Czech Court: AI tool cannot be the author of copyrighted work
A Czech court has recently ruled that images generated using AI tools cannot be protected by copyright.
The Municipal Court of Prague issued a significant ruling concerning artificial intelligence and copyright law, stating that images created using AI tools cannot be protected by copyright as their author is not a natural person. It also emphasized that individuals who publish images created by AI tools cannot prevent others from copying and exploiting those images by invoking copyright law. The decision indicates that in the legal sphere of the EU, individuals who create images using AI tools will not be able to rely on copyright protection to prevent their copying by third parties. More about the decision.
A different decision regarding the copyright protection of AI-generated works was made, for example, by a Chinese court in 2020 in the Shenzhen Tencent v. Yinxun case (more about the judgment), in which it ruled that a work created by an AI system is a literary work that enjoys copyright protection. The issue is presented in more detail in the article Can Artificial Intelligence Be an Author of Copyrighted Work?, by Dr. Maja Bogataj Jančič LL.M., LL.M.
ODIPI is organizing ERA KR21 Conference: Barriers and Incentives for Open Science in the Copyright Law that will take place on 2 December, 2024 at Hotel Four Points by Sheraton (Mons) in Ljubljana and also online.
The District Court of Hamburg ruled in the case of Kneschke v. LAION e.V. that LAION did not infringe the copyright of photographer Kneschke, as the use of his photograph was covered by the exception for text and data mining (TDM) for scientific purposes.
“Can copyright bring artificial intelligence to its knees? Which other circumstances may cause that the “making” of generative AI can dramatically change in the (near) future. This short paper presents potential challenges that copyright poses to the training of the machines on large amount of data. Different jurisdictions address these issues differently. In the USA the legality of these activities is tested in several court cases. Do gentlemen’s agreements and pragmatic symbiosis known from the “search engines business model” provide sufficient basis and/or incentive for the business model of “making” generative AI business model as well?