5 Creative AI Legal Issues And Challenges

The judge at the time ruled that our voices are as individual as our fingerprints, and any attempt to impersonate them is an infringement of our civil liberties. At MassiveMusic, we prioritise addressing these key challenges genrative ai as we focus on creating distinctive musical value for brands. As bespoke music creators, we’re looking into AI tools to expedite our production process while preserving human involvement for crafting high-quality music.

We caught up with the ad industry’s music experts around the world to get their insights into what it all means for commercial music. I would argue that according protection, where it is unclear whether rights exist or should exist, is genrative ai contrary to the spirit of intellectual property law. The graphical assets are clearly artistic works which can be protected in their own right. The programmer created the graphics and put them in the game and is the undisputed author.

Intellectual property (IP)

From a utilitarian point of view, copyright work generated by a person usually involves months or years of effort and investment. Comparatively, Computer-generated Work does not require the same degree of time and effort. On average, ChatGPT and Midjourney take seconds to produce a response or image respectively. It is therefore arguable that giving the same level of incentive to a Computer-generated Work and human-generated work would be disproportionate to the amount of time and effort invested to produce the Computer-generated Work and would indirectly stifle human involvement in creation.

• The algorithms underpinning ChatGPT were developed at OpenAI, so the company would appear to hold copyright protection over those.
• Some argue that AI-generated works should be considered “orphan works” and not subject to copyright protection since the creator cannot be identified.
• Conversely, reliance on AI-generated music might dilute the emotional resonance and authenticity intrinsic to human-crafted compositions.
• Explore the wide range of untested legal issues that come with using generative AI solutions.

How this self-regulation approach will work with cases already being brought in the US and the UK (see here and here) and complex jurisdictional and conflict of laws issues without a global framework, is highly uncertain. There is uncertainty in English law both about the correct test for “originality” to be applied and whether the test requires a human author. He has worked with many different types of technologies, from statistical models, to deep learning, to large language models.

The Impact of Generative AI on UK Copyright Law

OpenAI’s terms of use assign to the users “all its right, title and interest in the output”. Copyright gives its owner the right to control the use and exploitation of their work, which includes the right to prevent the unauthorised copying of the work. Arguably what ChatGPT has produced is an impressive and elaborate piece of research work, answering the question of “can this be done with AI technology”.

Founder of the DevEducation project

The techniques used and outputs of generative AI systems are bringing into sharp focus important issues regarding infringement of works protected by intellectual property rights, content licensing and authorship and ownership of AI works. The UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) ran a public consultation on Artificial Intelligence and IP from October 2021 to January 2022. The Government response decided not to make any changes to the existing law on the subsistence or ownership genrative ai of copyright in computer-generated works – leaving open this uncertainty. On 15 March 2023, an entirely separate report of Sir Patrick Vallance on the Pro-innovation Regulation of Technologies Review proposed that the UK should “utilise existing protections of copyright and IP law on the output of AI”. However, the Government’s response did not explicitly mention providing copyright protection to AI-generated works but, instead, focused on infringement issues (see below).

While acknowledging the significance of established artists, there is also a growing focus on nurturing partnerships with emerging talent across diverse niches. This approach not only champions authentic storytelling, but also aligns brands with emerging cultural trends. On the same note, AI-generated music is, by definition, derivative of existing work. I’m anticipating a lot of litigation in the next few years that will clarify how applicable AI composition and sound-alike samples will be to the advertising industry. As with all new innovations, there’s a moment of excitement that takes over and you kind of fall in love with the opportunities you imagine will come from it. It’s almost like watching magic for the first time and thinking, ‘how is this even possible?

The crossroads of AI-generated music and the prospect of artist voice licensing introduces captivating possibilities and intricate challenges to advertising. Integrating familiar voices into AI compositions could amplify brand recognition, evoke nostalgia, and fashion unique campaign soundscapes, ushering in a realm of creative potential. For instance, envision the estate of Bob Marley contemplating the inclusion of his AI voice in a fresh reggaeton arrangement. This means if Hong Kong recognises that AI-generated works are protected by copyright, it must accord equal protection to all AI-generated works created in all Paris Convention signatory countries. The former is where works are created with significant human intervention or direction. The computer is merely used to express the author’s creative intent and is already protected by standard copyright doctrine.

ChatGPT remains under review by other data protection authorities in the EU and, at a time of increasing data regulation and more assertive enforcement and litigation, we expect regulators to take further action to protect the privacy of individuals in relation to generative AI. “In each case, what matters is the extent to which the human had creative control over the work’s expression and actually formed the traditional elements of authorship,” the office said. But I would say that this doesn’t quite hold up – a human artist taking inspiration from another human will – unless they are an outright plagiarist – add their own human qualities to come up with something that exhibits their own human creativity.