国已有相关诉讼案件，但是，相关法律规则依然有待明确。本文作者认为，以下情况下，人工智能生成的内容将不会遭到著作权保护：

大幅度地展现用作输入数据的原创版权作品;

在市场上与原创作品直接竞争;

不是原创作品的变革(transformative);和

它们是在人类很少参与或没有参与的情况下创建的。

我是大岭先生，这是我为您分享IP英文的第473天，期待您的评论。如果今天的文章对您有帮助，欢迎您分享。

---

ChatGPT and rise of generative AI spark debate on copyright protections of AI-generated works

April 3, 2023 | Venable LLP - Justin E. Pierce, Sarah E. Diamond & Allison Nelson

Introduction

The recent explosion in popularity of generative artificial intelligence (AI), such as ChatGPT, has sparked a legal debate over whether the works created by this technology should be afforded copyright protections. Despite the fact that several lawsuits on the subject have been filed, and the US Copyright Office has issued guidance clarifying its position, the bounds of copyright protections for works created using AI are not yet clearly defined and many questions remain unanswered. For now, it appears that copyright eligibility for such works depends on the extent of human involvement in the creative process and whether any use of copyrighted work to generate a new work falls within the purview of the fair use doctrine.

Input and output data

The analysis of this issue has been framed around two key aspects of the technology itself: input data and output data. "Input data" refers to the pre-existing data that human users introduce into the AI system and that the system then uses to generate new works. "Output data" refers to the works ultimately created by the system – the finished product. Thus, copyright eligibility for AI-generated or AI-assisted works depends on:

• whether the AI system's use of copyrighted works as input data is permissible (for further details please see "Copyright implications of generative AI: input data"); and
• whether the output data is itself copyrightable (for further details please see "Copyright implications of generative AI: output data").

Fair use doctrine

The question of whether AI systems can use copyrighted works to create new works has been analysed under the fair use doctrine in the United States. In 2015, the Second Circuit determined that Google did not commit copyright infringement by:

• scanning digital copies of copyright-protected books;
• creating a search function for the books that was accessible to the public; and
• displaying excerpts from the books for its Google Books service.

The Second Circuit held that such conduct constituted fair use of the works, reasoning that:

The purpose of the copying is highly transformative, the public display of text is limited, and the revelations do not provide a significant market substitute for the protected aspects of the originals.(1)

While the Court's decision in the Google Books case was limited to the specific facts at issue in that case, the decision supports the proposition that use of copyrighted works as input to a generative AI system in order to create a new work is protected under the fair use doctrine where the new work:

• is highly transformative;
• minimally displays the original work; and
• does not act as a market substitute for the original work.

On the other hand, AI-generated works that do appear to borrow heavily from copyrighted works or directly compete with them in the marketplace are far less likely to be considered fair use of the original works and receive protection from copyright infringement claims. The exact bounds of the fair use doctrine in this context remain to be seen but will likely be addressed in the near future, as the universe of ways in which generative AI can use input data is wide-ranging.

Copyright Office guidance

The US Copyright Office recently clarified the question of whether AI-generated or AI-assisted works are themselves copyrightable. According to the Copyright Office, copyright eligibility for such works depends on the extent of human involvement in the creation of the work, which in turn is often dictated by how a given AI system operates. Because many of today's most popular AI systems do not permit users to control how the system interprets prompts and generates material from input data, the Copyright Office likened use of such systems to "instructions to a commissioned artist" rather than direct control over the creative process. Thus, in 2022, the Copyright Office stated it will not register works created entirely by AI systems without any human input or intervention, because the copyright statute protects only works "created by a human being".(2) More recently, in March 2023, the Copyright Office notified a creator that it intends to cancel the copyright registration it previously granted for a comic book created with the assistance of AI because of its concern over the extent of human involvement in the creation of the work.

Comment

While the question of copyright protections for AI-generated and AI-assisted works remains somewhat murky, it is clear that works will not receive protection where they:

• significantly display the original copyrighted work used as input data;
• compete directly in the marketplace with the original work;
• are not transformative of original work; and
• where they are created with minimal to no human involvement.

Endnotes

(1) See Authors Guild v Google, Inc, 804 F 3d 202, 229 (Second Circuit 2015).

(2) Second Request for Reconsideration for Refusal to Register a Recent Entrance to Paradise to Ryan Abbot (14 February 2022).

-End-

Source: www.closeupsblog.com/2023/04/chatgpt-and-the-rise-of-generative-artificial-intelligence-spark-debate-on-copyright-protections-of-ai-generated-works/

Each article is copyrighted to their original authors. The news is for informational purposes only and does not provide legal advice.

本栏目近期分享

常见的技术合同类型 | 逐日IP英文第472期

美国最新商业秘密案件的教训：没有进行商业秘密管理，致使诉讼失败 | 逐日IP英文第471期

在美国海外实行专利也会侵犯美国专利权？| 逐日IP英文第470期

关键商业秘密的保护 | 逐日IP英文第469期

签好技术合同的7个要点 | 逐日IP英文第468期

从美国最新的3个大案件中，学习商业秘密保护的深入教训 | 逐日IP英文第467期

如何打造标准必要专利 | 逐日IP英文第466期

5个关键要点 - 并购交易中的知识产权斟酌因素 | 逐日IP英文第465期

商标维权的常见法律问题：以意大利为例 | 逐日IP英文第464期

汽车行业需要在2023年关注SEP/FRAND新焦点 | 逐日IP英文第463期

一年回顾：2022 年 SEP/FRAND 的主要讨论 | 逐日IP英文第462期

关于我们

郝政宇律师为北京观韬中茂律师事务所合伙人、律师、专利代理师。郝律师曾在国家知识产权局从事多年专利审查和复审工作，尔后在多家知名律所执业多年，代理众多企业应对知识产权纠纷，善于处理技术类知识产权案件，部份案件入选知识产权指点案例，担负10余家上市公司法律顾问，入选The Legal 500 知识产权律师等榜单，主编《科创板企业上市知识产权指南》、《专利分析》等专著。团队成员全部毕业于知名院校，具有丰富的知识产权诉讼经验。

主要业务：

专利、商业秘密、商标、著作权、不正当竞争、技术合同、知识产权权属纠纷等知识产权诉讼业务

专利发掘和布局、专利FTO分析，知识产权许可和交易，企业知识产权法律顾问、企业IPO知识产权辅导、数据合规、开源软件合规等知识产权非诉业务

电话：134 3962 0218

邮箱：haozy@guantao.com

欢迎添加郝律师微信交换与合作

如果您对知识产权实务也感兴趣

欢迎添加大岭先生微信

加入“大岭IP知识产权实务交换群9”

▼更多知识产权实务文章，欢迎点击关注本公众号

关注“大岭IP”公众号后：

1. 后台回复“司法解释”，取得现行有效的知识产权司法解释汇编，包括官方解读；

2. 后台回复“指点案例”，取得2008年⑵022年中国知识产权指点案例合辑； 

您的分享、点赞，是对我们团队的最大支持！

欢迎您通过评论留下您的观点，和更多人分享您的经验~~~