Copyright Policies for AI-Generated Content: The Global Landscape

Author(s): Mohit Sewak, Ph.D.

Originally published on Towards AI.

Let’s come straight to the point and kick things off with a place you know pretty well — good ol’ USA!

Section 1: Uncle Sam Says “No Robots Allowed” in Copyright Town (USA)

Ah, America! Land of the free, home of the brave, and… sticklers for human-made art. You know how much they love their ‘originality’ thing, right? Well, when it comes to copyright, the US Copyright Office is like that strict bouncer at a club, only letting in creations with a ‘human touch’ pass (United States Copyright Office, 2023). No robot DJs allowed, apparently.

[Image: , Prompt: A stern-looking Uncle Sam character wearing a Copyright Office badge, standing at a velvet rope, turning away a robot artist with a paintbrush., Caption: Human Input Only: In Uncle Sam’s copyright club, AI creations are on the VIP blacklist., alt: Humorous depiction of US copyright policy as excluding AI art]

Remember that time when I was trying to get a patent for my… well, let’s just say it was a very ‘innovative’ algorithm back in my PhD days at USC? The patent officer looked at me with the same expression the Copyright Office probably gives AI-generated art — skeptical, to say the least! They wanted to see the human genius, the sweat, the tears, the late-night coffee-fueled coding sessions. Basically, they wanted to know I was the brains behind it, not just some fancy machine spitting out code.

The Human-Authorship Doctrine: No Humans, No Copyright. Period.

So, here’s the deal, according to the US Copyright Office: Copyright is for “original works of authorship” (Copyright Act, Title 17). Key word: authorship. And in their book, ‘authorship’ means human authorship. AI, in their view, is just a fancy tool, like a super-powered paintbrush or a word processor on steroids. Think of it like this: you use a hammer to build a chair, you own the chair’s copyright, not the hammer manufacturer. Same logic applies to AI (United States Copyright Office, 2023).

Pro Tip: If you are creating something using AI and want to copyright it in the US, make sure you, the human, have added significant creative input. Don’t just rely on the AI output as is. Be the director, not just the audience!

AI-Assisted vs. AI-Generated: The Fine Line

Now, it’s not all black and white. If you use AI as a tool, like say, you ask ChatGPT to write a first draft of your blog (hypothetically, of course! 😉), and then you heavily edit it, rewrite chunks, add your own jokes, and sprinkle in some Mohit-magic — boom! That’s considered ‘human-assisted’. Copyrightable! Because you, my friend, are the author (United States Copyright Office, 2023). The AI is just your über-smart intern, helping you out.

But, if you just ask the AI to create something from scratch and you literally just copy-paste and claim it as yours? Nope. Not in the USA. That’s ‘AI-generated’, and according to the Copyright Office, that’s a no-go for copyright protection (United States Copyright Office, 2023). It’s like trying to copyright a photograph taken by a security camera — interesting, maybe, but no human ‘author’ there, right?

Content Types, Applications, and Stakeholders: Who Cares and Why?

Let’s break it down for different types of content:

• Images, Text, Music: Pure AI creations? Copyright denied. But, if you take an AI-generated image and then, say, paint over it digitally, add elements, change the style drastically, and make it your own artistic expression — then those human-authored elements can be copyrighted. It’s all about showing your creative fingerprint.
• Software Code: If you’re a coder using AI tools to speed things up — like GitHub Copilot suggesting lines of code — and you are still making the key architectural decisions and writing significant chunks of code yourself, then your code can be copyrighted. AI is just your coding buddy, not the lead programmer.
• Generative AI Platforms: Think Midjourney, DALL-E, ChatGPT. These platforms themselves can’t copyright the raw output their AI spits out based on user prompts. However, they might start focusing on tools that let users significantly modify the AI output, so users can add that crucial ‘human spark’ and claim copyright. Smart move, eh?
• Creative Industries: Artists, musicians, writers using AI need to be savvy. They have to ensure their work isn’t just AI regurgitation, but a genuine blend of human creativity and AI assistance. Think of it as a collaboration, where the human is the senior partner.
• News and Journalism: Imagine an AI writing news summaries. Straight-up AI news might be copyright-less. But if a human journalist uses AI to assist in research, fact-checking, or even drafting, and then adds their editorial judgment, analysis, and writing flair — that content can be protected. Human plus AI, that’s the ticket.

Stakeholders in this Copyright Conundrum:

• Creators: Gotta prove that human spark! Document your creative process, show your edits, your unique inputs. Basically, show your work!
• Users: You might not own the copyright to pure AI stuff you generate, limiting how you can use it commercially. Be careful if you are planning to build a business on just copy-pasting AI outputs.
• Platforms: Need to empower users to add their human creativity. Think about offering editing tools, style transfer options, ways to remix and personalize AI outputs.
• Industries: Stock photo sites, music libraries relying heavily on pure AI content? They might need to rethink their strategy because purely AI stuff in the US? Copyright… denied!

Trivia Time: Did you know that in the US, ideas themselves are not copyrightable, only the expression of those ideas? So, you can’t copyright the idea of ‘a story about a boy wizard’, but you can copyright Harry Potter because it’s how J.K. Rowling expressed that idea (Copyright Act, Title 17). It’s all about the execution, baby!

“Creativity is intelligence having fun.” — Albert Einstein.

Let’s make sure humans are still having the most fun, even with AI in the mix!

Pro Tip for the Road: Always keep records of your human contributions when using AI. Think of it as building your copyright ‘paper trail’. Dates, drafts, edits, creative choices — document everything! It could save your skin (and your copyright!) later.

Okay, USA copyright scene — check! Next stop on our world tour? Across the pond to the land of Shakespeare and… slightly different AI copyright rules! Let’s hop over to the United Kingdom!

Section 2: Cheers, Mate! UK’s “Computer-Generated Works” — A Quirky Copyright Corner

Right then, off to the UK! Now, the Brits, bless their innovative hearts, have a rather… unique take on this whole AI copyright thing. While the US is all about “human authorship or bust,” the UK has this quirky little provision called “computer-generated works” (CGW) tucked away in their Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988 (UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Section 178). It’s like they saw the AI future coming way back then!

I remember presenting my research at a conference in UK once. During the Q&A, a very proper-sounding gentleman asked me about the implications of AI on intellectual property. I started talking about human authorship, US style, and he politely interrupted, “Ah, but have you considered our Computer-Generated Works provision, old boy?” Talk about a curveball! That’s when I realized the UK was playing a different copyright game altogether.

CGW: Copyright Without a Human Author? Blimey!

Here’s the head-scratcher: UK law actually allows for copyright even when there’s no human author! Section 178 defines a CGW as “a work generated by computer in circumstances such that there is no human author of the work” (UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Section 178). Whoa! Mind blown, right?

And Section 9(3) goes even further, stating that for CGW, “the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken” (UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Section 9(3)). So, basically, if a computer (or AI) creates something all on its own, someone still gets to be the ‘author’ and hold copyright. And that ‘someone’ is whoever made the arrangements for it to happen. Trippy, isn’t it?

Pro Tip: The UK’s CGW provision could be a game-changer for AI developers and platforms. But, the interpretation of “arrangements” is key, and still a bit murky. Legal battles might be brewing!

“Arrangements Necessary”: The Million-Pound Question

What exactly are these “arrangements necessary”? That’s the million-pound question, isn’t it? Does it mean the person who wrote the AI’s code? The company that runs the AI platform? The user who types in the prompt? The law doesn’t spell it out clearly, and that’s where the legal fun (and headaches) begin.

The UK Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO) is currently revisiting this CGW provision because, let’s face it, AI has gotten way more sophisticated since 1988. They are wondering if this provision is still fit for purpose in a world of super-smart, almost autonomous AI (UK Intellectual Property Office). Think about it, back then, “computer-generated” probably meant some basic algorithms creating pixel art. Now, we have AI composing symphonies and writing screenplays!

Content Types, Applications, and Stakeholders: A British Perspective

How does this CGW quirkiness play out in practice?

• Text, Images, Music, Code: Theoretically, pure AI creations in these formats could be copyrightable in the UK under CGW, provided someone made the “arrangements.” This is way more lenient than the US stance. Imagine an AI composing a pop song entirely on its own. In the UK, someone could potentially copyright it!
• Generative AI Platforms: This is where it gets interesting. Platforms like DeepMind or Stability AI could argue that they are the ones making the “arrangements necessary” for AI content creation, and therefore, they could claim copyright on AI-generated outputs. Potentially a big advantage for platforms operating in the UK!
• Creative Industries: Even with CGW, UK creators might still prefer to show human authorship to avoid legal ambiguity. “Human-assisted” might still be seen as safer copyright ground, even with the CGW safety net.
• Software Development: Companies using AI to generate code in the UK could potentially claim copyright under CGW if they can argue they made the “arrangements.” This could incentivize AI-driven software innovation in the UK.

Stakeholders in the UK Copyright Drama:

• Arrangers (Platforms/Companies): They are the potential copyright winners in the UK system. But, they need to navigate the murky waters of “arrangements necessary” and be ready for legal interpretations and challenges.
• Users: Potentially benefit from broader copyright protection. If platforms can copyright AI outputs, maybe they will offer more user-friendly licensing options? But uncertainty remains until the “arrangements” definition is clarified.
• Legal Interpretation: The word “person” in UK law generally includes companies as well as individuals. So, AI companies themselves might be able to claim CGW copyright. This is a huge deal!
• Industries: Industries investing in AI content generation might see the UK as a more copyright-friendly zone than the US. Could the UK become an AI content creation hub because of CGW? Intriguing thought!

Trivia Time: The UK was one of the first countries in the world to recognize “computer-generated works” in its copyright law. Talk about being ahead of the curve! Though, maybe even they didn’t foresee AI becoming this creative back in ‘88! (UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988).

“To be or not to be, that is the question… of AI copyright!” — Yours Truly, Dr. Mohit Sewak, while paraphrasing some famous Brit.

Okay, Shakespeare probably didn’t say that exactly, but he might have pondered AI copyright if he were around today!

Pro Tip for the Road: If you are operating an AI platform in the UK, get yourself a good lawyer, mate! Seriously. The CGW provision is a legal gray area. Understanding “arrangements necessary” and how to best position yourself to claim CGW copyright is crucial.

Alright, from London fog to… Brussels bureaucracy! Let’s hop over to the European Union and see how they are grappling with AI and copyright. Spoiler alert: it’s a bit more complicated, and involves more meetings!

Section 3: Bonjour Copyright! The EU’s “Own Intellectual Creation” Tango

Ah, the European Union! A continent of culture, history, and… a rather nuanced approach to copyright. Unlike the UK’s quirky CGW provision, the EU, in general, leans towards the “human touch” doctrine, much like the US (Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament). But, as with anything EU-related, it’s a bit more… harmonized and directive-driven.

I remember attending a conference in Brussels once, discussing EU digital policy. Trying to understand the EU’s stance on AI copyright felt like trying to navigate a… well, an EU committee meeting! Lots of languages, lots of opinions, and a general feeling that everyone is trying to agree, but… slowly. Very slowly.

Originality is Key: “Own Intellectual Creation” or Bust in the EU

The EU copyright framework, shaped by directives like the Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC, emphasizes “originality” as a condition for copyright protection (Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament). But what does ‘originality’ mean? The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the EU’s top court, has weighed in. They say ‘originality’ means a work is the author’s “own intellectual creation,” reflecting their personality and free and creative choices. Translation? Human authorship, basically (CJEU interpretations of EU Directives).

Pro Tip: In the EU, “originality” isn’t just about being new; it’s about being a reflection of the human author’s creative personality. Think of it as artistic DNA — they want to see your unique creative code in the work.

So, across most EU member states, purely AI-generated stuff? Probably not copyrightable. They want to see that “human creative contribution” (EU Directives and National Laws of Member States). It’s all about that human intellectual creation. The EU is very much in the ‘human-in-the-loop’ camp when it comes to copyright.

Ongoing Discussions, Evolving Policies: The EU Shuffle

Now, the EU isn’t ignoring AI. Oh no, they are discussing it. A lot! The AI Act, for example, is a massive piece of EU legislation aiming to regulate AI (Artificial Intelligence Act). And within that, and broader EU digital strategy talks, AI and IP are definitely on the agenda (Artificial Intelligence Act). But, specific EU-wide copyright policy for AI-generated content? Still evolving. Think of it as a slow, but steady, EU policy dance. A tango, perhaps? Lots of steps forward, some steps back, and a bit of side-stepping.

Content Types, Applications, and Stakeholders: An EU Perspective

So, how does the EU’s “originality” focus impact things on the ground?

• Text, Images, Music, Code: Like the US, in the EU, pure AI creations in these formats are unlikely to get copyright protection. The human originality requirement is a tough hurdle. AI-assisted works? Potentially copyrightable, if they show significant human creative input. Déjà vu, anyone?
• Generative AI Platforms: EU platforms face similar challenges as their US counterparts. They need to enable users to inject that “own intellectual creation” magic to make AI outputs copyrightable. EU users need tools to personalize, modify, and add their creative stamp.
• Creative Industries: EU artists using AI? Focus, focus, focus on demonstrating your original creative contribution! Make it clear that you are not just pressing ‘generate’ and calling it a day. Show the human artistry!
• Research and Education: AI-generated academic papers or educational materials without significant human intellectual input? Copyright… unlikely. EU academia still values human thought, analysis, and writing, surprise!

Stakeholders in the EU Copyright Epic:

• Creators: Must prove their work is their “own intellectual creation.” Substantial human input, show your personality in the work! Think of it as infusing your creative soul into the AI-assisted creation.
• Users: Similar limitations as in the US — purely AI-generated content? Copyright-challenged. Commercial use might be tricky without adding human creativity.
• EU Policymakers: They are in a tight spot. Balancing encouraging AI innovation with upholding the traditional principles of human authorship and “intellectual creation.” It’s a tough policy balancing act.
• Industries: Need to navigate potentially varying interpretations of “originality” across different EU member states. And lobby for clearer EU-wide guidelines. EU-level harmonization, anyone?

Trivia Time: The EU Copyright Directive (2001/29/EC) was adopted way before the current AI boom. Talk about trying to fit a square peg in a round hole! The EU framework was designed for a pre-AI world, and now they are trying to adapt it to the AI revolution. Policy catch-up in action!

“Europe was created by history. America was created by philosophy.” — Margaret Thatcher.

Well, when it comes to AI copyright, both history (EU tradition of human authorship) and philosophy (US focus on individual creativity) are clashing with technology!

Pro Tip for the Road: Keep an eye on EU policy developments! The EU is actively discussing AI and IP. Engage in the conversation! Your voice (especially if you are a creator or platform in the EU) matters! Lobbying might be in order!

Alright, EU copyright tango — paso doble-d! Let’s take a step back and zoom out to the global level.

Next stop: WIPO — the World Intellectual Property Organization! Think of them as the United Nations of copyright… but for the whole world!

Section 4: WIPO: The Global Copyright Chat Club — Talking AI, Not Ruling It

Now, let’s step onto the global stage, folks! Forget country-specific policies for a moment. Enter WIPO — the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Think of WIPO as the global forum where all countries come to chat about intellectual property, including the AI copyright conundrum (WIPO Conversation on IP and AI). They are like the ultimate global copyright discussion club, but with fancy reports and important-sounding committees.

If you could ever go to present at a WIPO conference once in Geneva, you will realize that is fascinating! Delegates from all over the world, passionately debating the future of IP in the age of AI. It feels like being in a global brainstorming session, trying to collectively wrap your heads around this AI copyright beast.

Facilitating Dialogue, Not Dictating Law: WIPO’s Role

Here’s the key thing about WIPO: they don’t set binding international laws (WIPO). Nope. They are more about facilitating international dialogue. They host discussions, commission studies, publish reports, and try to foster consensus among their member states (WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR)). Think of them as global copyright matchmakers, trying to find common ground, but not actually officiating any marriages.

Pro Tip: WIPO is the place to watch for global trends in AI copyright policy. Their discussions and reports shape the international conversation and influence national policies. Pay attention to WIPO!

WIPO’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) is where a lot of the AI copyright action happens (WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR)). They explore different models for copyrighting AI-generated content, from sticking to strict human authorship to maybe, just maybe, exploring new models that acknowledge AI’s creative role. They are basically trying to figure out: how do we adapt copyright for the AI age?

Global Harmonization Efforts: Finding Common Ground in a Copyright Babel

WIPO’s work is crucial for trying to bring some international harmonization to this crazy AI copyright landscape (WIPO Conversation on IP and AI). Right now, as we are seeing, different countries have wildly different approaches — US says ‘no AI copyright’, UK says ‘maybe CGW copyright’, EU says ‘human originality’, and we haven’t even gotten to Asia yet! WIPO is trying to identify areas of agreement and disagreement. Can we find some global best practices? Can we at least reduce the cross-border copyright chaos? That’s the WIPO hope!

Implications for the Global Policy Landscape:

• Shaping the Conversation: WIPO’s work sets the tone for global discussions. Their reports become reference points for national policymakers worldwide. They are basically curating the global AI copyright conversation.
• International Standards (Maybe, Eventually): WIPO’s efforts could lead to some international guidelines or best practices down the line. Don’t expect a binding global AI copyright treaty tomorrow, but WIPO can nudge countries towards more consistent approaches. Slow and steady wins the harmonization race?

Stakeholders at the Global Level:

• National Governments: Governments worldwide look to WIPO for analysis and guidance when crafting their own national AI and IP policies. WIPO is like the global AI copyright policy advisor.
• International Organizations: Organizations like the UN, WTO, etc., use WIPO as a platform for coordinating international IP efforts related to AI. WIPO is the IP hub for the global org world.
• Industries and Creators (Global): Benefit from WIPO’s efforts to clarify the messy international landscape. More clarity = less cross-border uncertainty in AI copyright. Global creators, rejoice (potentially)!

Trivia Time: WIPO was established in 1967, but its roots go way back to 1883 with the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. Talk about a long history in the IP game! They’ve seen copyright evolve from printing presses to… well, AI algorithms! (WIPO).

“The only way to do great work is to love what you do.” — Steve (WIPO’s) Jobs.

Trying to make the global IP landscape a little more… lovable, even with AI shaking things up!

Pro Tip for the Road: Follow WIPO’s work on AI and IP! Check out their website, read their reports, see what the SCCR is up to. If you want to understand the future of global AI copyright, WIPO is your go-to source. Stay globally informed!

Okay, global copyright chat club — adjourned! Let’s now swing East, way East, to the land of dragons, dumplings, and… a surprisingly pragmatic approach to AI copyright. Next stop: China!

Section 5: Ni Hao Copyright! China’s Pragmatic Path — “Certain Intellectual Achievement” Please

Gong Xi Fa Cai, folks! We’ve landed in China, a land of rapid tech innovation, and a copyright landscape that’s… well, let’s call it ‘evolving rapidly’ when it comes to AI. While the US and EU are holding onto human authorship tightly, and the UK is playing with CGW, China is carving out its own, more pragmatic path (China: first copyright ruling on AI-generated image, 2022). Think of it as “copyright with Chinese characteristics”!

If you visit Beijing for a tech conference. You will find, the buzz around AI palpable! Everyone will be talking about AI innovation, AI applications, AI… everything! But when you ask about copyright policies for AI art, the answers will be less… definitive, more… “watch this space.” China is still figuring things out, but they are moving fast, and with a distinctly pragmatic approach.

“Certain Intellectual Achievement”: Not Just Human, But… Original and Skillful

China isn’t strictly saying ‘human authorship only’ like the US. But they are also not fully embracing CGW like the UK. Instead, Chinese courts are starting to assess AI-generated content based on whether it reflects a “certain intellectual achievement” (China: first copyright ruling on AI-generated image, 2022). What does that even mean? Well, it’s about looking at the level of human input in setting up the AI, selecting data, and refining the outputs. It’s a bit like saying, “Show us you put some real effort and skill into this AI creation process, human!”

Pro Tip: China’s “certain intellectual achievement” standard is more flexible than strict human authorship, but less clear than CGW. Demonstrating human involvement and originality is key to copyright success in China.

Recent court decisions in China suggest that if a human provides detailed prompts, selects and arranges AI-generated elements, and exercises creative judgment, the resulting work might be copyrightable in China (China: first copyright ruling on AI-generated image, 2022). It’s not just about pressing ‘generate’. It’s about directing the AI, curating its output, and adding your human creative sauce.

Human Involvement as Key: Directing the AI Orchestra

Think of it like conducting an orchestra. The AI is the orchestra, full of instruments and musical potential. You, the human, are the conductor. You choose the music (prompts), you guide the performance (refine outputs), you shape the final sound (creative judgment). The orchestra (AI) creates music, but the intellectual achievement, the artistic vision, comes from the conductor (human). That’s kind of the Chinese vibe.

Content Types, Applications, and Stakeholders: The Chinese Angle

How does this “intellectual achievement” approach play out in China?

• Images, Text, Art: China’s approach is potentially more permissive than the US or EU. Some AI-generated content could get copyright if you can show sufficient human input and originality. Emphasis on human direction and curation of AI.
• Generative AI Platforms: China might be seen as more platform-friendly than the US or EU. Platforms could argue they have a stronger claim to copyright over AI outputs, especially if users are guided to provide detailed prompts and creative direction. Platform-user collaboration for copyright?
• AI Art and Design: Chinese creators might find it easier to protect AI-assisted works compared to artists in stricter jurisdictions. As long as they can demonstrate their “intellectual achievement” in guiding the AI. Human-AI creative partnerships, Chinese style!
• Technology Companies: Investing in AI content generation in China? Might offer more IP protection opportunities compared to the US or EU. China could become an attractive zone for AI content businesses seeking copyright.

Stakeholders in the Chinese Copyright Landscape:

• Creators: Benefit from a potentially broader scope of copyright protection. But still need to demonstrate human input and “intellectual achievement.” Show your creative kung fu!
• Platforms and Companies (China-based): May find it easier to establish copyright for AI-generated content. Potentially a competitive advantage for Chinese AI businesses.
• Legal System (China): Developing case law to define the boundaries of copyrightability for AI works. Balancing AI innovation with IP rights is the Chinese legal tightrope walk.
• Industries (China): Industries in China might gain a competitive edge by leveraging AI for content creation and protecting it with copyright, potentially more easily than in other regions. China: the rising AI copyright power?

Trivia Time: China’s first copyright ruling on an AI-generated image happened only recently, in late 2022. Talk about real-time policy evolution! China is actively shaping its AI copyright rules as the technology develops, very much ‘learning by doing’! (China: first copyright ruling on AI-generated image, 2022).

“The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” — Lao Tzu.

China’s AI copyright journey is just beginning, and it’s taking pragmatic steps to navigate this new terrain!

Pro Tip for the Road: If you are doing AI content creation in China, or targeting the Chinese market, pay close attention to court decisions and evolving legal interpretations. China’s AI copyright approach is dynamic. Stay agile and informed! Copyright kung fu requires constant learning!

From pragmatic China, we’re heading Down Under! Let’s jump to Australia and see how they are wrestling with AI and copyright… and kangaroos!

Section 6: G’day Copyright! Australia’s CGW Down Under — Arrangements and Reviews

Crikey! We’ve landed in Australia, the land of sunshine, surf, and… another country with a “computer-generated works” (CGW) provision! Yep, just like the UK, Australia has had CGW in its Copyright Act since 1968 (Australian Copyright Act 1968). Are the Aussies onto something here? Let’s find out!

One of my doctoral colleague, once gave a talk at a university in Sydney. Afterwards, during a barbie (that’s Aussie for BBQ, mate!), a law professor asked him, “So, what do you reckon about our CGW, eh?” He was like, “CG-what now?” Turns out, Australia, like the UK, has this unusual copyright approach that could be quite relevant in the AI age.

“Arrangements Necessary” — The Aussie Interpretation

Just like the UK, Australian copyright law says that for CGW, the “author” is “the person who made the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work” (Australian Copyright Act 1968). Sound familiar? It should! It’s almost word-for-word the same as the UK provision. So, copyright can exist for AI-generated works in Australia, and it’s all about who made those “arrangements.” Ringing any CGW bells yet?

Pro Tip: Australia’s CGW provision is very similar to the UK’s. “Arrangements necessary” is still the key phrase, and just as ambiguous. Legal interpretation is crucial.

IP Australia, the Aussie IP office, is currently reviewing their IP framework in light of AI advancements (IP Australia). They are asking the big questions: Is CGW still good enough for today’s AI? Do we need to update copyright law for more complex AI outputs? Think of it as an Aussie copyright “review and revamp” in progress!

Ongoing Review: Copyright Down Under, Under Scrutiny

This review is important because, just like in the UK, the original CGW provision was written way before the AI revolution we are seeing now. Are “arrangements” in 1968 the same as “arrangements” in 2025, when AI can write novels and compose operas? Probably not! IP Australia is trying to figure out if their CGW provision is future-proof, or needs a tune-up.

Content Types, Applications, and Stakeholders: The Aussie Spin

How does CGW — and the ongoing review — affect things in Australia?

• Text, Images, Music, Code: Similar to the UK, Australia’s CGW could mean copyright protection for pure AI creations. It hinges on who made the “arrangements.” Platforms? Developers? Users? Still unclear, but the potential is there.
• Generative AI Platforms: Australia, like the UK, might be a more appealing copyright jurisdiction for platforms. Platforms could argue they are making the “necessary arrangements” for AI content generation. Aussie AI platform advantage?
• Creative Industries: CGW offers a copyright avenue for Aussie creators using AI. But the ongoing review adds uncertainty. Will CGW stay as is? Will it be changed? Creators are in a wait-and-see mode.
• Technological Innovation: The review aims to balance encouraging AI innovation with ensuring proper IP protection. Australia wants to be AI-friendly, but also IP-savvy. Balancing act, Aussie style!

Stakeholders in the Australian Copyright Saga:

• Arrangers (Developers/Platforms): They are the potential “authors” under CGW. But they need to navigate the “arrangements” definition and the ongoing review. Aussie legal limbo for now?
• Users: Potential copyright for AI content, but also uncertainty due to the review. Will the copyright rules change? Users are in the dark a bit.
• IP Australia: Tasked with modernizing Aussie copyright law for the AI age. Big job, mate! Balancing innovation and IP protection, Down Under style.
• Industries: Australian industries need to watch the IP review closely. The outcomes will shape the future copyright landscape for AI content in Australia. Aussie industries, stay tuned!

Trivia Time: Australia’s Copyright Act of 1968 was a landmark piece of legislation… and it included CGW provisions way back then! Talk about foresight, or maybe just… lucky guess? Either way, Australia was ahead of the AI copyright curve, decades ago! (Australian Copyright Act 1968).

“No worries, mate!” — An Aussie friend of Dr. Mohit Sewak.

Well, maybe a few worries about AI copyright in Australia, but hopefully, the ongoing review will sort things out, no worries!

Pro Tip for the Road: Keep an eye on IP Australia’s review of AI and IP! Follow their consultations, read their reports. The future of Aussie AI copyright is being shaped right now! Stay informed, Down Under copyright watchers!

From the land of kangaroos and CGW, we hop over to… maple syrup and politeness! Let’s head to Canada and see their take on AI and copyright. Eh?

Section 7: Eh? Canada’s Copyright — Human Authorship, But… Maybe Open to Chat?

Howdy, folks, and welcome to Canada! Land of hockey, maple syrup, and… a somewhat polite approach to AI copyright. Canada, like the US and EU, generally leans towards “human authorship” for copyright (Canadian Intellectual Property Office). But, there’s a Canadian niceness in the air, a hint that they might be a bit more open to interpretation than their US and EU counterparts. Let’s explore, eh?

My researcher fraternity has always enjoyed presenting at conferences in Canada. People are friendly, the scenery is stunning, and the copyright discussions… well, they are thoughtful and… polite. There’s a sense that Canada is watching the global AI copyright debate, considering different viewpoints, and… taking their time to decide their own path.

Human Authorship, “Originality” and “Skill & Judgement” — The Canadian Way

Canadian copyright law, rooted in their Copyright Act, requires “originality” and “authorship” (Copyright Act — Canada). Sounds familiar, right? But unlike the US law, the Canadian Copyright Act doesn’t explicitly say “human” authorship is needed. Hmm, wiggle room? Maybe! However, current interpretations and practices in Canada do lean towards human creativity as essential for copyright (Canadian Intellectual Property Office). So, human authorship is the de facto norm, even if not explicitly stated in law.

Canadian courts have emphasized that copyright protects works that “originate from an author” and involve more than just mechanical copying (Canadian Intellectual Property Office). It needs to be “the product of skill and judgment.” Again, sounds very human-centric, doesn’t it?

Pro Tip: Canada, like the US and EU, favors human authorship for copyright. “Originality” and “skill & judgment” are key Canadian copyright concepts. Human creativity is still valued up North!

Evolving Stance: Watching, Waiting, and… Chatting?

The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) is definitely monitoring the global AI and IP scene (Canadian Intellectual Property Office). They are engaging in discussions, watching what WIPO, US, UK, EU, and China are doing. Canada’s approach is likely to evolve as global case law and policy discussions mature. Think of Canada as the thoughtful observer in the AI copyright classroom, taking notes, asking polite questions, and… pondering their next move.

Content Types, Applications, and Stakeholders: The Canadian Outlook

How does Canada’s “human authorship, but open to chat” stance play out?

• Text, Images, Music, Code: Generally understood in Canada that pure AI creations might not meet the “originality” and “human authorship” bar for copyright. AI-assisted works? More likely to be copyrightable, if humans show “skill and judgment.” Similar to the US and EU ballpark.
• Generative AI Platforms: Likely Canadian policy will align with the US and EU — platforms need to enable human creative input for copyrightable outputs. Canadian users need AI tools that allow for personalization and human artistry.
• Creative Industries: Canadian artists using AI should focus on demonstrating their “creative contributions,” their “skill and judgment.” Show the human behind the AI curtain!
• Legal Framework Development: Canada is in an observation and deliberation phase. Awaiting international consensus and national case law to further define their AI copyright stance. Canada: the copyright policy ponderer.

Stakeholders in the Canadian Copyright Conversation:

• Creators: Need to show “sufficient human skill and judgment” in their AI-assisted works to be considered original and copyrightable. Canadian creators, showcase your human artistry!
• Users: Face uncertainty, as the exact copyright boundaries for AI content are still being defined in Canada. Canadian users, stay tuned for policy updates, eh?
• CIPO and Policymakers: Under pressure to clarify Canada’s stance and potentially update copyright law for AI. Canadian policymakers, the copyright spotlight is on you!
• Industries: Seek clarity and predictability in Canadian copyright law to guide AI content investments. Canadian industries seeking copyright certainty in the AI age.

Trivia Time: Canada is known for its politeness… even in copyright policy? While they lean towards human authorship, the lack of explicit “human” requirement in their Copyright Act might signal a potential openness to evolving interpretations in the future. Canadian copyright politeness, maybe with a hint of flexibility?

“The true north strong and free.” — Canadian national anthem.

Canada aims to be a strong and free innovator in AI… and figure out the copyright stuff too, eh!

Pro Tip for the Road: Engage with CIPO! Participate in consultations, provide feedback. Canada’s AI copyright policy is still evolving, and your voice can help shape it. Canadian creators and platforms, make your voices heard, politely, of course!

Alright, from polite Canada, let’s take a final hop across the Pacific to… sushi, samurai, and a surprisingly chill attitude towards AI copyright! Last stop on our world tour: Japan!

Section 8: Konnichiwa Copyright! Japan’s Chill Copyright Vibe — Use Rights and Exploitation Focus

Konnichiwa from Japan! Land of cherry blossoms, bullet trains, and… a rather relaxed approach to AI copyright? Yep, Japan is kind of the outlier in our copyright world tour. While most countries are debating human authorship and originality, Japan is… well, focusing on use rights and exploitation (Japanese Copyright Act). Think of it as “copyright, Japanese style” — less about who created it, more about who can use it, and how.

If you ever remember visiting Tokyo for a tech conference. The energy around AI was incredible! Robots everywhere, AI-powered gadgets, and a general sense of… embracing the AI future, wholeheartedly. When I asked about copyright for AI art, the response was surprisingly… unconcerned. More like, “AI creates, so what? Let’s figure out how to use it!”

No Explicit “No AI Copyright” Policy — Focus on “Creative Expression”

Here’s the thing: Japan’s Copyright Act doesn’t explicitly deny copyright to AI-generated works (Japanese Copyright Act). Mind. Blown. The focus in Japan is less on “authorship” and more on the rights of those who use and exploit creative works. Some experts even suggest that if AI creates something “creative,” it could be protected in Japan, and the rights might belong to whoever operates the AI system (Expert Interpretations of Japanese Copyright Act). Whoa, Japan, you rebel!

Pro Tip: Japan’s copyright approach is unique — less about human authorship, more about “creative expression” and use rights. Potentially very AI-friendly!

The key criterion in Japan is whether the AI output is a “creative expression of thoughts or sentiments” (Japanese Copyright Act). If it is, then copyright might apply. And who gets the rights? Well, that’s less defined, and open to interpretation. Potentially the AI operator, platform, or… someone else? Japan is keeping it flexible, it seems.

Rights Holder Ambiguity: Less Authorship, More Usage

The question of who the rights holder is for AI-generated content is less clear-cut in Japan (Expert Interpretations of Japanese Copyright Act). Is it the AI operator? The user who prompted the AI? Or the company that developed the AI? Japanese law doesn’t explicitly say. It’s more about figuring out the use and exploitation of the creative output, rather than obsessing over who the “author” is in the traditional sense. Japanese copyright zen?

Content Types, Applications, and Stakeholders: The Japanese Perspective

How does Japan’s “chill copyright” vibe impact things?

• Text, Images, Music, Code: Japan could potentially allow copyright for pure AI creations in these formats if they are deemed “creative.” Potentially the most permissive regime we’ve seen on our tour! AI art paradise?
• Generative AI Platforms: Japan might be the most favorable jurisdiction for platforms to claim IP rights over AI outputs. Platforms could argue they are the rights holders by operating the AI system. Japanese AI platform gold rush, maybe?
• Technological Innovation: Japan’s approach could really encourage investment in AI content generation. IP protection might be more readily available, boosting AI innovation in Japan. Japanese tech boom, fueled by AI copyright?
• Commercial Use of AI Content: Businesses might find it easier to secure and use copyright for AI-generated materials in Japan. Japanese businesses, AI content advantage?

Stakeholders in the Japanese Copyright Zen Garden:

• AI System Operators: May have a stronger claim to copyright in Japan compared to other jurisdictions. Japanese AI operators, potential copyright kings?
• Users and General Public: Implications for users are less clear. Focus shifts from human authorship to exploitation rights. Will this benefit users, or just AI operators? Japanese users, copyright question marks?
• Japanese Government: Aiming to foster AI innovation, and navigating IP complexities, with a pragmatic approach. Japanese government, balancing innovation and IP, with Zen calm?
• Industries (Japan): Industries in Japan might have an advantage in leveraging AI for content creation, thanks to potentially more flexible copyright rules. Japanese industries, AI copyright edge?

Trivia Time: Japan is known for its robotics and AI innovation. Is their relaxed copyright stance towards AI-generated works a deliberate strategy to encourage even more AI innovation? Maybe! Japan might be playing the long game in the AI copyright race!

“Fall seven times, stand up eight.” — Japanese proverb.

Japan’s AI copyright approach might be different, might face challenges, but they are likely to keep innovating and adapting, standing up again and again!

Pro Tip for the Road: If you are interested in AI copyright in Asia, Japan is the jurisdiction to watch. Their focus on use rights and exploitation, rather than strict authorship, is a radical departure from Western approaches. Japan: the AI copyright wild card!

Comparative Summary: Copyright Across the Globe — A Quick Cheat Sheet!

Phew! We’ve just zipped around the world in… well, hopefully less than 80 days, exploring the wild and wacky world of AI copyright policies! Time for a quick cheat sheet, a rapid-fire recap of what we’ve learned on our copyright safari:

Conclusion: The AI Copyright Wild West… For Now

So, there you have it, folks! Our whirlwind tour of global AI copyright policies. And the verdict? It’s a… mixed bag, to say the least! A bit of a copyright wild west out there, wouldn’t you say? Different countries, different approaches, and a whole lot of uncertainty.

Key Takeaways for the Road Ahead:

• For Creators and Entrepreneurs: Know your jurisdiction! Copyright laws for AI content are highly country-specific. If you are creating AI art, music, code, etc., understand the copyright rules in your target markets. Global copyright strategy, essential!
• For Platforms and Companies: Human input is your copyright friend! Design AI systems that empower users to add meaningful human creativity. Focus on AI-human collaboration, not just pure AI generation, especially in stricter jurisdictions. Human-AI partnerships, the copyright key!
• For Policymakers: Balance innovation and IP! Incentivize AI development, but also protect human creativity and authorship principles. International collaboration and harmonization are crucial. Global AI copyright coordination, needed now!

The Future of AI Copyright: Stay Tuned, It’s Gonna Be a Ride!

The AI copyright saga is far from over. In fact, it’s just getting started! As AI gets even smarter, more creative, and more integrated into our lives, the copyright debate will only intensify. Expect more legal battles, policy revisions, and international discussions in the coming years. The world is still figuring out the rules of this AI copyright game. And the decisions we make now will shape the future of creativity, innovation, and the relationship between humans and machines in the digital age. Exciting and… slightly terrifying, right?

Call to Action: Your Voice Matters!

Stay informed! Engage in the AI copyright conversation! Talk to policymakers, participate in online forums, share your opinions. The future of AI copyright is being written as we speak. And your voice, yes yours, matters in shaping that future.

Let’s make sure it’s a future that encourages both AI innovation and human creativity. — Deal?

Pro Tip for the Very End: This is just the beginning of the AI copyright story. The law is always playing catch-up with technology. Expect changes, expect debates, expect… surprises! The AI copyright landscape will likely be dynamic for years to come. Buckle up, it’s going to be a fascinating ride!

Alright, my friend, that’s our AI copyright world tour! Hope you enjoyed the ride! Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to go copyright-proof my next AI-assisted blog post… just in case! 😉

Stay creative, stay informed, and stay… humorous! Cheers!

References

Australian Government

Australian Government. (2024, March 28). Artificial intelligence and IP rights. IP Australia.

Canadian Government

Canadian Intellectual Property Office. (n.d.). Copyright and artificial intelligence. Government of Canada.

China

China: first copyright ruling on AI-generated image. (2022, December 22). Lexology.

European Union

Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. (2001, May 22). EUR-Lex.

EU Artificial Intelligence Act. Artificial intelligence act.

United Kingdom Government

United Kingdom Government. (2023, November 2). Artificial intelligence and intellectual property: copyright and patents. GOV.UK.

UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Section 9(3), Section 178. (1988). legislation.gov.uk.

UK Intellectual Property Office. Artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property.

United States Copyright Office

United States Copyright Office. (2023, March). Copyright and artificial intelligence: Part 2 — Copyrightability report.

Copyright Act, Title 17 of the U.S. Code. (n.d.). U.S. Copyright Office.

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

WIPO. (n.d.). WIPO conversation on intellectual property (IP) and artificial intelligence (AI). World Intellectual Property Organization.

WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR). Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR).

Japan

Japanese Copyright Act. (n.d.). Japanese Law Translation Database System.
(PS: Limited official English documentation directly on AI copyright policy. Further, academic and expert interpretations may be needed.)

Canada — Copyright Act

Copyright Act — Canada. (n.d.). Department of Justice Canada.

Disclaimers and Disclosures

This article combines the theoretical insights of leading researchers with practical examples, and offers my opinionated exploration of AI’s ethical dilemmas, and may not represent the views or claims of my present or past organizations and their products or my other associations.

Use of AI Assistance: In the preparation for this article, AI assistance has been used for generating/ refining the images, and for styling/ linguistic enhancements of parts of content.

License: This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.
Attribution Example: “This content is based on ‘[Title of Article/ Blog/ Post]’ by Dr. Mohit Sewak, [Link to Article/ Blog/ Post], licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.”

Follow me on: | Medium | LinkedIn | SubStack | X | YouTube |

Join thousands of data leaders on the AI newsletter. Join over 80,000 subscribers and keep up to date with the latest developments in AI. From research to projects and ideas. If you are building an AI startup, an AI-related product, or a service, we invite you to consider becoming a sponsor.

Published via Towards AI