that the USCO is reviewing its decision, the comic’s copyright registration hasn’t actually been rescinded yet. It seems that one factor in the review will be the degree of human input involved in making the comic. Kristina Kashtanova, the artist who created the work,that she had been asked by the USCO “to provide details of my process to show that there was substantial human involvement in the process of creation of this graphic novel.
Ultimately, though, registering copyright is only a first step, cautions Guadamuz. “The US copyright office is not a court,” he says. “You need registration if you’re going to sue someone for copyright infringement, but it’s going to be a court that decides whether or not that’s legally enforceable.”The input question: can you use copyright-protected data to train AI models?
When deciding if something is fair use, there are a number of considerations, explains Daniel Gervais, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School who specializes in intellectual property law and hason how this intersects with AI. Two factors, though, have “much, much more prominence,” he says. “What’s the purpose or nature of the use and what’s the impact on the market.
Consider the same text-to-image AI model deployed in different scenarios. If the model is trained on many millions of images and used to generate novel pictures, it’s extremely unlikely that this constitutes copyright infringement. The training data has been transformed in the process, and the output does not threaten the market for the original art.
Ryan Khurana, chief of staff at generative AI company Wombo, says most companies selling these services are aware of these differences. “Intentionally using prompts that draw on copyrighted works to generate an output [...] violates the terms of service of every major player,” he toldover email. But, he adds, “enforcement is difficult,” and companies are more interested in “coming up with ways to prevent using models in copyright violating ways [...] than limiting training data.
There’s a last twist to all this, though, as Gervais notes that the current interpretation of fair use may actually change in the coming months due to a pending Supreme Court case. The case involves Warhol’s use of photographs of Prince to create artwork. Was this fair use, or is it copyright infringement?
Concerning
In that case, should fan arts and music covers be a 'scary' thing to copyright? What will happen next is that people who use these IPs in a commercial manner will most likely be hit by the legal system, much like fan-made content for profit. This is absolutely nothing new.