Navigating the Unclear Waters of AI Copyright Law: A Comparative Study of EU and US

Published in

PECUNIO

3 min readJun 19, 2023

Exploring the fascinating intersection of Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property laws

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has worked its way into various facets of our lives, often challenging existing legal frameworks. The question of copyright ownership for AI-generated content, such as those produced by OpenAI's ChatGPT, is an issue demanding attention globally, raising complex questions in the realms of intellectual property law. This blog post aims to explore this complex issue, comparing legal perspectives in the European Union and the United States.

Understanding AI and its Output

AI systems like ChatGPT or Stable Diffusion are now capable of generating outputs of a quality once thought unimaginable. However, an important question arises: Do these AI-created works qualify for copyright protection, and if they do, who holds the rights?

The EU Perspective: Insights from Austria

Under the conception of Austrian copyright law, akin to the general European Union law, only "original intellectual creations" are protected. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) clarifies that even short texts or the simplest snapshots can meet this originality requirement. However, the 'original intellectual creation' status pertains exclusively to human efforts. As a result, output created by autonomous AI systems is not protected under EU law, meaning that it can be used freely by anyone. This legal perspective draws a clear distinction between human and AI-generated content, underlining the necessity of human involvement in the creation process.

The US Perspective: Code as Creative Process

In contrast, the United States has traditionally approached the question of AI and copyright from a different angle. While no formal legislative framework or Supreme Court ruling addresses AI-generated content specifically, the US Copyright Office does recognize that code used to create an AI could be copyrightable. Therefore, the programmer could potentially own the copyright to the output, considering the creative process involved in writing the code.

Dealing with Ambiguities: User Input and Creative Control

In both EU and US contexts, complexities arise when the AI is merely following a user's detailed input or instructions. While the AI may generate the final product, it could be argued that the user's substantial creative input establishes their claim to the copyright. This blurring of lines presents an ongoing challenge in defining the boundary between AI as a tool and AI as an autonomous creator.

A Question of Programming: The Role of the AI Developer

The role of the AI developer or programmer in this conundrum also warrants consideration. They may only provide abstract rules and parameters through the algorithm, but their creative process may potentially establish their claim on the copyright. However, it is important to note that any contractual limitations on reuse of the AI's output would only bind the AI service and its users, not other third parties.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the laws governing AI and copyright in the EU and US vary significantly, neither provides a clear framework for resolving these complex issues. As AI technology continues to advance and generate content of increasing quality and variety, it's crucial for legal frameworks to evolve in tandem, providing clear guidance for creators, users, and AI developers alike.