US Copyright Office Clears AI Filmmaking Tools: Human Authorship Still Rules

by

On Wednesday, it was announced by the U.S. Copyright Office that employing AI tools for creative work does not challenge the ownership rights of the created piece.

I wholeheartedly endorse the recent announcement that paves the path for further integration of AI in post-production, a realm where its presence has significantly grown, as exemplified in the refinement of Hungarian dialogue in “The Brutalist.” Studios, whose core operations hinge on robust copyright frameworks, have voiced apprehension regarding potential regulatory hurdles that might impede AI tools. I believe we should collaborate to address these concerns and ensure a conducive environment for the continued evolution of AI technology in our industry.

As a discerning movie critic, I must emphasize that the essence of artistic ownership, as underscored in a comprehensive 41-page document by the Copyright Office, lies in human creativity. Merely typing commands into an AI system does not automatically bestow ownership on the output generated – it’s the human mind, not the machine, that breathes life into the work.

For the first time since March 2023, following the launch of ChatGPT, the Copyright Office has provided their viewpoint on this matter. The report, while maintaining similar stances as previous ones, provides stronger assurances that AI can be considered legitimate when used to enhance the creative process.

According to the report, employing AI tools to aid instead of replace human creativity won’t impact the eligibility for copyright protection regarding the final product.

In line with its previous advice, the office stated that an AI-created work can be protected by copyright if the creator makes original selections and arrangements of the generated elements.

The report explains that copyright safeguards unique human-created expressions within a piece of work, regardless of whether it incorporates elements generated by artificial intelligence.

The report signifies a major milestone in the two-year discussion surrounding AI in artistic domains, triggered by the Copyright Office soliciting opinions on the matter back in 2023. The inquiry garnered over 10,000 responses, with numerous contributions coming from artists and musicians who expressed concerns that AI infringes upon their work and presents a serious risk to their income sources.

This is the second in a series of three reports about AI, following the first one released last July. The initial report proposed laws to regulate AI-created replicas that mimic human voices and appearances. The upcoming third report will address the challenging discussion on whether AI systems should be allowed to learn from copyrighted materials without proper licensing.

We’re now working on the second of three reports about AI. The first one, published in July, suggested laws to stop fake human voices and images made by AI. Next, we’ll tackle a difficult debate over whether AI can learn from copyrighted works without permission.

Two years back, our office stressed that AI-produced works aren’t entitled to copyright protection. Those seeking copyright registration were advised to explicitly state that any AI-generated content was not their original work.

The Motion Picture Association, representing seven main film studios, expressed disagreement with this particular clause, stating it as “misguided” and impractical for use in the realm of movies and TV series. They pointed out that several post-production techniques, like de-aging actors, erasing unwanted scene elements, and rotoscoping, could advantage from AI technology.

The MPA stated that artists are excited about AI tools that boost their creative processes and look forward to further advancements in this field. Essentially, AI technology offers promising possibilities for both creators and their viewers. The MPA’s members are hopeful about the future these advancements may bring.

In their findings, the Copyright Office acknowledged and concurred with the MPA’s viewpoint regarding de-aging and other post-processing techniques. They stated that such assistive features, which augment human expression, should not impede the scope of copyright protection.

The office stated that they don’t object to the application of AI in stimulating brainstorming sessions, or assisting in drafting outlines for written pieces.

The boundary it sets is for systems such as Midjourney, capable of producing images from straightforward text instructions. To make their point clear, the Copyright Office utilized Google’s Gemini to produce an image depicting a cat puffing on a pipe.

The various aspects of the picture, including a human hand, seem haphazard, suggesting that the environment was discovered rather than intentionally created, implying insufficient control by the user to assert ownership.

As a film enthusiast, I’ve found myself pondering over the debates about AI-generated images and their copyright implications. Some folks have suggested that the creative process is iterative, meaning we can tweak our prompts repeatedly to guide the output. However, these adjustments didn’t seem to sway the Copyright Office in their decision-making process.

According to the report, when a user resubmits prompts several times, it’s like rolling dice again and again, leading to more options being produced for selection. However, this doesn’t change the level of control the user has over the process itself.

The office chose not to support the proposal for extra copyright safeguards for works produced by AI. They highlighted concerns over possible negative impacts on human authors, even as they admitted that the implications for employment are complex and challenging to foresee.

The office agrees with the worries raised regarding how artificial intelligence-made content affects traditional authors and the societal worth of their creative contributions. If authors can’t earn a living from their work, they may produce less. In our opinion, society would suffer if the flames of human creativity were to dwindle or flicker.

Read More

2025-01-29 18:47