COPYRIGHT PROTECTION AND OWNERSHIP OF AI-GENERATED PROMPTS AND OUTPUTS

INTRODUCTION 

Artificial Intelligence (AI)-generated content presents novel challenges in copyright law, blurring the lines of authorship and ownership. As AI evolves, questions arise regarding the attribution of creative works and the rights of human creators versus AI systems. Understanding these issues is crucial for policymakers and legal professionals navigating the intersection of technology and intellectual property rights.

What are AI prompts?

AI prompts refers to specific instructions, commands etc. which are given to the AI tool to generate a particular type of work. It acts as a time saving mechanism and makes the work easier. These AI prompts are part of public domain and anyone using his own logical mind and specific need is free to give such commands. The nature of the commands or AI prompts is general in nature and hence everyone is allowed to use it.

 For example, say person wants to create a digital painting or say digital art. The person can do so by using adobe software or AI tools. The digital art can be accessed on internet and it provides the creators with wide range of effects, brushes etc. but on digital mediums. The person can give command ‘create a painting with hills and sun and busy road’.  The AI algorithm will work and based on their trained data sets. It will create a digital painting. The artist is free to use his creativity and add various effects to the art created using AI prompt.

What is AI generated Content or Output?

On setting forth of the commands or instructions, the AI tools create a specific kind of work be it literary, musical, artistic etc. The final outcome which is created by using AI tool refers to the AI generated content or outcome. Say an AI tool like chat-Gpt is asked to write an essay on ‘Interface of IP and Competition law.’ The piece of literary work which is created will be the final outcome of AI generated content.

Interface of copyright law with AI prompt or AI output

Copyright protection is provided in various kinds of works – literary, musical, dramatic, artistic, sound recording, cinematographic films. The author or owner of copyrighted work gets certain exclusive rights like – selling, distribution, reproducing, performing such works. These works involve an element of human authorship i.e. they are created by skills and efforts of a human. In Naruto v Slater(2018)  case, a monkey clicked selfies on his own using camera of photographer named Slater. Slater commercially published these photographs and thereby was sued by PETA (organisation working on behalf of animals). PETA argued that animal, Naruto was true author of the photograph i.e. copyrighted work. Court, rejected this argument and emphasized that a for a person to claim authorship of a work there must be an element of human in it. Non-humans cannot claim copyright over the work.

 USA, AI generated content or output is in public domain and therefore it is not subjected to copyright protection. Recently, Google declared that it does not own any ownership over AI generated output. Further, European Union requires that there must be some human intervention in creation of the work. The issue occurs when it becomes hard to distinguish as to where to draw line as when a content is completely AI generated or when due to some human involvement, the author can be considered as owner. The guiding principle is when in a particular work there is human control and influence, then it is considered to be AI generated.

This particular issue was highlighted wherein author named Kristina Kashtanova, wanted copyright protection for her graphic novel named ‘Zarya of the Dawn’ which was created by using AI tool called Midjourney. Copyright office of USA partially allowed the claim. It said since the textual element and the way it was structured and arranged, was a result of human work and therefore was entitled to copyright protection but the images which also part of novel was totally AI created and hence cannot seek copyright infringement.

 Now, let’s dwell into the issue of AI prompts which are basic instruction fed into for generation of particular output. Seeking, a copyright protection for prompts itself would be a vague argument as prompt are in public domain. And seeking copyright protection on AI –prompt itself would hinder growth and creativity. But another issue which arise from this is that no matter how creative the prompt command is, the AI tool create the output on basis of pre-trained databases. Thus, it does not treat the command like humans and therefore, human influence becomes very less. This issue was highlighted by United Nations Copyright Office in its AI Registration Guidelines (Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence)

In India, the author of literary, musical, dramatic etc. works is with the person who cause the work to be created. Further, there is no particular definition of computer generated work. As there is no judicial precedent in this regard, it can be inferred that since copyright in works is calculated on basis of age of person, the element of human authorship is necessary for purpose of seeking copyright protection in India.

CONCLUSION

The lines are still blur when it comes to give copyright protection to AI generated works. Although, judicial precedents have tried to clear the situation by setting that there must be human element and control in AI created work but since the AI created work is result of pre-trained data bases, the question remains still unanswered. Is there really any human element involve in AI generated output? A person can combine his skills and efforts and combine AI technology to create a work. But still the question would subsist that such person would get copyright for the whole work or the part which involved human element?