Generative Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Law

From the dawn of mankind, our creative expressions evolved alongside what it means to be human. From dyes and pigments to hammer and chisel, we have continuously adapted new technology to bear the imaginations of our souls. Printing presses, typewriters, word processors, Email, and computer assistance have altered how works are created, produced, disseminated, and communicated. Nothing about the use of technology in the production of authorship is new.

While new technologies promise new forms of expression and collaboration, they also force us to reconsider old assumptions about authorship, originality, and ownership. At the heart of the current debate is a fundamental legal question: Who owns AI-generated content?

It is without argument that human creativity is protected by law. While courts, policymakers, and industry bodies grapple with how to treat machine-generated works, deeper tensions are surfacing. Today, we start our exploration by examining what the United States Copyright Office (USCO) has to say on the topic.

“Neither the use of AI as an assistive tool nor the incorporation of AI-generated content into a larger copyrightable work affects the availability of copyright protection for the work as a whole.” Page 1

“For a work created using AI, like those created without it, a determination of copyrightability requires fact-specific consideration of the work and the circumstances of its creation.” Page 2

In the coming days, I will post other statements about my use of artificial intelligence. I do this for several reasons, among them being transparency and declaration. You, the consumer of my works, have the right to know that I used technology to refine the imaginations of my soul.

“Where AI merely assists an author in the creative process, its use does not change the copyrightability of the output. At the other extreme, if content is entirely generated by AI, it cannot be protected by copyright.” Page 2

To be clear: Nothing I produce is entirely, nor even close to substantially, generated by artificial intelligence.

“The Office agrees that there is an important distinction between using AI as a tool to assist in the creation of works and using AI as a stand-in for human creativity.” Page 12 Granting that human authors may use AI in the creative process, the report states that “the nature and extent of a human’s contribution, and whether it qualifies as authorship of expressive elements contained in the output.” Page 1

I have studied the USCO’s report, incorporated articles and media output on court rulings, ideas, and postulations about the use of AI as I create my works of art. I am conscientious about how I interact, collaborate, and utilize GPT Chatbots in every aspect of story creation, from original ideas to plot and character arcs, technologies of the near future, descriptions of people, places, events, actions, and dialogue. Everything I read, watch, or listen to on this subject confirms my ethical and legal use of technology in my creative process.