[14:44 Fri,31.January 2025 by Thomas Richter] |
Are works created by AIs – be they texts, images, videos, or music – protected by copyright? Until now, the prevailing view was that AI-generated works are not copyright-protected because they require human creativity. However, to what extent does this principle apply to works in which AI is only used in some steps? This question has become increasingly pressing with the ever-growing number of AI tools in all creative fields, including tools for digitally aging or rejuvenating actors, for object-oriented editing of images/videos, for changing image or music styles, and many more.
![]() The Motion Picture Association (MPA), which represents seven major Hollywood film studios, had called for clarification on this issue, as copyright is the basis of its business model and the risk of losing this protection for some AI-created works is existential. Therefore, the US Copyright Office has just published a major statement on this topic to clarify exactly when such works of art are protected by copyright and when they are not. Two years ago, the office had already determined that works created by a machine cannot be copyrighted; now it has further elaborated on this point. A Text Prompt Is Not EnoughAccordingly, works enjoy copyright protection only if AI is used to support – and not replace – human creativity, i.e., a human must make the actual creative decisions that determine the expression of a work. The Copyright Office considers mere text prompting (e.g., to generate an image) insufficient, as it leaves many creative decisions affecting the final appearance to the machine, and ![]() ![]() However, the situation is different if human input allows for more control, for example, in the form of a drawing for image-to-image prompts, and is thus clearly recognizable in the final result – then copyright protection may exist for these elements. And AI Tools?The statement also specifically addresses the use of certain AI tools (such as for (de-)aging) and sees no problem for copyright protection if such tools are only used to support human creativity and not as a replacement. And even if a human specifically edits, distributes, or combines the result of a generative AI, copyright protection can apply as long as the artist&s signature is recognizable. An example given is a text written by a human that is supplemented by AI-generated images. ![]() In German copyright law, these rules probably most closely correspond to the so-called "creative height" that is necessary for protection. However, these are naturally relatively vague in view of the diverse AI workflows. This also means that ultimately everything depends on a case-by-case examination, which could lead to artists having to document their creative process from now on in order to dispel the suspicion of having used "too much" AI in creation when registering their copyright claim or later in the event of a challenge. Courts would then have to decide anew in each case on very individual workflows in which AI tools are used. The Copyright Office sees no need for special new laws regarding the use of AI. Another important aspect of the discussion about the use of AI in the creation of new works is not addressed, however: namely, the big question of to what extent the training of AI using partly copyrighted works is even legal, but this will probably be clarified by several ongoing processes. Bild zur Newsmeldung:
![]() deutsche Version dieser Seite: KI-Werke sind nicht vom Copyright geschützt - es sei denn... |
![]() |