Tech companies such as OpenAI, Google, and Meta are initiating legal action over alleged rights infringements.
In a recent development, actor Tom Hanks cautioned viewers about the appearance of AI-generated false images of himself in an advertisement for a dental company.
Google has assured its users that in the event of AI tool usage leading to legal challenges, the tech giant may provide legal support.
The ongoing dispute regarding the potential impact of AI on intellectual property rights represents the latest battleground in the realm of artificial intelligence. For instance, there are concerns about the possibility of someone using AI to manipulate a video, subsequently claiming ownership of the altered content.
The intelligence embedded in AI technology stems from extensive computer code comprising hundreds of thousands of lines. However, the credibility of the outcomes produced by AI models heavily relies on the vast array of human-created illustrations they are trained on. According to Ryan Abbott from the University of Surrey, generative AI techniques, leveraging expansive datasets like language models, are predominantly trained on large-scale datasets sourced from the internet. Abbott emphasizes the significance of utilizing existing published materials to facilitate effective learning and replication by AI models, suggesting that exposing these systems to a multitude of ebooks enhances their performance.
Allegedly, some professionals behind leading AI models have resorted to such practices, leading to a spate of lawsuits, including legal action by the Author’s Guild.
Getty Images, a stock photo platform owned by Scripps News, has also filed a lawsuit against Stability AI, alleging unauthorized utilization of their image diffusion tool.
Moreover, OpenAI and Meta are facing legal challenges from actress Sarah Silverman. In the case against OpenAI, Silverman alleges copyright infringement, claiming that the agency’s application copied her 2011 text “Daydreamer.” A demonstration involving ChatGPT providing a precise summary of Silverman’s book further exemplifies the contentious nature of AI-generated content.
However, Abbott argues that AI platforms employing language for educational purposes fall within the realm of “fair use,” thus not violating copyright laws. He suggests that courts are likely to lean towards considering educational purposes as fair use, emphasizing the distinction between content and style in determining copyright infringement.
The implications extend beyond intellectual property concerns, with the advent of relational AI raising apprehensions among creative industry professionals about potential job displacement. The Hollywood writers’ strike earlier this year, influenced in part by AI-related issues, underscores the significant impact AI technologies can have on employment dynamics.
Addressing the legal intricacies surrounding AI-generated content, Abbott highlights the importance of respecting individuals’ rights to their name, image, and likeness, cautioning against unauthorized commercial exploitation even if AI is involved in the creative process.
Lastly, the debate extends to whether AI-generated creations, such as paintings, should be granted copyright protection. Despite the creative input of individuals like designer Jason Allen in producing AI-generated artworks, the U.S. Copyright Office’s stance is that copyright protection is reserved for human-created content, posing a challenge for AI-generated works seeking legal recognition.
Efforts are underway to establish regulatory frameworks governing relational AI and intellectual property rights, with legislative proposals under consideration by the U.S. House and Senate. As the intersection of AI and legal frameworks becomes increasingly complex, navigating the evolving landscape of AI technologies and philosophical considerations will likely pose ongoing challenges for policymakers and stakeholders alike.
