Intellectual Property Insights from Fishman Stewart PLLC
Newsletter – Volume 23, Issue 11
Share on Social
US Copyright Protection for AI-Generated Works
By Kristyn Webb
The US Copyright Office recently made headlines for partially revoking a copyright registration it previously issued for an AI-generated graphic novel. Artist Kristina Kashtanova used the Midjourney platform to create images that she included in her graphic novel called Zarya of the Dawn. Then, Kashtanova filed an application to register the copyright listing herself as the sole author of the work. The Copyright Office issued a registration, and shortly thereafter, Kashtanova posted on social media that she had obtained the first copyright registration for an AI-generated work.
The Copyright Office became aware of Kashtanova’s posts, reopened the case, and issued a new registration, covering only the materials created exclusively by Kashtanova: the text, and the selection and arrangement of the images and text. The individual images created by Midjourney were excluded from copyright protection because the Copyright Office determined that Kashtanova’s user prompts were insufficient to make her an “author” of the Midjourney image outputs. The Copyright Office reasoned that, unlike other tools used by artists, like Adobe Photoshop, a Midjourney user cannot control or predict the outputs that Midjourney will generate.
Kashtanova has hinted at plans to appeal the Copyright Office’s decision. If so, the federal court hearing the matter will have to decide whether it agrees with Kashtanova, and that Midjourney is no different from any other artistic tool. After all, the element of randomness and unpredictability in the creative process has not resulted in forfeiture of copyright protection in other mediums, like a Jackson Pollock painting, or the Zapruder film. Or the federal court may side with the Copyright Office and find that whatever creativity there is in the output comes from the AI machine, rather than the human user. Regardless of which side the court chooses, the outcome will have profound effects on the legal protection available for AI-generated artwork.
Since issuing its decision in Kashtanova’s case, the Copyright Office has issued guidance on registration of AI-generated content. In short, the Copyright Office recognizes that some AI-generated content may attract copyright protection where there is sufficient human involvement in the creative process, but that copyright protection will only extend to the human-authored aspects of the work. Further, any AI-generated content must be disclosed and disclaimed in the application process before the Copyright Office, or if a registration has already issued, a supplementary registration should be filed.
We will keep you updated as these areas of law and technology develop.
Kristyn Webb is the Group Leader of Fishman Stewart’s Copyright Practice Group, and is currently earning a Master’s Degree in Copyright Law at King’s College London.
Related Content from Fishman Stewart
L.A.B. Golf aims to protect its innovations, and therefore its market position, owning three patents for its zero-torque design. The question now is whether L.A.B. Golf can withstand the wave of copycat designs.
One of his most famous songs, “Lose Yourself” was recently at the center of a lawsuit. In 2019, Eminem’s publishing company Eight Mile Style sued Spotify claiming that Spotify streamed a number of its musical compositions without proper licenses.
Our latest article tackles three common trademark questions: 1. Can I trademark my own name? 2. Can I trademark the name of a fictional character? 3. Can I trademark the name of a U.S. president or British royal?
One of the most common challenges is whether AI should be free to train on data that is protected by copyright and owned by third parties without first obtaining permission.
Like the titles of single creative works, character names do not generate trademark rights unless used for a series of creative works (meaning two or more). A year ago, Jane Wick, LLC filed a trademark application for the mark JANE WICK in logo format.
The U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) recently published its latest report on AI and “copyrightability.” In short, the USCO considers only some AI-generated works to be sufficiently creative as to deserve copyright protection, and thus, registration.
We know that as of June 4, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) had issued more than twelve million patents. We also know that more than 10,000 patents were in existence before the count began.
Back in the 1940’s assignments by independent contractors could be permanent and irrevocable. Things changed in 1976, when Congress overhauled the Copyright Act.
Generally, copyright protects the specific expression of ideas, such as the arrangement and presentation of visual elements, but it does not protect general concepts or styles.
In the age of the internet, memes are a universal language. A meme is a piece of content, typically an image, video, text, or a combination of these, that spreads rapidly across the internet, often with humorous, relatable, or satirical undertones.
IDENTIFYING, SECURING AND ADVANCING CREATIVITY®
