The Ghost in the Machine
Possession is always associated with someone. That someone was always human in the past, but what about the present? Thanks to innovators, we have AI. While this is strongly debated in legal vocabulary, this needs to be discussed more vocally and locally. It's not just limited to plaintiffs in designs and theatre but extends to everyday things. Imagine robots cooking and serving an authentic granny recipe, but the granny isn't present there. It is their cognitive ability to assimilate, analyze data, and execute the action.
If the frameworks are not tweaked to meet the requirements of the present and future, then eventually we would find everyone swimming in a pool of disguised unemployment, and the context of such unemployment would be redefined.
Today, at least thousands of AI-generated images have already flooded social networks. However, all these generated images are based on the assimilation of backend databases which were once created, curated, and possessed by some individual. The moment a person is caught, he/she is alleged for plagiarism and disqualified. However, what about the plagiarism and intellectual property (IP) theft that AI openly does? It uses someone's creativity, strategy, work, mind, and innovation to create a piece for someone who mainly depends on prompts typed in a few seconds.
As mentioned earlier, AI is a creation by humans and not human itself. Hence, things produced by it cannot simply be owned by the developer or the one prompting text on it. Proper credit and identity of the original creators should be preserved by making it mandatory for systems to mention database sources. The current system of AI detectors mainly checks whether the content uploader used AI tools; there is no trace of the numerous resources used, no credits—just a simple post tagged “Generated from AI.”
Of course, the user who prompted the AI well to receive that output deserves some level of ownership over the final work, but with correct references and a definite database location so that IP stays protected and recognized.
While there are some country-specific legal systems which either stretch existing laws or exclude recognition of AI-generated art, that does not solve the problem. AI has no geographic or political barriers, which puts intellectual and creative property at global risk. We need a framework that works and coordinates on a global level, along with proper database tracking and regulation so that cyber theft and crimes are reduced.
With the increasing influence of cyber networks, human identity and possessions are endangered by new patterns of assault, which may not seem serious when reading daily news on financial frauds and deepfakes.
Here are some provisions/laws that try to identify computer-generated art:
🇬🇧 United Kingdom
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 – Section 9(3)
“In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.”
“In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.”
Copyright Act, 1957 – Section 2(d)(vi)
“In relation to any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person who causes the work to be created.”
Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 – Section 21(1)
“In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.”
Copyright Act 1994 – Section 5(2)(a)
“In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work that is computer-generated, the author is the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.”
Copyright Ordinance (Cap. 528) – Section 11(3)
“In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.”
It is almost uncertain who actually makes the necessary arrangements, because AI uses its own database and cognitive ability to generate output. However, in the end, it is created from someone's work which might be protected and regulated by laws. Therefore, we cannot clearly label the person generating the output as the sole owner or creator.
System developers are also not the owners of such IP because they do not directly interfere with prompts or specific outputs.
While laws are evolving along with technology, we need to increase the pace of implementation, awareness, and clarity of such crucial regulations so that the world does not fall into another phase of instability and ethical concern.
As Stephen Hawking rightly cautioned:
“Success in creating AI could be the biggest event in the history of our civilization. Or the worst. We just don’t know.”
It's time that we understand the real use, origin, and aftermath of each AI-generated output to preserve authenticity and humanity.
It's time that we should know the real use, cause, origin and aftermath of each AI generated output to save authenticity and humanity.
HEY LOYAL READERS,
Join Brains In You for free and get exclusive insights delivered straight to your inbox.
Simply subscribe to our Substack newsletter and stay updated with every new post!
Comments
Post a Comment