Law Commons^™

Tools Do Not Create: Human Authorship In The Use Of Generative Artificial Intelligence, Michael D. Murray

Journal of Law, Technology, & the Internet

Artistic tools, from brushes to complex algorithms, don’t create art; human artists do. The advent of generative AI tools like Midjourney, DALL-E, and Stable Diffusion has blurred this understanding, causing observers to believe these tools are the authors of the artworks they produce, even so far as to imagine that the artworks are “created” by the AI in the copyright sense of the word. Not so.

The U.S. Copyright Office recently issued guidance on the copyrightability of works produced using generative AI tools. The Office has accepted the narrative that AI tools perform the steps of authorship, conceiving of the …

Ai, Artists, And Anti-Moral Rights, Derek E. Bambauer, Robert W. Woods

UF Law Faculty Publications

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly used to imitate the distinctive characteristics of famous artists, such as their voice, likeness, and style. In response, legislators have introduced bills in Congress that would confer moral rights protections, such as control over attribution and integrity, upon artists. This Essay argues such measures are almost certain to fail because of deep-seated, pervasive hostility to moral rights measures in U.S. intellectual property law. It analyses both legislative measures and judicial decisions that roll back moral rights, and explores how copyright’s authorship doctrines manifest a latent hostility to these entitlements. The Essay concludes with …

The Copyright Requirement Of Human Authorship For Works Containing Artificial Intelligence-Generated Content, Runhua Wang

IP Theory

The U.S. Copyright Office (the “Office”) unwaveringly refuses to register copyrights for artworks created by artificial intelligence (“AI”) systems. The prima facie reason is a lack of authorship because the U.S. copyright regime recognizes only humans as authors. However, the fundamental reason lies in the fact that legislators have not yet determined whether to grant copyrights to AI users. Despite adjustments made by the Office in response to the use of AI systems in creation, the agency’s implementation of copyright statutes suggests that it remains extremely conservative, rejecting any AI-generated content (“AIGC”) from copyright registration.

Will the copyright regime continue …

The Generative Ai Pirate? The Intersection Of Copyrights And Generative Ai In Literary Works, Brianne M. Culliton

Cybaris®

No abstract provided.

Give Starving Artists A Piece Of The Ip Pie: Making Room At The Table For Performers’ Rights, Meagan A. Sharp

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

Creators protect their valuable intellectual property interests through copyright. Historically, stage performers struggled to secure copyright ownership in their performances within a larger production. As the theatre landscape changes, however, trends indicate that producers will increasingly rely on performers to develop characters and shows. This reliance could prove to be an exploitative practice if performers do not receive additional compensation for their part in creating successful works. This Note first examines the meanings of authorship, fixation, and control under the Copyright Act of 1976, then widens its lens to consider alternate interpretations of these technical terms in light of an …

Head In The Bitcloud: A Discussion On The Copyrightability And Ownership Rights In Generative Digital Art And Non-Fungible Tokens, Amanda J. Sharp

San Diego Law Review

This Comment discusses three major copyright questions raised by non-fungible tokens (NFTs) creation and distribution in the digital art world. First, how does employing AI in the creation of generative and derivative digital art and NFTs affect the copyright requirements of authorship? Second, who is the rightful owner of an NFT image pre- and post-purchase? Finally, how does the first sale doctrine apply to NFT image purchases and are those protections enough to resolve future copyright-specific NFT claims? In Part I, an introductory example is laid out to showcase the complex issues generative and derivative digital art and NFT images …

Copyrighting Brain Computer Interface: Where Neuroengineering Meets Intellectual Property Law, Favio Ramirez Caminatti

Cybaris®

No abstract provided.

The Construction And Defense Of Artistic Authorship In Contemporary Copyright Disputes, Sophie Bell

Theses and Dissertations

Through the lens of three contemporary copyright infringement cases, this thesis examines topics in the field of art law, each grounded in the recent history of art and its controversies, in order to illuminate the unique set of legal conditions shaping contemporary artmaking, sale, and exhibition in the United States.

The Ai-Copyright Challenge: Tech-Neutrality, Authorship, And The Public Interest, Carys Craig

All Papers

Many of copyright’s core concepts—from authorship and ownership to infringement and fair use—are being challenged by the rapid rise of generative AI. Whether in service of creativity or capital, however, copyright law is perfectly capable of absorbing this latest innovation. More interesting than the doctrinal debates that AI provokes, then, is the opportunity it presents to revisit the purposes of the copyright system in the age of AI. After introducing the AI-copyright challenge in Part 1, Part 2 considers the guiding principles and normative objectives that underlie—and so ought to inform—copyright law and its response to AI technologies. It proposes …

A Modern Copyright Framework For Artificial Intelligence: Ip Scholars' Joint Submission To The Canadian Government Consultation, Pascale Chapdelaine, Carys J. Craig, Bita Amani, Sara Bannerman, Céline Castets-Renard, Lucie Guibault, Gregory R. Hagen, Cameron J. Hutchison, Ariel Katz, Alexandra Mogyoros, Graham J. Reynolds, Anthony D. Rosborough, Teresa Scassa, Myra Tawfik

Law Publications

In response to the Canadian government consultation process on the modernization of the copyright framework launched in the summer 2021, we hereby present our analysis and recommendations concerning the interaction between copyright and artificial intelligence (AI). The recommendations herein reflect the shared opinion of the intellectual property scholars who are signatories to this brief. They are informed by many combined decades of study, teaching, and practice in Canadian and international intellectual property law.

In what follows, we explain:
- The importance of approaching the questions raised in the consultation with a firm commitment to maintaining the appropriate balance of rights …

Artificial Intelligence And Moral Rights, Martin Miernicki, Irene (Huang Ying) Ng

Centre for AI & Data Governance

Whether copyrights should exist in content generated by an artificial intelligence is a frequently discussed issue in the legal literature. Most of the discussion focuses on economic rights, whereas the relationship of artificial intelligence and moral rights remains relatively obscure. However, as moral rights traditionally aim at protecting the author’s “personal sphere”, the question whether the law should recognize such protection in the content produced by machines is pressing; this is especially true considering that artificial intelligence is continuously further developed and increasingly hard to comprehend for human beings. This paper first provides the background on the protection of moral …

So You Want To Be An Author: A Comparative Analysis Of The Authorial Rights Awarded To Performers, Daniel Gomez

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

In his classic 1980 song “On the Road Again,” Willie Nelson articulates that “the life [he] love[s] is making music with [his] friends.” This affinity for the life of a traveling performer likely has little to do with his authorial rights under the Copyright Act. However, as this Note demonstrates, Mr. Nelson indeed benefited from favorable authorial rights when compared to other types of performers, beyond the rights he acquired as the song’s writer. Specifically, the current law around the default authorial rights of performers provides greater protection to performers of sound recordings than it affords to visual and …

A Modern Copyright Framework For Artificial Intelligence: Ip Scholars' Joint Submission To The Canadian Government Consultation, Carys Craig, Bita Amani, Sara Bannerman, Céline Castets-Renard, Pascale Chapdelaine, Lucie Guibault, Gregory R. Hagen, Cameron J. Hutchison, Ariel Katz, Alexandra Mogyoros, Graham Reynolds, Anthony D. Rosborough, Teresa Scassa, Myra Tawfik

Reports & Public Policy Documents

In response to the Canadian government consultation process on the modernization of the copyright framework launched in the summer 2021, we hereby present our analysis and recommendations concerning the interaction between copyright and artificial intelligence (AI). The recommendations herein reflect the shared opinion of the intellectual property scholars who are signatories to this brief. They are informed by many combined decades of study, teaching, and practice in Canadian and international intellectual property law.

In what follows, we explain:
- The importance of approaching the questions raised in the consultation with a firm commitment to maintaining the appropriate balance of rights …

"You Got Too Much Dip On Your Chip!" How Stagnant Copyright Law Is Stifling Creativity, Taylor Bussey

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

Over time, our concept of what qualifies as an author has changed–specifically with the dominance of the internet. Tangentially, our idea of what it means to be a joint author has changed. What once would have required physical proximity now can be accomplished via the internet in a matter of seconds. Authors from all around the globe can collaborate. Geographic limitations present virtually no constraint on the number of individuals that can contribute to a work. Human creativity, however, has remained the same. When creating, authors naturally draw on their human experience. Without tailoring modern copyright law to modern trends …

Human Rights Laws And Authorship Norms, Roberta Rosenthal Kwall

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Do We Need A New Conception Of Authorship?, Shyamkrishna Balganesh

Faculty Scholarship

Thank you to the organizers for having me. I’m delighted to be here. I’m going to take a step away from conceptual art, and go a little bit into history and a little bit into doctrine – and do the usual law professor thing. We law professors like to say that one of the great things about the job is that we get to overrule the Supreme Court ten thousand times a day, but the bad thing about the job is no one cares. And so, I’m going to try and make this such that you care.

Here’s the core …

Privative Copyright, Shyamkrishna Balganesh

All Faculty Scholarship

“Privative” copyright claims are infringement actions brought by authors for the unauthorized public dissemination of works that are private, unpublished, and revelatory of the author’s personal identity. Driven by considerations of authorial autonomy, dignity, and personality rather than monetary value, these claims are almost as old as Anglo-American copyright law itself. Yet modern thinking has attempted to undermine their place within copyright law and sought to move them into the domain of privacy law. This Article challenges the dominant view and argues that privative copyright claims form a legitimate part of the copyright landscape. It shows how privative copyright claims …

The Birth Of The Authornym: Authorship, Pseudonymity, And Trademark Law, Laura A. Heymann

Laura A. Heymann

Consumers in the marketplace of ideas are well acquainted with one aspect of the Foucauldian concept of the "author function": the way in which an author's name serves to organize both producer inputs-the various works the author wishes to have associated with his name-and consumer inputs-the readers' interpretive reactions to any particular body of work. Indeed, choosing to write under a pseudonym or under one's true name is the way in which an author exerts control over this function by grouping certain works (for example, scholarly pieces) under one name and other works (for example, mystery novels) under a different …

A Tale Of (At Least) Two Authors: Focusing Copyright Law On Process Over Product, Laura A. Heymann

Laura A. Heymann

No abstract provided.

Copyright Owners' Putative Interests In Privacy, Reputation, And Control: A Reply To Goold, Wendy J. Gordon

Faculty Scholarship

My own view is that Goold overstates the explanatory role of tort law. But even were that not the case, the courts need to reach some kind of “settled” understanding on these various interests before a cause of action is created or definitively rejected, and that no such consensus on the three matters mentioned yet exists, whether they are viewed as forms of tort or otherwise. Goold’s work may nevertheless be an important step toward reaching closure on these and other open questions in copyright law.

Fostering Student Authorship, Amy R. Mashburn, Sharon E. Rush

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Causing Copyright, Shyamkrishna Balganesh

All Faculty Scholarship

Copyright protection attaches to an original work of expression the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible medium. Yet, modern copyright law contains no viable mechanism by which to examine whether someone is causally responsible for the creation and fixation of the work. Whenever the issue of causation arises, copyright law relies on its preexisting doctrinal devices to resolve the issue, in the process cloaking its intuitions about causation in altogether extraneous considerations. This Article argues that copyright law embodies an unstated, yet distinct theory of authorial causation, which connects the element of human agency to a work …

Against Creativity, Brian L. Frye

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

According to the Supreme Court, copyright requires both independent creation and creativity. The independent creation requirement provides that copyright cannot protect an element of a work of authorship that is copied from a previously existing work. But scholars disagree about the meaning of and justification for the creativity requirement.

The creativity requirement should be abandoned because it is irrelevant to the scope of copyrightable subject matter and distorts copyright doctrine by encouraging inefficient “creativity rhetoric.” The purpose of copyright is to encourage the production of economically valuable works of authorship, not creativity.

Causing Copyright, Shyamkrishna Balganesh

Faculty Scholarship

Copyright protection attaches to an original work of expression the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible medium. Yet modern copyright law contains no viable mechanism by which to examine whether someone is causally responsible for the creation and fixation of the work. Whenever the issue of causation arises, copyright law relies on its preexisting doctrinal devices to resolve the issue, in the process cloaking its intuitions about causation in altogether extraneous considerations. This Article argues that copyright law embodies an unstated yet distinct theory of authorial causation, which connects the element of human agency to a work …

What Notice Did, Jessica Litman

Jessica Litman

In this article, I explore the effect of the copyright notice prerequisite on the law's treatment of copyright ownership. The notice prerequisite, as construed by the courts, encouraged the development of legal doctrines that herded the ownership of copyrights into the hands of publishers and other intermediaries, notwithstanding statutory provisions that seem to have been designed at least in part to enable authors to keep their copyrights. Because copyright law required notice, other doctrinal developments were shaped by and distorted by that requirement. The promiscuous alienability of U.S. copyrights may itself have been an accidental development deriving from courts' constructions …

Scenes From The Copyright Office, Brian L. Frye

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Scenes From The Copyright Office, Brian L. Frye

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This essay uses a series of vignettes drawn from Billy Joel’s career to describe his encounters with copyright law. It begins by examining the ownership of the copyright in Joel’s songs. It continues by considering the authorship of Joel’s songs, and it concludes by evaluating certain infringement actions filed against Joel. This Essay observes that Joel’s encounters with copyright law were confusing and frustrating, but also quite typical. The banality of his experiences captures the uncertainty and incoherence of copyright doctrine.

Vietnam's 1994 Ordinance On Copyright Protection: A Survey And Preliminary Analysis, David Lange

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

An Idea Of Authorship: Orson Welles, The War Of The Worlds Copyright, And Why We Should Recognize Idea-Contributors As Joint Authors, Timothy J. Mcfarlin

Case Western Reserve Law Review

Did Orson Welles co-author the infamous War of the Worlds broadcast? The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has told us no, primarily because he only contributed the idea behind the broadcast, and ideas alone can’t be copyrighted. “An Idea of Authorship” challenges this premise—that ideas, no matter how significant, cannot qualify for joint authorship in collaborative works—and argues that we as a society should, under certain circumstances, recognize idea-contributors like Welles as joint authors. We should do so to further our society’s interest in encouraging future creations, as well as out of a sense of equity and fairness to idea-contributors, …

A Theory Of Copyright Authorship, Christopher Buccafusco

Faculty Scholarship

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to grant rights to “Authors” for their “Writings.” Despite the centrality of these terms to copyright jurisprudence, neither the courts nor scholars have provided coherent theories about what makes a person an author or what makes a thing a writing. This article articulates and defends a theory of copyrightable authorship. It argues that authorship involves the intentional creation of mental effects in an audience. A writing, then, is any fixed medium capable of producing mental effects. According to this theory, copyright may attach to the original, fixed, and minimally creative form or manner …