Artificial intelligence, more specifically generative models, In a short period of time, they have become a major world power when it comes to creating certain types of content.. In this regard, just a few days ago we told you about the milestone achieved by the production of images using artificial intelligence with regard to photography, which is another example that in the future there will be more and more content coming from this type of model. present in our lives.

this of course raises a number of challenges as well as doubts, about how all this production will be managed and especially if it will be comparable in many respects to those creations that are of human origin. Since we are still at the moment, let’s say at the beginning of this revolution, this is the time when the foundations must begin to be formed to regulate all that is to come.

In this regard, of course, it is essential distinguish between creations created by a generative AI model and creations created by a human being but assisted by artificial intelligence, as Paul McCartney recently did to restore an old John Lennon recording and make it the final work. Here, of course, the question is whether there should be a percentage metric that would determine whether an AI-assisted creation deserves to be considered human or not.

This, carried over into the realm of copyright, has opened up a complex debate that focuses on whether AI creations enjoy said protections. As we can read on TechSpot, There is already jurisprudence in the United States suggesting that AI creations are not copyrightable. There is no consensus on this, but this view seems to prevail in Europe as well. Establishing case law in this regard is therefore undoubtedly a very important step.

In this case, the court’s decision confirms a conclusion previously reached by the US Copyright Office against the claims of Stephen Thaler, CEO of Neural Networks at Imagination Engines, who wanted to inscribe (and thus protect) the image generated by the Creativity Machine model. As plaintiff, Thaler argued that the authority’s decision was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and not in accordance with law“But he found strength in the response from the court”human authorship is a basic requirement of copyright«.

It assumes that a victory for those who defend this position, which is also reinforced by decisions such as the Grammy organization. However, there are still several problems in this regard, regardless of whether similar jurisprudence is established (or not) in other parts of the world. The first is, as already indicated above, determining the degree of participation of artificial intelligence in the creative process so that the resulting work can be protected by copyright or not, and it is certainly an extremely complex matter.

On the other hand, and even worse, we find ourselves in trouble, in many cases, the impossibility of determining whether the work was created by artificial intelligence or not. We recently learned that OpenAI has thrown in the towel in an effort to identify whether or not text was created by AI. These difficulties already exist at a time when generative models still need to evolve to improve their outputs and avoid problems like the one we told you about yesterday. In other words, we are moving towards a world where it will be impossible to distinguish, which will present a challenge to copyright management.