Introduction:
In today's world, artificial intelligence (AI) is everywhere, even in your smartphone's recognition features. AI's capabilities extend to creating art, music, and written content. These generative AI services raise a pressing question: who owns what the AI produces? Is it the one who instructs the AI, or the original creator of the AI?
Background:
Various AI companies differ in their stance on ownership. Some, like Midjourney, claim ownership of user-generated content, though subscribers may gain ownership. Others, like ChatGPT, lean toward users owning the AI's outputs. Stable Diffusion grants users a license for the AI model but doesn't claim rights over the generated content. Amidst this uncertainty, users must delve into terms and conditions for clarity.
International law trends vary, often revolving around US copyright laws. An infamous US case, the "monkey selfie" case, suggests non-human authorship might not be copyrightable in the US. However, other countries adopt nuanced views. In South Africa, the Copyright Amendment Act 125 of 1992 is significant. It defines authorship for computer-generated works, stating the person responsible for arranging the work's creation process is considered the author.
South African courts have further elucidated this concept. They distinguish between "computer-assisted" and "computer-generated" works, where the former involves human-aided creation, and the latter is largely autonomous. Recent cases underscore minimal human involvement in "computer-generated" works.
See Payen components SA Ltd v Bovic Gaskets CC, and Haupt v Brewers Marketing Intelligence (Pty) Ltd
Conclusion:
For South African
users of generative AI, the more detailed their input, the likelier they are to
be deemed the authors of resulting copyrightable work. Techniques like prompt
engineering can aid this. Understanding the legal context empowers creators to
navigate AI ownership intricacies.
No comments:
Post a Comment