ABSTRACT
In the age of artificial intelligence (AI), generative AI tools have become capable of producing a wide range of content, from texts and essays to visual art and music. However, this proliferation of AI-generated works raises significant intellectual property concerns. But who owns the copyright for this content? Is it the developers of the AI tools, or the original creators of the material on which the AI was trained? Then Questions arise regarding the infringement of intellectual property rights by developers who collect and utilize content to train their AI models.
The year 2023 witnessed unprecedented legal suits stemming from disputes over AI artistic creation, where artists contested the use of their productions in AI generative algorithms without proper acknowledgment. These ongoing class actions will play a pivotal role in shaping the future of such disputes.
This article aims to delve into the concept of copyright across different countries, the training process of AI systems, and the debate surrounding the originality of AI-generated content. It will also examine whether AI-generated works can be deemed “original” or inherently infringing. And if furthermore, we will analyze the prominent copyright lawsuits currently unfolding in the AI landscape, offering insights into their implications and potential outcomes. This article will also discuss the recent Al rulings that have profound implications for the copyright protection of AI-generated works. By exploring these intricate copyright challenges and examining real-world cases, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of the copyright landscape in the era of artificial intelligence.
Keywords: Copyright, Artificial intelligence, Authorship, Owner, Intellectual property right, etc.
INTRODUCTION
Artificial intelligence (AI) has undeniably emerged as a prominent and captivating subject across various legal domains, encompassing liability, criminal law, legal tech, and even agricultural law. Consequently. The legal status of works generated by artificial intelligence (AI) has sparked extensive debates among national governments and scholars internationally.
The ownership of copyright for AI-generated content under copyright law and the necessity for a more flexible definition of authorship in the AI era are two major grounds for debate. The investigation of how intellectual property (IP) systems should protect works produced by AI is still in its early stages because of the complexity and quick evolution of AI. Organizations like the World Intellectual Property Organisation are creating preliminary IP policy considerations for AI in response to the need to address these new issues. National IP offices have also sought to advance AI and IP policy understanding. However, as AI tools become more and more crucial to business workflows, worries about potential IP infringement claims and the ability to enforce rights in content created by AI systems surface. Recent class action lawsuits, like the one against OpenAI for allegedly infringing on the intellectual property rights of works used to train their AI model, illustrate how crucial it is to be aware of the dangers and take preventative precautions.
Significant and crucial decisions in many sectors were taken in 2019 and 2020. Notably, in Europe, decisions addressing AI patent applications, particularly those involving DABUS and other AI-generated innovations, were issued by both the European Patent Office (“EPO”) and UK Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”). These decisions gave us important information about how to judge who is the true inventor and how to apply the rules of patentability to advances made by AI. The inferences made suggested that DABUS and other AI systems shouldn’t be considered to be creators and, as a result, shouldn’t be qualified for patent protection[1].
This article aims to explore the multifaceted aspects of copyright in various countries, with a specific focus on the training process of AI systems and the ongoing debate regarding the originality of AI-generated content. It will critically examine the question of whether AI-generated works can be considered “original” or inherently infringing, taking into account differing perspectives and legal frameworks. Additionally, the article will analyze significant copyright lawsuits that are currently shaping the AI landscape, providing valuable insights into their[2] potential implications and outcomes. It will also discuss the significant impact of recent cases that are now pending as well as those that have already been decided on the copyright protection of works produced by AI, highlighting their significance in shaping the future of AI and copyright law.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This paper adopts a descriptive approach to explore the intersection of Artificial Intelligence and copyright. The research primarily relies on secondary sources, such as newspapers, journals, and websites, to conduct an in-depth analysis of the subject matter.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
As of today, the question of whether AI can be granted authorship and copyright remains open and subject to ongoing debates and legal proceedings. There is no fixed notion or consensus on this matter within the legal and scholarly communities. In the context of Indian law, some arguments suggest that AI could potentially be considered as an author under the notion of derivative copyright.
The issue of AI authorship has led to various perspectives, each presenting its own set of advantages and disadvantages. Granting AI authorship could recognize the intellectual contribution of programmers and developers, attributing them as creators of AI-generated works. This recognition may incentivize further innovation in AI technologies and promote creativity.
However, assigning authorship to AI also raises concerns about legal personhood for non-human entities. This could lead to a new set of complexities in the legal system and raise questions about accountability, ownership, and ethical considerations in AI-generated content.
The lack of clarity on this topic is further exacerbated by ongoing landmark judgments and legal proceedings surrounding AI and copyright. As the legal landscape evolves and courts deliberate on these complex issues, we can expect to gain more insights into the implications of AI authorship and copyright.
In the future, it will be crucial to closely monitor the developments in AI law and copyright to understand the potential consequences and shape appropriate legal frameworks. This ongoing discourse will guide policymakers, legal experts, and stakeholders in defining clear and balanced regulations that ensure both the protection of intellectual property rights and the encouragement of technological advancement. As the technology continues to advance, addressing the intersection of AI and copyright will remain a dynamic and evolving challenge for the legal community.
WHAT IS COPYRIGHT?
Copyright refers to the legal right of the owner of intellectual property[3]. The legal notion of copyright gives creators the sole authority to manage the reproduction and use of their original works. It simply means that the only people who are permitted to copy or use the work are the creators and those who have their permission.
Copyright guarantees that artists retain ownership of their works and have control over how they are used and distributed. Allowing them to profit from their work for a predetermined period, promotes innovation and creativity while providing a framework legally protecting their rights.
Although many nations have required originality as a condition for copyright protection, there are various definitions and requirements for what counts as original work[4].
Sweat of brow doctrine
This theory holds that an author’s rights are obtained through meticulous work done when a work is being created. It does not require substantial creativity or “originality.” The author is entitled to these rights based on the investment of effort and resources in creating the work. For instance, copyright protection can be extended to certain works, like telephone directories or databases, not necessarily because they exhibit creativity or original expression, but rather because of the substantial effort, financial investment, and commitment put forth by the creator to gather and organize the data in a particular way. Such a compilation, however, must be original to the author and not plagiarised.[5]
Modicum of creativity doctrine
The definition of “originality” has evolved significantly under copyright law. The traditional “sweat of the brow” doctrine provided copyright protection based on the labour, talent, and investment made by the artist instead of originality. The standard that a work must display a “modicum of creativity” to be certified unique was raised in the Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service[6] case. The Supreme Court emphasized the value of “creative originality” and created new criteria based on basic creativity to evaluate copyright protection. A work must meet the new standard’s requirements for intellectual creativity and judgment. There should be a minimal amount of creativity for copyright protection.
Let’s take a look at how other nations handle assessing a work’s originality in their courts depending on the principles they use.
Position in English law (UK)
The sweat of brow doctrine was prominently defined in University of London Press v. University Tutorial Press[7], which was widely used in the United Kingdom.
The University of London Press v. University Tutorial Press[8] case is a notable legal precedent in which the Chancery Division of England clarified the standard of “originality” and is sometimes cited as an example of a “sweat of the brow” case. In this instance, the court ruled that the work did not have to be in an original or novel form to be covered by the Copyright Act. However, it does stipulate that the work must be original and not a copy from another source.
The court ruled that because the test questions in this instance were written by the writers themselves, they qualified as original works under copyright regulations. The plaintiff could not be denied copyright only because other examiners had raised identical questions, the court emphasized.
In the Walter v. Lane[9] and later in the Ladbroke (Football) Ltd. v. William Hill (Football) Ltd.[10] case, the “sweat of the brow” doctrine was utilized. In these judgments, the courts determined that the doctrine places more emphasis on the labor, skill, and judgment required to produce a work than on its intelligence, accuracy, or literary merit. Other countries including Canada, Australia, and India have also followed this concept.
Position in the United States of America
Since the late 17th century, US courts have recognized the value of authors’ subjective and creative contributions. The literary and creative merits of a work are likewise highlighted by the U.S. copyright framework. In the USA, the criterion for originality necessitates a “modicum of creativity,” as established in Feist Publications[11], where the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized the need for a minimal amount of creativity as a necessity for obtaining copyright protection and that the simple application of judgment and labor would not be sufficient to achieve this requirement.
Position in India
For a long time, India has upheld the “sweat of the brow” philosophy. The Supreme Court of India accepted that copyright law does not forbid borrowing beneficial parts from an original work while adding enhancements, following the example of English courts. Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak[12], in which the Supreme Court rejected the “sweat of the brow” theory and chose for an American-style “modicum of creativity” approach, is a significant case in India on this subject. In this instance, the idea of a “flavor of minimum. requirement .of. creativity” was presented. The court found that to establish copyright, a work must exhibit a particular level of creativity.
HOW GAI (GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE) ARE TRAINED?
Machine learning serves as the primary catalyst for the rapid advancements in AI technology today. At its core, machine learning is founded on the concept that computers can acquire knowledge and improve their performance by recognizing patterns, without the need for explicit programming. As a subset of artificial intelligence, machine learning focuses on the development of autonomous systems that possess the ability to learn and adapt without relying on precise instructions from human programmers.
Computer programs can use machine learning to learn from a training dataset, adapt, and make future decisions based on the learned information, either independently or with guidance. The training dataset is used by generative artificial intelligence (GAI) systems like ChatGPT to generate new works while including specific choices to affect their appearance. While programmers can select some parameters, the computer software itself generates the work using a neural network, which mimics the cognitive processes seen in humans. This quality is a defining quality of this kind of artificial intelligence.
In the case of language models like ChatGPT, machine learning involves leveraging existing works such as books, articles, and various other sources as part of the learning process. The model learns from this diverse range of input data to develop its language understanding and generation capabilities. By leveraging these previously created works, the model gains insights into language patterns, style, and context, enabling it to generate responses that align with the data it has been trained on.
A popular technique for obtaining input data for models like ChatGPT is web scraping. It involves employing specialized technologies to automate data extraction from websites, social media networks, and other internet sources. ChatGPT’s creator, OpenAI, gets its input data from a variety of collaborations and freely accessible sources, including pieces that might be in the public domain. However, allegations have arisen regarding OpenAI’s usage of copyrighted materials obtained through web scraping for training its language model.[13]
In response to these allegations, OpenAI asserts that its utilization of copyrighted works, including those belonging to the plaintiffs and other class members, falls within the bounds of fair use. OpenAI argues that their use of such materials is justified under the principles of fair use, which exempts them from liability for copyright infringement.
AI AND COPYRIGHT
- The question revolves around the accountability of AI for copyright infringement.
- Whether protection can be given to AI-generated work?
- If protection is given to Ai generated work who will be the author the creator of AI, AI itself, or nobody?
Human artistic expression is closely tied to various cognitive functions, such as communication, social feedback, and mating. Artists interact with their surroundings to produce artistic work that fulfills the specific needs of both the creator and the viewer. On the other hand, AI neural networks, despite their resemblance to the human brain, can only operate within predetermined parameters, producing works that end in themselves and lacking the fulfillment of cognitive functions.
Artists take inspiration from their environment, while AI trains itself using existing works of art to create meaningful output. This crucial distinction between human and machine creation highlights the importance of acknowledging the creative input data and, consequently, the original inventors. Because AI technology heavily relies on copyrighted materials, failure to acknowledge the intellectual property of works produced by such technology may lead to an infringement of the rights of the original artists, mandating compensation for illicit utilization of their works.
The Authorship vs. Generation debate contends that although AI just “generates” creative works, humans “author” them with a higher level of originality and an ingrained sense of identity. This distinction results from the huge amount of data that AI models need to input to generate useful output. Humans can produce works that are protected by copyright without using pre-existing works, getting ideas from their surroundings and the world around them. AI, in contrast, is incapable of doing this and is reliant on access to its training data. If the majority of the materials in this dataset are protected by copyright, such as books, articles, and essays, the original creators or owners of these materials may be entitled to compensation for the improper use of their works.
It can be argued that ChatGPT’s works include the use of skill and judgment given the importance of the training dataset in influencing the output. The written output of ChatGPT is not just a copy of the input dataset; rather, it represents the patterns it has discovered and is trained to create original outputs customized to the user’s individual needs, which are communicated through prompts. According to the “sweat of the brow” doctrine, it might be argued that ChatGPT’s works are “original” in this context, meaning they meet the requirements for copyright protection.
There are many definitions and requirements for what counts as an original work, even though originality has historically been a condition for copyright protection in several states.
Generative AI tools train on existing data and produce outputs based on a combination of these sources and their models. However, if the product produced by AI tools is considered merely a compilation without any infusion of imagination, it may not meet the creativity criteria for copyright protection. Nonetheless, it is difficult to argue that the output produced by AI tools is merely a compilation lacking creativity, as anyone who has experimented with these tools would know.
A comic book contained content produced by both humans and AI using the “Midjourney” tool, the book’s application for copyright registration in the US was rejected by the US Copyright Office. The office’s choice was supported by the idea that works produced exclusively by a machine or mechanical process, without any inventiveness or authorial involvement from a human author, are ineligible for copyright protection.
In the end, the question of whether AI is liable for copyright infringement is complex and calls for a comprehensive examination of recent legal precedents in addition to the development of novel approaches that take into consideration the distinctive characteristics and capabilities of AI systems.
When machines create who gets to own it?
1. Programmer as Author: This argument asserts that the programmer should be the creator and legal owner of works produced by AI. This tactic is employed by nations including Hong Kong, India, and the UK. For instance, the author of a work is defined by UK copyright law as the one who makes the necessary arrangements for its creation.
2. AI Itself as Author: Some argue that AI should be granted sole copyright ownership if it produces original work independently. However, this viewpoint faces challenges due to the legal recognition of AI as a legal personality and the requirement for copyright to be granted to works resulting from human creativity and intellect.[14]
3. No Ownership or Free Use: Another stance suggests that AI-generated works should be considered free without copyright owners, similar to a Creative Commons license. This approach raises concerns for companies that invest significant resources in developing AI, as it may disincentivize their innovation and ability to derive economic benefits from the works produced.
Overall, the approach to AI-generated works and copyright ownership varies across jurisdictions and raises important considerations regarding the roles of programmers, AI systems, and the broader impact on innovation and economic incentives.
THE RECENT LANDMARK AI RULINGS
2019 and 2020, significant administrative and judicial AI decisions:
China
A key decision in favor of copyright protection for an essay produced by Tencent’s AI system named Dreamwriter was made by the Court in December 2019. Tencent created Dreamwriter, an intelligent writing aid that generates material. Tencent released a financial analysis by Dreamwriter in August 2018 on the Tencent Securities website[15].
But without getting formal permission from Tencent, Shanghai Yngxun Technology Company copied the same material and posted it on its website. Tencent, seeking legal protection for their AI-generated content, sued Yngxun for copyright infringement in reaction to this unauthorized reproduction Court.
By republishing the piece without acquiring the required permission, Yngxun is accused of violating Tencent’s copyright, which is the basis of the legal battle. Two crucial issues were evaluated during the judicial procedures. The court first considered whether the news piece had a basic level of inventiveness. Second, the court noted that the new article’s generation process revealed the Tencent team’s individual preferences, discernment, and experience. The article was produced by the plaintiff’s principal creative team using a four-stage process: (1) data service; (2) triggering and writing; (3) smart verification; and (4) smart dissemination.
The court acknowledged that Tencent’s development had control and guidance over Dreamwriter’s automatic operation. As a result, considering this automatic operation as the sole and complete genration process conducted by Dreamwriter alone would be unjust and unfair.
European Union
In a noteworthy instance, Dr. Stephen Thaler, an expert in cutting-edge AI systems, filed patent applications with the UKIPO[16] and the EPO[17]. The applications claimed that an AI system by the name of DABUS had independently produced patented ideas and named it the inventor.
However, the applications were turned down by both the EPO and the UKIPO. Article 81 of the European Patent Convention (EPC) and Rule 19(1) of its Implementing Regulations, which expressly demand the designation of a natural or legal person as the inventor, were both violated, according to the EPO. The EPC’s legal structure, they claimed, restricts inventorship to human or legal persons because machines lack legal personality and the privileges attached to inventors. Similar to this, the UKIPO came to the conclusion that the UK Patents Act only recognizes human inventors as true inventors and that an AI system cannot be considered a person or possess any rights.
According to the legislative histories of their respective patent laws, the EPO and the UKIPO both founded their judgments on the fundamental tenet that inventors must be either natural or legal people. The UK High Court reiterated the established legal precedent that forbids corporate companies or other non-human entities from being recognized as inventors, further defending the UKIPO’s decision. The patent applications naming DABUS as the inventor were consequently rejected[18].
United States
Additionally, Dr. Thaler filed two patent applications with the USPTO, naming DABUS as the inventor of the two DABUS inventions. The USPTO, however, denied both petitions for three main reasons. First, as is clear from several instances within the patent legislation, the USPTO found that the legislative text specifically requires inventors to be individuals. An “inventor” is clearly defined in sections like 35 U.S.C. 100(a) as the person or people who came up with the invention that is the subject of the patent application. Additionally, the Act consistently uses pronouns that relate to natural persons.
Secondly, the USPTO ruled that existing case law does not support AI systems or corporations being recognized as authors and that “only natural persons” can fulfill the role of an inventor[19].
Additionally, the USPTO highlighted that inventorship necessitates the process of conception, which involves the formulation of a definite and enduring idea of the invention. This crucial step requires the mental capabilities unique to natural persons, a capacity that machines lack. As a result, AI systems cannot fulfill the requirement of conception.
These justifications led the USPTO to the conclusion that Dr. Thaler’s patent applications did not adhere to 35 U.S.C. 115(a), which resulted in the applications being rejected. The US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia thereafter received a complaint from Dr. Thaler against the USPTO.
MAJOR AI COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LAWSUITS (that are happening right now)
Ai code generators
- Core issue: Ai code generators trained on open-source code – is there a copyright infringement?
A proposed class action complaint names Microsoft, its subsidiary GitHub, and its business partner OpenAI, alleging that their development of the AI-powered coding assistant GitHub Copilot depends on “software piracy on an unprecedented scale”. The corporations in question are accused in this complaint of consistently breaking copyright rules. The case is still in its nascent stages, but it has the ability to have a huge impact on the field of AI, where businesses are generating fortunes by teaching software using data that is copyright-protected.
AI art generators
- Core issue: Does AI-generated art violates copyright in the artwork that AI was trained on?
Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt have been sued by a group of artists made up of Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz. These companies, Stable Diffusion, Midjourney, and DreamUp, are in charge of the AI art generators. The artists assert that by using five billion photos collected from the web to train their AI algorithms without getting permission from the original creators, these platforms have violated the rights of several artists. Butterick calls the lawsuit as “another step. towards making AI fair. & ethical for everyone” in a blog post announcing it[20].
- Core issue: AI art generators trained on stock images – is there copyright infringement?
The creator of the widely used AI painting tool Stable Diffusion, Stability AI, has been sued by Getty Images for allegedly violating copyright. Getty Pictures said that Stability AI had improperly downloaded and processed millions of copyrighted pictures to train their algorithms in a statement provided to The Verge[21].
AI Language models
- Core issue: Language model trained on text found on the public internet-is there copyright infringement?
- A case against OpenAI was just filed in a San Francisco federal court by best-selling authors Mona Awad and Paul Tremblay. The writers have filed a proposed class action lawsuit, alleging that OpenAI trained its ChatGPT artificial intelligence chatbot using their copyrighted works without their permission. Authors Paul Tremblay and Mona Awad assert that ChatGPT was taught in part by “ingesting” their books against their will[22].
- Sarah Silverman, along with authors Richard Kadrey and Christopher Golden, is initiating a legal case in a US District Court against OpenAI and Meta, citing allegations of copyright infringement. The lawsuits assert that OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Meta’s LLaMA have been trained on unlawfully obtained datasets, including their literary works sourced from websites known as “shadow libraries” such as Library Genesis, Bibliotik, Z-Library, and others. The plaintiffs claim that these books are accessible in large quantities through torrent systems.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the outcome of the class action suit against OpenAI regarding the unauthorized use of copyrighted materials in LLMs will have significant implications worldwide. It puts to the test an argument that has long been debated in academic circles. The creation of a Data Bank marketplace where writers, composers, and artists can grant access to their works to AI businesses for a fee, aided by smart contracts, is one potential solution suggested to address the problem of unauthorized use.
Even while it’s probable that the court won’t expressly address the topic of originality and copyright protection of AI-generated works in this case, the court’s findings regarding copyright infringement will nevertheless have an impact on subsequent rulings. In the era of AI, intellectual property protection should support creativity and innovation while paying artists fairly.
Companies that are creating or utilizing AI systems should take precautions to safeguard themselves from infringement lawsuits. This entails acquiring the proper permits, acknowledging the authors of works, and routinely auditing AI systems. Employers of AI solutions should thoroughly read the terms of use and make sure the AI tool does not produce any outputs that are not authorized. To give clarity and achieve a balance between copyright protection and innovation, policy and legislative advice from copyright offices and courts are required. In the end, negotiating the interface between AI and copyright requires re-examining our conception of innovation and the legal incentives offered.
REFERENCES
- Haochen Sun, Redesigning Copyright Protection in the Era of Artificial Intelligence, 107 IOWA L. REV. 1213,1215 (2022)
- Sylvia Polydor, Martyna Czapska & Karen Roberts, Chinese Dreamwriter Decision: A Dream Come True for AI-Generated Works? BAKER Mc KENZIE: CONNECT ON TECH (Apr. 20, 2020),
- Haochen Sun, Redesigning Copyright Protection in the Era of Artificial Intelligence, 107 IOWA L. REV. 1213,1215 (2022)
- Sylvia Polydor, Martyna Czapska & Karen Roberts, Chinese Dreamwriter Decision: A Dream Come True for AI-Generated Works? BAKER Mc KENZIE: CONNECT ON TECH (Apr. 20, 2020),
- Will Kenton, Copyright Definition, Types, and How It Works, Investopedia, (15/07/2023, 20:22), https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/copyright.asp
- The daily guardian,https://epaper.thedailyguardian.com/view/314/08-jul-2023/7
- Hailshree Saksena, DOCTRINE OF “SWEAT OF THE BROW”, Papers ssrn,(15/07,2023,20:30), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1398303
- Bridget Watson, A Mind of Its Own – Direct Infringement by Users of Artificial Intelligence Systems, 58 IDEA 65 (2017).
- e Bo Zhou, Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Protection-Judicial Practice in Chinese Couts, at 2 [hereinafter Dreamwriter ruling],WIPO, (16,07,23) https://www.wipo.int
- SaineeAbhishek, Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Issues, Legal service India,(18/07/2023, 16:23),https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-9895-artificial-intelligence-and-copyright-issues.
- Haochen Sun, Redesigning Copyright Protection in the Era of Artificial Intelligence, 107 IOWA L. REV. 1213 (2022).
- James Vincent, The lawsuit that could rewrite the rules of AI copyright, Theverge, (16/07/2023,16:10), https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/8/23446821/microsoft-openai-github-copilot-class-action-lawsuit-ai-copyright-violation-training-data
- James Vincent, AI art tools Stable Diffusion and Midjourney targeted with copyright lawsuit, Theverge (16/07/2023,16:10), https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/16/23557098/generative-ai-art-copyright-legal-lawsuit-stable-diffusion-midjourney-deviantart
- Emily St. Martin, Bestselling authors Mona Awad and Paul Tremblay sue OpenAI over copyright infringement, https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/books/story/2023-07-01/mona-awad-paul-tremblay-sue-openai-claiming-copyright-infringement-chatgpt
Akanksha Priyadarshini
National Forensic science University
[1] Haochen Sun, Redesigning Copyright Protection in the Era of Artificial Intelligence, 107 IOWA L. REV. 1213,1215 (2022)
[2] Sylvia Polydor, Martyna Czapska & Karen Roberts, Chinese Dreamwriter Decision: A Dream Come True for AIGenerated Works? BAKER Mc KENZIE: CONNECT ON TECH (Apr. 20, 2020),
[3]Will Kenton, Copyright Definition, Types, and How It Works, Investopedia, (15/07/2023, 20:22), https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/copyright.asp
[4] The daily guardian, https://epaper.thedailyguardian.com/view/314/08-jul-2023/7
[5] Hailshree Saksena, DOCTRINE OF “SWEAT OF THE BROW”,Papers ssrn,(15/07,2023,20:30), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1398303
[6] Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service,499 U.S. 340, 342 (1991)
[7] University of London Press v. University Tutorial Press, England, Chancery Division. [1916] 2 Ch. 601
[8] Id
[9] Walter v. Lane,[1900] AC 539
[10]Ladbroke (Football) Ltd. v. William Hill (Football) Ltd., [1964] 1 WLR 273
[11] Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service,499 U.S. 340, 342 (1991)
[12] Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, 2002 PTC 641
[13] Bridget Watson, A Mind of Its Own – Direct Infringement by Users of Artificial Intelligence Systems, 58 IDEA 65 (2017).
[14] Sainee Abhishek,Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Issues,Legal service India,(18/07/2023, 16:23),https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-9895-artificial-intelligence-and-copyright-issues.
[15] e Bo Zhou, Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Protection-Judicial Practice in Chinese Couts, at 2 [hereinafter Dreamwriter ruling],wiPo, (16,07,23) https://www.wipo.int
[16] UK Intellectual Property Office
[17] European Patent Office
[18] SaineeAbhishek, Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Issues, Legal service India,(18/07/2023, 16:23),https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-9895-artificial-intelligence-and-copyright-issues.
[19] James Vincent, AI art tools Stable Diffusion and Midjourney targeted with copyright lawsuit, Theverge (16/07/2023,16:10), https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/16/23557098/generative-ai-art-copyright-legal-lawsuit-stable-diffusion-midjourney-deviantart
[20] Haochen Sun, Redesigning Copyright Protection in the Era of Artificial Intelligence, 107 IOWA L. REV. 1213 (2022).
[21] James Vincent, AI art tools Stable Diffusion and Midjourney targeted with copyright lawsuit, Theverge (16/07/2023,16:10), https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/16/23557098/generative-ai-art-copyright-legal-lawsuit-stable-diffusion-midjourney-deviantart
[22] Emily St. Martin,Bestselling authors Mona Awad and Paul Tremblay sue OpenAI over copyright infringement, https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/books/story/2023-07-01/mona-awad-paul-tremblay-sue-openai-claiming-copyright-infringement-chatgpt