A.I. and the U.S. Copyright Office

If you think the courts are crowded now...

The Associated Press reports that the U.S. Copyright Office says people “can copyright works they made with the help of artificial intelligence...An AI-assisted work could be copyrightable if an artist's handiwork is perceptible, or an AI-generated work include a human's ‘creative arrangements or modifications.’"

While the Copyright Office announcement tries to be specific about the process, the language (“perceptible”) reflects the impossibility of the task. At this point, the consensus is that some writing, art, videos and music can be discerned as being AI-generated. As AI develops, that will become more and more difficult and eventually, probably impossible.

This is a technology that can’t be encompassed by legislation or at independent government agencies like the Copyright Bureau, especially given that it receives millions of copyright claims every year.

Am I suggesting there be no legislation around AI? No, but in an era of corporate non-accountability, I’m damned if I can come up with specific ways in which laws will prevent abuse of this technology. For better or worse, this will play out in court.

We’ve seen the difficulty that courts have in adjudicating copyright cases. Look at the labyrinthine judicial history of Andy Warhol vs. Lynn Goldsmith-and that case revolved around a photo with clear prevenance, not one that may have been made in collaboration with AI.

There’s already litigation filed seeking compensation for artists whose work has been swallowed up to “train” AI computers. Courts will soon be swamped by copyright claims and counterclaims.

Here’s a post-AI job that you will soon see on top ten lists of “growth employment areas”: AI Attorney.

A REMINDER:

I didn’t want subscribers to have to get daily notices, so I moved my series “An Interracial Tune a Day” HERE. Please check it out and consider subscribing to that blog.