A.I. Lawsuits (July 2024)
There are currently 20 pending lawsuits related to A.I. and copyright infringement:
- Alter v. OpenAI (S.D.N.Y.) – Authors (Input Lawsuits)
- Andersen v. Stability AI (class action – N.D. Cal.) – Visual Arts (Input Lawsuits)
- Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic P.B.C. (M.D. Tenn.) – Musicians (Input Lawsuits)
- New York Times v. Microsoft (S.D.N.Y.) – News Publishers (Output Lawsuit)
- Getty Images v. Stability AI (D. Del.) – Photographers (Input Lawsuits)
- Doe v. Github, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) – Software Coders (Input Lawsuits)
It’s important to note that these lawsuits, which involve claims of copyright infringement related to using copyrighted works to train A.I. systems (Input Lawsuits) and the unauthorized use of AI-generated outputs (Output Lawsuits), are all still being litigated. This ongoing legal battle underscores the complexity and duration of the legal process in these cases.
Now, let’s delve into the significant concerns A.I. outputs pose for copyright law. Referencing the “Monkey Selfie” case, the critical issue is the distinction between human and machine authorship. For copyright to apply, a human must participate in the traditional elements of authorship. This requirement needs to be clearly defined and is subject to case-by-case interpretation.
Case Study: “A Recent Entrance to Paradise”
This case is one of the first to involve AI-generated work submitted to the Copyright Office. The work, titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” was created autonomously by an A.I.AI called Creativity Machine, owned by Richard Taylor. Taylor submitted the job, claiming that while the A.I.AI created it, he should own the copyright as the A.I.AI’s owner.
The Copyright Office rejected the claim, stating that copyright requires human creativity, not machine creativity. Taylor could challenge this decision in court, but the court upheld the Copyright Office’s stance, confirming that a human must engage in intellectual, creative, and artistic labor to qualify for copyright protection.
