Abstract
Launched by Open AI in 2022, Chatgpt is an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot. It uses natural language processing to hold conversations with users that are akin to those between a human and a human. Based on its instant access to a mind-bogglingly wide range of knowledge, the bot will respond with an answer on practically any topic in a matter of seconds. Chatgpt, an Open AI language model, can produce text that resembles human speech in response to commands. Although this technology can completely alter the way humans interact with computers and produce information, it also presents significant legal and ethical concerns around intellectual property rules and how they will be applied to the output of language models like Chatgpt.
Keywords
Chatgpt, Intellectual Property, Infringement, Artificial Intelligence, Copyright Laws, Al Chatbots, Patent, Plagiarism, Authors, Writers, Rights
Introduction
Artificial intelligence has greatly advanced in recent years. It enabled individuals to use artificial intelligence to perform valuable work for them. The Chatgpt is an artificial intelligence chatbot that was developed recently and provides conversational outputs in the same way that humans do. It is one of the most current developments in the field of artificial intelligence. As artificial intelligence becomes more and more popular, it becomes more important to protect intellectual property, such as copyright[1]. When it comes to their application, copyright laws in India are complicated. The law of copyright grants the creator of the work the sole right of use for creation, reproduction, and distribution. Copyright protects original creative works including literature, music, art, and software. The author must give their consent before someone can utilize their writing without their permission. Originality is a purely arbitrary concept in Indian copyright law. It implies that you must determine whether anything is more than just a straightforward copy of another work. Even though originality is largely a matter of opinion, it is important to remember that certain standards may be used to judge whether or not anything meets the definition of novelty. The Indian Copyright Act, which was passed in 1957, was subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court in the case of Eastern Book Company[2]. The main question was whether the Eastern Book Company’s head notes or summaries of court decisions, qualified as “literary works” under the Copyright Act and could, therefore, be protected by the copyright. The Supreme Court determined the head notes unquestionably met the criteria for literary works and were thus covered by copyright. The Court emphasized the need of giving the provisions of the Copyright Act a thorough and flexible interpretation.
Research Methodology
This paper is descriptive and the research is based on secondary sources for the deep analysis of the issues and remedies regarding protecting the intellectual property and Originality of authors and Writers who publish Research Papers and Journal Articles.
Copyright and its meaning
The fundamental element of copyright is the idea of ownership, and this is a legal right that belongs to the person who owns the copyright. The author is the original owner of the work, according to the copyright law. Section 17[3] does, however, provide for some exclusions. According to the clause, the person who pays money for the work is regarded as its original owner.
The first sentence of the section discusses literary, artistic, and dramatic work, and it states that unless there is a contract to the contrary if such work is created while employed by the owner of a newspaper, magazine, or other publication for publication.
The second clause states that the person who hired the author or artists will be the first owner of the work when they were engaged to create a painting, picture, or engraving.
The third clause of this section states that, unless there is a contract to the contrary, the employer will be the initial owner of any work produced during employment.
According to the fourth clause, the person giving the speech on behalf of another person will be the initial owner of the speech.
The fifth, sixth, and seventh paragraphs of the clause state that the government, public undertakings, or international organization will be the initial proprietor of any work produced for them.
Now, if we apply the aforementioned copyright laws to the Chatgpt, we can see that the aforementioned ideas of copyright ownership and protection do not apply to the Chatgpt. The responses that Chatgpt generates are not thought to be the result of the human intellect’s original invention. As a result, they are not covered by copyright laws, making it possible to utilize Catgut’s comments without obtaining authorization or a license. However, the responses to the Chatgpt may contain texts or images that were borrowed from other sources and are protected by copyright; in these instances, permission or a license must be sought to prevent infringing on the rights of others.
Furthermore, because the Chatgpt output is not covered by copyright law, it is crucial to be aware of any potential third-party intellectual property rights and to take the necessary precautions to ensure that one is not violating these rights by incorporating the output into their work. The intellectual property rights of entities other than the person or thing employing the intellectual property are referred to as third-party intellectual property rights. Third-party intellectual property rights in the context of Chatgpt may include copyrights, trademarks, or patents that are owned by parties other than the entity utilizing the content produced by Chatgpt. History and culture in India have molded copyright law into what it is today. It has aided in preserving a wide range of creativity and promoting innovation. The law of copyright is evolving and is not static. It must be active to keep up with the times, believing that technology is constantly developing new ways to complete tasks. A new technology or approach should be able to be adjusted by the law of copyright without a lot of legal interference.
However, the law has to be updated in light of recent advances in technology and civilization, particularly the increased usage of artificial intelligence and its products, which present a risk of infringement. Finally, the user should be aware of the Open artificial intelligence disclaimer, which states that it is not intended to provide guidance and that it may occasionally produce false or misleading information as well as unsuitable or prejudiced content. Before organizing the content for usage, the Chatgpt user must take caution on his own.
For the bot to have a wide breadth of knowledge, during training, developers fed it huge amounts of academia such as articles and blog posts. Authors and artists are now getting more and more worried that their works might be used without their consent or credit in Chatgpt comments. Notably, Getty Photos has brought a lawsuit against another AI platform for copyright infringement, alleging that the AI was trained using millions of Getty photos.
The law is currently catching up to AI due to its rapid development, similar to other technological fields. Copyright liability is one topic that has gained traction. Does the bot itself violate the intellectual property rights of other authors, or are the software developers who input the data responsibly? In the same way as other areas of innovation, simulated intelligence’s quick advancement has implied that the law is presently playing to get up to speed. One region which has become effective is copyright obligation. Is the actual bot encroaching on other creators’ copyright, or is the obligation on the computer programmers to take care of the data in the framework?
Another copyright issue connects with whether copyright exists in what Chatgpt produces. Copyright doesn’t safeguard thoughts, yet rather the substantial articulation of those thoughts (like in books, fine art and melodic works) Under the Copyright Act 1968, the infringer is the person who does or authorises the doing of, the infringement of the owner’s copyright.
Although Australian law[4] does not explicitly state that authors must be “human” for copyright to be protected, the courts have consistently favoured human authorship. This was made clear by the Federal Court’s ruling that the lack of human authorship prevented a computer-generated phone book from being covered by copyright. This means that since a computer (and not a human) was the author of the work, any content produced by a company or individual using AI will not be covered by copyright laws.
For copyright reasons, the author in the US must be a person. In the monkey selfie incident, a monkey used a photographer’s camera to take a selfie, and the photographer later published a book of pictures that featured the monkey selfie. The US copyright office further indicated that they would only register an original work if the creator is a human, and the court ruled that the monkey could not file a lawsuit for copyright infringement.
In contrast, the UK has a provision that exempts computer-generated works from the requirement for human authorship and designates the programmer or user of the AI as the author. The resulting work might be protected by copyright if a human (rather than an AI) is designated as the author.
As next-generation AI chatbots (like Open Ai’s Chatgpt) develop, they raise crucial issues regarding intellectual property (IP) law and how it applies to this cutting-edge technology. Particularly, there are questions about who owns the content produced by AI chatbots and how it should be controlled and secured.
The extent to which AI chatbots can be regarded as “creators” of unique content for copyright law is one important question. As these systems develop, they will eventually be able to produce text, images, and other types of information that are identical to that produced by humans. This raises concerns regarding who should be regarded as the “author” of this content for copyright purposes as well as whether such content should be granted the same intellectual property protections as works created by people.
In general, copyrighted materials are created by human authors and are “original works of authorship” that are fixed in a tangible form. This means that the work must be expressed in a physical or digital form, such as a book, a painting, or a computer file, to be protected by copyright law.
Whether the content produced by AI chatbots would be regarded as original and fixed in a tangible form, and hence qualified for copyright protection, is unclear in the case of these systems. Some may contend that as an AI is only a tool or instrument utilised by a human author to produce the work, the human author should be regarded as the work’s originator and owner. Others would contend that, given its capacity to produce original content without human input, the AI itself ought to be treated as the author and proprietor of the work.
It is hard to say for sure whether AI-generated content would be qualified for copyright protection under current legislation. To ensure that IP rights are maintained and preserved, it is evident that the emergence of these technologies poses significant issues and problems that must be resolved. The possibility of IP infringement by AI chatbots is another problem. As these systems are utilized more frequently, there is a chance that they could unintentionally or deliberately produce information that violates the intellectual property rights of others or is identical to other AI-generated content. For instance, an AI chatbot that without authorization creates text or visuals based on pre-existing works may be deemed to be infringing.
In general, the development of next-generation AI tools presents significant IP issues that must be resolved to guarantee that these technologies are utilized morally and in a way that respects the rights of human creators. To create acceptable legal frameworks for the use of AI in the production of creative material, technologists, lawyers, and legislators will need to carefully weigh these problems and collaborate. Authorship and ownership are two major issues that Chatgpt presents for intellectual property legislation. It is challenging to identify who or what should be given credit for writing the text produced by Chatgpt because it is essentially a machine that generates text based on inputs and algorithms. It is uncertain whether the person who offered the prompt or the developers of the Chatgpt model itself should be recognized as the author if Chatgpt is used to generate literature that is later published or distributed.
The issue of copyright infringement is one that Chatgpt raises. The text produced by Chatgpt may contain components that are identical to or similar to those found in pre-existing works because Chatgpt is trained on a sizable dataset of human-generated material. In this case, the original work’s creators could be able to charge Chatgpt with violating their copyright. As Chatgpt is not a person and cannot be held accountable for its conduct in the same way as a person, it is unclear how the law would apply in this case. Chatgpt raises concerns about these difficulties as well as the function of artificial intelligence in the creative process. Language models like Chatgpt might be utilized to produce wholly new works that are unique and not based on current materials as they get more complex and capable of producing increasingly sophisticated and creative output. The application of intellectual property laws to these works, as well as who would be able to claim ownership of any credit for them, is unknown if this were to occur.
These recent advancements, at least those that are visible to the public, enable AI to produce meaningful work. AI can provide knowledgeable responses and/or produce publishable content on a particular issue or task that can be immediately helpful instead of “googling” a question and receiving search results that have to be separately analyzed and digested. It is currently unclear how AI-generated works should be handled in terms of the rules and laws creating and protecting intellectual property rights. What is certain, though, is that under existing intellectual property law, only a natural person is qualified to be recognized as an author or inventor for works that are subject to copyright and patent protection. This is significant because, barring specific circumstances, the creation of an original piece of writing or the conception of a patentable invention is often recognized as the owner of the relevant intellectual property rights to such works.
Authorship, and Plagiarism
Authorship attribution is a significant issue concerning the age of new information by keen specialists. There might be inquiries concerning the responsibility for content produced by the model. Assuming[5] that a client gives input information to the model and the model produces content in light of that information, it very well may be contended that the client possesses the copyright to the created content. Nonetheless, assuming that the model creates content freely of client input, the info given is exceptionally restricted or then again assuming the substance is essentially altered by somebody other than the client, deciding ownership might be more troublesome. In these cases, it might rely on the understanding came to by the designer of the model that produces the substance; it could be fundamental, at least, to incorporate the model as a coauthor of the composition. It is useful to contact the engineer, should there be any inquiry connecting with the degree of the model’s contribution to the formation of the information. A few distributors are thinking about eliminating open-access logical exploration papers to forestall artificial intelligence, like Chatgpt, from getting to the articles, trying to relieve moral worries
In any case, if freely supported research and application papers are not accessible to people in general, it might prompt different moral conversations about open-access approaches different distributors have clarified their strategies concerning the use of ChatGPT and comparative huge language models in academic distributions. For example, editors from the famous distribution Science have denied the utilization of any message created by ChatGPT or some other simulated intelligence devices in papers distributed in the diary Reference rehearses in the scholarly community are a fundamental part of academic work, as they fill a few needs. Referring to sources exhibits the essayist’s skill in their field, showing that they are known about the current examination on a specific point Stages like ChatGPT, which use reference includes as a consider figuring out which distributions to refer to, may worsen this impact. In this way, it is pivotal that specialists keep on participating in cautious surveys of the writing, in any event, while utilizing devices like ChatGPT to help with the reference cycle. This will assist with guaranteeing the quality and meticulousness of scholarly work and forestall the propagation of imbalances in the field
Conclusion and Suggestions
Without a doubt, ChatGPT is one of the most revolutionary AI tools to be created in recent yet. It presents significant opportunities as well as challenges for organizations, societies, and individuals. As stated before, “something must be an original creation of the human mind to be protected by copyright.” This comment responds to the inquiry regarding Chatgpt, an AI that can produce outputs utilising user feedback. It is preferable to avoid or edit such elements if the output produced by Chatgpt contains any that are someone else’s quotes, or photographs, or possess specific copyright materials. This is something that businesses and people should bear in mind when employing AI to produce works and ideas that they want to protect or copyright. Additionally, even if it is not the intended outcome, AI-generated works may nevertheless violate the copyright and patent rights of third parties. Generally, the main role of copyrighted content is played by third-party copyright materials which should be avoided to make our content copyrights free. You can copy the outputs generated by Chatgpt or any other AI but should be aware of such copyrighted materials within the content generated by AI.
Use Chatgpt to gather information and comprehend it rather than just copying and pasting. It is my opinion that Chatgpt’s ability to converse like a colleague is its key strength. It is preferable to employ AI to gather information and reduce obstacles when producing original content. No particular person or organisation has asserted that AI-generated content is exempt from copyright protection. In most places, copyright law has established it as a principle. According to copyright law, anything must be an original work of human imagination for it to be protected. This implies that some degree of human inventiveness must have been involved., talent, or work. The output produced by AI systems is not seen as originating from the human mind because they lack their thoughts, creativity, or consciousness. Therefore, it is not shielded by violating another person’s intellectual property rights[6]
Nitish AHUJA
Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, Ggispu
[1] The Workings of ChatGpt,.” The Hindu, https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/the-workings-of-chatgpt-the-latest-natural-language-processing- tool/article(Last Visited on 10th May)
[2] Eastern Book Company & Ors vs D.B. Modak & Anr (2008) 1 SCC 1
[3] The Copyright Act, 1957 Acts of Parliament, 1957
[4]ChatGpt has Entered the Chat, https://bespokelaw.com/copyright-has-entered-the-chat-gpt/ (Last Visited 10th May,2023)
[5] Brady D. Lund, Ting Wang, Nishith Reddy Mannuru, Bing Nie, Somipam Shimray, Ziang Wang ChatGPT and a New Academic Reality: (9-10-11), (2022)
[6] ChatGpt, https://www.madhusudangaire.com.np/ChatGPT-OpenAI (Last Visited 11th May 2023)