Unlocking the Nuances of Generative AI: US Copyright Office's New Rules

Table of Contents:

1. Introduction
2. US Copyright Office's Current Policy on AI Generated Art
   1. Overview of the Policy
   2. Copyrighting AI Generated Art
   3. Selling AI Generated Art
3. Nuances and Interpretations of Copyright Law
   1. Case-by-case Basis
   2. Creative Modification for Copyrightability
   3. Copyrighting Elements of an Image
4. Clarifications and Corrections from Previous Video
   1. Retracting the Example of the Mona Lisa
   2. Copyrighting Modifications to an Image
5. FAQs on Copyrighting AI Generated Art
   1. Is a Painting Derived from an Image Prompt Copyrightable?
   2. Does AI Generated Art Need to be Public to be in the Public Domain?
   3. Can a Character Image be Considered a Character for Copyright Purposes?
6. The Need for Testing and Exploration of AI Copyright
7. Conclusion

U.S. Copyright Office Issues Rules for Gender of AI - Part 2: More Nuance

In this follow-up video, Neil Blevins delves further into the nuances and complexities of the US Copyright Office's current policy on AI generated art. Following the unexpected popularity of his initial video on the subject, Blevins received feedback and questions from viewers, prompting him to address additional details and provide some clarifications. While he emphasizes that he is not a lawyer and cannot offer legal opinions, Blevins shares insights gathered from copyright lawyers in an attempt to shed more light on the matter.

US Copyright Office's Current Policy on AI Generated Art

Overview of the Policy

Blevins begins by acknowledging the public's desire for definitive answers in a time of rapid change, particularly regarding the realm of AI. However, he highlights that copyright laws are often open to interpretation and subjectivity, making it difficult to provide hard and fast rules. The policy of the US Copyright Office regarding AI generated art is no exception. Copyrightability is determined on a case-by-case basis, and interpretation and nuance play crucial roles in the process.

Copyrighting AI Generated Art

Addressing the topic of copyrighting AI generated art, Blevins retracts an example he previously provided using the Mona Lisa. While stating that modifying a public domain image is unlikely to result in copyright protection, Blevins clarifies that copyright is not required to sell such artwork. However, without copyright, others are free to do the same. With the recent policy defining AI-generated artwork as public domain, artists can still sell their creations without copyright, but they cannot prevent others from doing the same.

Selling AI Generated Art

Expanding on the distinction between copyrighting the entire image and copyrighting specific elements of an image, Blevins offers the example of the Mona Lisa once again. He explains that even if copyright is granted for modified elements, others can still copyright their own modifications as long as they do not include the original modifications. Therefore, the focus of copyright protection lies primarily on the changes an artist makes, rather than the entire image itself.

Nuances and Interpretations of Copyright Law

Blevins emphasizes that copyright law is not a straightforward domain, highlighting the role of interpretation and nuance in determining copyrightability. He underscores the need for individual cases to be examined by the copyright office or argued by a lawyer to establish whether sufficient artistic creativity exists for copyright protection.

Case-by-case Basis

The concept of copyright evolving on a case-by-case basis is vital to understand. Blevins stresses that simply modifying a public domain work does not guarantee copyright protection. Instead, the copyright office assesses how much the modification deviates from the original work, leaving the interpretation open-ended.

Creative Modification for Copyrightability

In referencing the previous video, Blevins acknowledges that the example he gave was not ideal. He clarifies that there is no definitive line of how much an image needs to change to be copyrightable. While the copyright office's interpretation remains subjective, it is crucial for artists to understand that achieving copyright protection may require substantial artistic creativity in their modifications.

Copyrighting Elements of an Image

Blevins further explores copyrighting specific elements of an image rather than the image in its entirety. Using his previous Mona Lisa example, he explains that copyright protection applies to the modifications made to the image. However, other artists can Create their own modifications to the original image, copyrighting their changes independently as long as they do not include the original artist's modifications.

Clarifications and Corrections from Previous Video

Recognizing the need for clarifications stemming from viewer feedback, Blevins addresses specific points from his previous video.

Retracting the Example of the Mona Lisa

After consulting copyright lawyers, Blevins retracts his example involving the Mona Lisa. He explains that it is highly unlikely for a modified version of the Mona Lisa, as described in his previous video, to receive copyright protection. The copyright office typically expects more substantial artistic creativity in modifications, which often surpass simple imitation.

Copyrighting Modifications to an Image

Blevins emphasizes that copyright protection extends to modifications made to an image rather than the image as a whole. Therefore, one can copyright modifications made to an image but cannot prevent others from making their own modifications and copyrighting those changes separately.

FAQs on Copyrighting AI Generated Art

Throughout the comments section of his previous video, Blevins noticed recurring questions that remained unanswered. While he does not possess official answers, he believes these questions hold significant importance and should be acknowledged.

Is a Painting Derived from an Image Prompt Copyrightable?

Blevins highlights a question surrounding the copyrightability of a painting derived from an image prompt. While the copyright office has stated that a text prompt alone is insufficient for copyright protection, Blevins wonders if this changes when an image prompt, especially one the artist painted themselves, is involved. As of now, this issue remains unaddressed, leaving room for further exploration.

Does AI Generated Art Need to be Public to be in the Public Domain?

A workaround suggested in the comments suggests that if an AI-generated image is Never shown to the public, it cannot be considered public domain. Blevins ponders whether painting a copy of such an AI-generated image, even if it closely resembles the original, could be copyrightable. While the definition of public domain refers to creative materials that lack protection, the Notion of an image remaining private raises intriguing questions. This hypothetical Scenario raises queries about the potential retraction of copyright if the original AI-generated image were to be released.

Can a Character Image be Considered a Character for Copyright Purposes?

The issue of whether a character image alone constitutes a character for copyright purposes is also Mentioned in the comments. Blevins points out that a drawing, picture, depiction, or written description of a character can be registered for copyright. While a definitive answer is absent, Blevins speculates that if an AI's entire character image is created by AI, copyrighting that character image may not be possible.

The Need for Testing and Exploration of AI Copyright

Concluding his video, Blevins expresses a desire for further exploration and testing of the copyrightability of AI-generated art. He envisions a comprehensive experiment where AI images are created using various techniques, with each case carefully documented. With the guidance of copyright lawyers, Blevins suggests presenting these cases to the copyright office to gauge copyright eligibility. Although he acknowledges personal constraints prohibiting him from undertaking such an endeavor, he encourages others who possess the means to Delve deeper into this topic.

Conclusion

Acknowledging the substantial interest and engagement generated by his initial video, Blevins expresses gratitude for the feedback and questions received. While he plans to shift his focus back to more practical art topics, Blevins promises to update viewers on any future policy information released by the copyright office concerning the copyrighting of AI techniques. He concludes by thanking his audience and directing them to visit his Website and subscribe to his YouTube Channel for further art-related tutorials and lessons.