In the era of 2023 - 2024, technology has advanced to the point where it has entered the era of Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI has influenced human work with benefits including speed, ease, and cost savings. It has become a tool to effectively replace personnel in various tasks, such as content writing, book writing, market data compilation, image creation, video editing, and even programming teams.
However, there is currently widespread debate about the ownership of creative works generated by AI. According to copyright law, the creator of a work must be a "person." Therefore, when considering the creation of works by AI, even if prompted by human input, it cannot be considered whether the person who prompted the AI to work has used sufficient creative thought. AI's function is to combine images from many artists existing today to create a new image. However, to have copyright, the creation must come from the knowledge and abilities of the individual who conceived it.
In the United States, there are similar opinions on this issue. The United States Copyright Office (USCO) has published Guidance on copyright registration involving media crafted by artificial intelligence, which states that works created by AI "cannot be registered for copyright, and if any copyrighted work is created collaboratively by both human and AI, it must be clearly identified when submitting the copyright registration." Therefore, considering the guidelines of the United States, the creation of a work should be protected as long as it is the product of human creativity, not AI.
Regarding the case of "Li-Liu," where "Li" used the Stable Diffusion program to create an image of an "Asian girl" and posted it on social media, and blogger "Liu" posted that image on their blog, removing the watermark and implying it as their own creation. "Li" then sued "Liu" for using the image without permission. The court in China held that "Li" continuously commanded the system and repeatedly adjusted parameters to get the image of the girl as they wanted, reflecting "the natural choice and the exercise of personal judgment," ordering "Liu" to apologize publicly and pay a fine of 500 yuan. The head judge in this case, "Joo-Gor," commented that the legal status given to AI content in this case aims to promote people's creativity with new tools.
Therefore, while there is much debate about whether content or images from AI have intellectual property or not, as a user, one should be aware of the importance of not violating intellectual property. Otherwise, you could be a case study for Thailand.
Comentários