[AI Paradox] Learning is OK, Rights Recognition is NO... AI Copyright Causing Confusion

Extensive Use of Human-Created Works in AI Data Training
"Clear Copyright Infringement by AI Developers"
Debate Over Whether AI Can Be Recognized as a Copyright Holder

"Can artificial intelligence (AI) be recognized as a copyright holder? To what extent should unauthorized use of AI under the name of data learning be allowed?"

With the advent of the generative AI era, numerous creative works such as music, art, and films utilizing AI are flooding the market. At the same time, copyright issues surrounding these creative works have also emerged. There are no legal or institutional measures to resolve these problems, leading to sharp conflicts over the activation of the AI industry and the protection of rights holders.

"Content learned by AI is a clear copyright infringement"

The copyright issues related to AI can be broadly divided into two main points: whether the data learned by AI when creating works infringes copyright, and whether copyright can be recognized for artistic works such as music and art created by AI.

Regarding the former, the positions vary by country, institution, and organization. The Korea Newspaper Association recently delivered the "Five Major Demands to Prevent Copyright Infringement of News by Generative AI" to major domestic and international IT companies such as Naver, Kakao, Google Korea, and Microsoft.

The demands include ▲consultation with news copyright holders on usage standards ▲publication of adherence to the 'Global AI Principles' ▲disclosure of sources of generative AI training data ▲specific indication of how news content is used ▲establishment of appropriate compensation standards for news works.

Using news content produced by news organizations without prior consent by generative AI development companies is an act of copyright infringement, which leads to the devaluation of news content.

Not only Korean media but also overseas, such as the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and CNN, are considering lawsuits against the developer of ChatGPT, and copyright infringement disputes are continuing abroad.

[Image source=EPA Yonhap News]

The ongoing general strike by the American actors and broadcasters union (SAG-AFTRA) and the Writers Guild of America (WGA) can be seen in a similar context. These unions claim that countless copyrighted works of writers have been included without any compensation in the databases held by generative AI, and that producers frequently use generative AI to draft initial scripts and then demand writers to revise them.

Governments of various countries, which need to foster the AI industry to secure national competitiveness, have different positions. Our government has decided to establish exemption criteria that do not regard the use of others' copyrighted works for AI learning as copyright infringement. The copyright law will be amended so that 'crawling' for AI learning is not considered copyright infringement. Crawling is a technology that automatically collects and classifies necessary data from websites and stores it in a database. Major countries such as Japan and the European Union (EU) have also introduced copyright exemption regulations for the AI learning phase.

A representative from the Newspaper Association expressed concerns about the strengthening of exemption regulations, saying, "While technological advancement and securing international competitiveness are important, it is necessary to negotiate principles where copyright holders and AI companies can create value together for the development of reliable AI technology and the creation of a mutually beneficial ecosystem."

"Copyright can only be held by humans or legal entities"

On the other hand, regarding whether copyright can be recognized for artistic works created by AI, a global consensus is forming against recognizing AI copyrights. Major foreign media such as The New York Times (NYT) reported on the 21st (local time) that a federal district court in Washington DC ruled legally on the U.S. Copyright Office's decision to reject copyright registration for AI-created artworks.

This lawsuit began when Stephen Thaler, CEO of the artificial neural network developer Imagination Engines, challenged the Copyright Office's refusal to register copyrights for artworks generated by AI.

In 2018, Thaler applied for copyright registration of a painting created by AI called "The Creativity Machines," listing AI as the sole creator.

However, the Copyright Office repeatedly rejected Thaler's application, stating it did not meet the requirements because there was no human creative effort involved. Under U.S. copyright law, 'works made for hire' designate the employer, such as a corporation or organization, as the copyright holder.

The court also stated, "The requirement that the author must be human is a fundamental prerequisite of (copyright law)," and upheld the Copyright Office's decision. It ruled that copyright cannot be recognized for works solely created by non-human AI.

Steven Thaler's AI-generated work 'A Recent Entrance to Paradise' Photo by Imagination Engine

Similar rulings have been made domestically. On June 30, the Seoul Administrative Court ruled that AI cannot be an inventor under patent law. The main figure in this case was also Thaler. Previously, the Korean Intellectual Property Office invalidated an international patent application that listed the AI 'DABUS,' developed by Thaler, as the inventor. The patents requested by Thaler were for two items: a food container with improved heat transfer efficiency and a lamp that emits light by mimicking neural activity patterns.

Thaler filed an administrative lawsuit against the decision, and the court ruled that under patent law, the right to obtain a patent is limited to natural persons, and listing only 'artificial intelligence' as the inventor is not permitted, thus siding with the Intellectual Property Office.

Nevertheless, there remains much controversy over granting legal rights to these AI-created works. Some argue that for industrial promotion, the concept of creators and inventors should not be limited to humans but should be broadly expanded. Thaler said, "AI can functionally produce creative results without human authors, and protecting AI-generated works with copyright is very important for promoting the production of socially valuable content."

Lee In-sil, Commissioner of the Korean Intellectual Property Office, also said, "Considering the speed of AI development, there may come a time when AI must be recognized as an inventor," and added, "We plan to continue discussions with academia and industry on issues surrounding AI inventions."