The Rise of AI: The Next Hit Artist?
Advancements in artificial intelligence have contributed toward some of the most significant technological progress made in the 21st century. The rise of AI has transformed the way people live, from aiding transportation to other areas including education, healthcare, and even music in countries all over the world. However, AI’s progress has also led to numerous concerns regarding intellectual property infringement laws, along with copyright and defamation laws.
One popular and contentious AI-driven technology is ChatGPT, an AI language model that was released in November of 2022. ChatGPT provides users with a wide range of information, from self-generated music lyrics to explanations of mathematical concepts, after taking instructions and questions from users. Just two months after its release, ChatGPT boasted over 200 million users worldwide. Amidst the growing popularity of ChatGPT, questions regarding intellectual property laws have arisen. ChatGPT does not provide citations on the information it presents to users, which can be a source of problems. However, Michael Kelber, co-chair of law firm Neal Gerber Eisenberg, states that lack of citations may take away from credibility on a research standpoint, but is not detrimental in other standpoints as “[f]rom an intellectual property [IP] perspective, if the source material is not specifically quoted, there would be no requirement to include citations”.
Recently, the question of who can copyright information generated by AI has been the focus on law examinations. Under existing U.S. law, “the work must be the result of original and creative authorship by a human author” in order to fall under the protection of copyright laws, according to Margaret Esquenet, a partner with Finnegan, a law firm focused on IP. Continuing, Esquenet claims that copyright protection does not apply to work that lacks input from human creativity, and as such, work created by AI tools like ChatGPT will not be registered by the U.S. Copyright Office.
Based on the specificity of the user input, ChatGPT provides results with varying degrees of detail. However, ChatGPT can provide multiple users with the same response, and the uniform nature of these result generations have been another focus of IP lawyers. Esquenet explains that “a successful copyright infringement claim requires proof of copying — independent creation is a complete defense. Under this hypothetical, neither party copied the other’s work, so no infringement claim is likely to succeed.” Under this reading of the law, using identically generated AI work is safe against infringement of copyright laws. Though this may present positive implications for using ChatGPT as a starting place for research, the question of blame also lies on the other side of the law. The absence of a central party as the source of credit or blame poses an issue when the generated work may detail harmful content. At the forefront of debate lies a central question: who is liable? When the generated content introduces damaging content, does the blame fall upon the AI creator, or the person who inputted the content? These questions continue to be examined as firms navigate the implications of ChatGPT.
However, ChatGPT is just one amongst numerous AI tools that have risen in popularity. Tools such as DALL-E 2 have the capability to generate realistic art, and other companies, like HeadshotPro, create professional headshots using an AI-photographer.
AI technology has even transitioned into the music industry, and recently, a fake AI-generated track titled “Heart on My Sleeve” has gone viral on social media platforms. The AI song, released by an account called “Ghostwriter” closely mimics a collaboration between Drake and the Weeknd, and began appearing on platforms such as Spotify and Apple Music. However, these DSPs began removing the track throughout the day, and the striking popularity of “Heart on My Sleeve” has garnered attention towards the future of the music industry. The popularity of the viral AI song has led to the question of whether a voice can be copyrighted if the song was otherwise AI generated.
This issue found itself reflected in James Earl Jones’ (the actor behind the character of Star Wars’ Darth Vader) licensing his voice to an AI company. The right of a voice can be separated into two categories: the first details the right of publicity, and the second relates to copyright. Reports indicate that Jones resides in New York, a state where the “right of publicity against commercial use” is protected, which should allow the AI Licensee to use his voice even after death. However, jurisdiction becomes more complicated as New York is also a state that does not “provide protection after death of the Individual for an AI Work that is for entertainment,” which indicates that anyone could use James Earl Jones’ voice after death.
As new technologies continue to be developed, more cases are being examined under the eye of the law and give room for new precedents to be created. As more AI tools continue to release, laws particularly concerning artificial intelligence and intellectual property must adapt to adequately address emerging areas of ambiguity, such as was seen in the music industry and academia.