Always Consult a Lawyer on Copyright and AI
Try reading this while listening to this song, for a more musical reading experience.
These are notes I took while listening to an intellectual property lawyer talk about AI and copyright. This is not (I repeat, not) legal advice and, if you have a particular issue regarding AI use in your creations, you should consult an attorney. These are simply the notes I was able to take, along with any questions that occurred to me, as I wrote them up here. I added related sources as they occurred to me and sometimes got my questions answered. Okay, here we go:
AI can affect translators as well as voice actors. See this article.
“The beauty of words… often lies in the nuances of subtleties… machine translation may fail to capture the meaning.” Here are the pros and cons of AI programs vs, human translation services.
She suggested the following wording be included in all publishing contracts.
“All translations of the work shall be performed exclusively by qualified human translators.”
Publishers are pushing for initial AI editing, followed up by human editing. (human oversight of the result, in content or its translation) The Author’s Guild has issued its own suggested contract clause regarding AI.
AI training might not be copyright infringement. See this article: Does the Use of Copyrighted Works to Train AI Qualify as a Fair Use?
On using AI: the more you use it, the less you control your work. Duh.
Control all AI rights through contract. See Author’s Guild article above.
Control use of work to train AI. Ditto.
Possible revenue source (for whom and how?) Here’s an article from Forbes Magazine about that. Got nothing to do with writing fiction, that’s for sure. I think/hope.
And then there’s this. Um …
Control use of AI in producing audiobooks and training by contract (Why? Are we doing this for the better long-term outcome, economically? For the greater good? Do people still do that? And what’s this business with “revenue sources”? See Forbes Magazine article and … um.)
In some case or other, the case was dismissed without prejudice, which means the plaintiff(s) can, if they wish, amend their complaint to show “substantial similarity” since that is the standard to prove that the work has been copied. See Copyright infringement and substantial similarity.
Oh, so now we’re back to good old copyright infringement.
Will have to show the output is substantially similar to the work being used.
You cannot protect, i.e., register a copyright on your style.
It’s the tangible expression of the story that’s protectable.
They are fine-tuning these “machines”, i.e., regenerative AI, so you can’t just type “Joan Didion” and get a “substantially similar” output, i.e., a copy (in essence, I guess).
Everything is a trade secret now. {Apparently, there are ways to protect innovations in machine learning and regenerative AI as trade secrets .] This should make discovery in any legal proceeding extremely annoying, impossible, or at least interesting.
The purpose of the copyright laws are to promote the arts, not protect the artist. See What Is The Purpose of Copyright Law? (Which seems to suggest the purpose encompasses financial benefit to the creator, as well. At least, this interpretation does.)
Therefore, review your contracts for provisions regarding AI and send a letter saying something to the effect that
“our contract does not grant Publisher the right to use AI in any way” (This is wording I just came up with, on my own, right this moment-literally!)
Let’s try that again.
The rights granted to Publisher under this contract dated [insert date], do not include use of AI for any purpose, including, but not limited to editing, proofreading, translation, audiobook or podcast production, adaptation to any medium whatsoever, and any other similar purpose now or in the future. That’s in addition to any provisions about AI training. I left out summarizing for publicity and marketing purposes, because .. meh.
Does that cover everything? I don’t know. Should I include the universe in my contract? I mean, I know I have a copyright on this planet, but …
The copyright office ruled against the woman who tweaked the AI generated images in some famous case [I’m pretty sure it was this one] that I can’t remember because her tweaks resulted in no significant difference from the AI-generated version. The question is, as it’s always been, are the human-made changes to the AI-generated work transformative? That’s my take on the thing.
Someone else has been able to take an image, make significant changes to the AI image and been able to copyright it, but he was able to articulate the changes that he himself made. So, you gotta explain what you did to the AI version in enough detail to show how you’ve transformed the damn thing. Sounds exhausting.
One more time: Anything created entirely by AI can’t be registered for copyright protection. However, AI-generated creative content that’s been changed by human beings in a significant way qualifies for copyright registration. However, you have to be able to explain exactly how you’ve changed it, I guess. How detailed does this explanation have to be?
Here we go, the answer we’ve all been waiting for: it depends. You realize that’s just my best guess, right? Sure.
Now, as to all the definitions of various words, well … ask a practicing attorney. Not me.
Do that, anyway. Because you shouldn’t believe everything you read on the internet.
PS: I don’t know if this helps any, but here you go!
And here’s more reading for your enjoyment:
AI-generated Content and Copyright Registration.
US Copyright Office Seeks Public Comment on AI.
PPS: Isn’t law fun?!
PPPS: This is me, driving. If Bob were my husband, he’d be hanging on for dear life and telling me to speed up/slow down/downshift/quit chugging the engine.
Originally published at http://randomandsundrythings.wordpress.com on September 6, 2023.
