Home | Copyright | Can an AI Machine Hold Copyright Protection Over Its Work?

Can an AI Machine Hold Copyright Protection Over Its Work?

ai machine

With so much talk in the mainstream media centered on whether some jobs are becoming obsolete thanks to artificial intelligence, creators may now have to worry whether they, too, might be replaced by an AI machine.

The latest in a string of AI machine inventions aimed at the creative industries is aptly called “Bot Dylan” – a researcher developed program that’s able to generate new folk songs by using over 23,000 pieces of Irish folk music.

This new computerized composer is the brainchild of Dr. Oded Ben-Tal, a senior lecturer in music technology at Kingston University, who decided to use Celtic folk music for its wide breadth of sound. Using transcriptions of 23,000 folk tunes written in a common music notation form called ABC, the machine was able to recognize and master the patterns of a song. So far, Ben-Tal and his team have managed to create over 100,000 new folk songs by taking one ABC symbol and suggesting the next symbol that should follow, creating an entirely new song.

This isn’t the first AI machine of its class to create wholly original creative works – some time ago, we discussed a similar program that was able to recreate a Rembrandt painting by analyzing 350 works by the artist. If an AI machine can create a painting that reflects the caliber of a legendary artist like Rembrandt, than one really has to wonder whether the future of creativity lies in an algorithm – and if we’re considering that, than there’s a whole host of questions that we need to ask ourselves about the future of ownership and copyright protection in creative works.

Can AI Machine-Generated Creations Get Copyright Protection?

Copyright protection in creative works by an AI machine presents an interesting dichotomy for copyright scholars because the question of whether an AI machine’s work product can technically be considered protectable under copyright law is rather vague.

For most works of art, copyright protection is affixed the moment that work is created. That means that the creator of the work enjoys the sole, exclusive right to determine what’s done with that work – distribution, making copies, publicly performing the work – that’s all forbidden without the express permission of the author. However, when it comes to AI machine creations – like folk songs or a painting – then copyright protection isn’t so cut and dried, since there are a few creators involved in bringing this work to life. In our ‘Bot Dylan’ example, would copyright protection be afforded to Dr. Ben-Tal? His team of researchers? What about the creators of the songs the AI machine studied in order to create its own songs? Can the machine itself enjoy copyright protection? Can it’s owner?

copyright protection
AI machines are increasingly making creative works.

The answer is quite muddled, and in order to fully understand who owns the copyright in AI machine-created work, we need to take a close look at the Copyright Act, and determine whether the resulting work is even eligible for copyright protection.

According to the Act, copyright protection is available for 1) an original work of authorship, 2) fixed in a tangible medium 3) that has a minimal amount of creativity. If a work doesn’t have all three of these components, then it is not copyrightable subject matter.

Let’s start with an analysis of the first prong: is an AI machine-created work sufficiently original enough to be copyrightable? Originality is grounded on the idea that the resulting product is new or novel, and not a reproduction. But couldn’t it be argued that an AI machine isn’t creating anything original, just picking up on sound modules to string them along? Not necessarily. Copying a style isn’t the same as copying a work – and while an AI machine is using composites of sounds or paintings to generate original content, the reality is that these works remain original because they’ve never been heard before.

In addition, the researchers admittedly could not predict what the AI machine was going to create once they had mastered the ABC system for folk music. In fact, that’s why the team decided to use Celtic music, since it had so many notes and chords – they essentially gave the AI machine an extremely large canvas with which to work with, and couldn’t predict which notes or symbols they would use.

As a result, the AI machine’s process was sufficiently original enough to satisfy the originality prong of our analysis, since each song is wholly unique.

In addition, the work satisfies the ‘fixed in tangible medium’ component of our analysis because the work has entered the public conscious – the work exists for anyone to hear. Once the Ai bot’s algorithm comes into existence, it is considered to be fixed in a tangible medium, just as the same would be true for a poem written on napkin or a drawing on a sheet of looseleaf paper.

Perhaps the most controversial question is whether or not the AI machine’s work is creative enough to enjoy copyright protection. As humans, it’s difficult to consider that a machine can be intelligent enough to engage in creative thought – and copyright lawmakers have considered the issue in the writing of the law.

503.03(a) Works-not originated by a human author.

In order to be entitled to copyright registration, a work must be the product of human authorship. Works produced by mechanical processes or random selection without any contribution by a human author are not registrable.

So what does that interpretation of copyright law tell us? For one, it unequivocally states that a computer or an animal shouldn’t and can’t hold a copyright, and it makes sense when you think about the function and purpose of copyright law in the first place. Since the holder of a copyright has the sole ability to give permission to others to use and distribute their work, then a computer inherently can’t hold a copyright since it’s unable to express their intention when determining whether or not to do so. Not only can a computer not consent to something like that, it also can’t enforce those rights and prevent anyone from doing so without permission. Similar to the cotroversy over the ‘monkey selfie,’ in which PETA sued for copyright infringement on behalf of a monkey who took a photo of itself, which later wound up being shared across the internet. The monkey selfie lawsuit was deemed rather frivoulous, and it reinforced the notion that animals can’t hold copyright protection in a work. Computers, like monkeys, can’t go to court, after all.

But Someone Has to Own the Copyright in These Songs, Right?

If we’ve determined that these songs – though created by a computer – are original, fixed in a tangible medium, and a creative product – then we have to assign the copyright to someone, right? Not necessarily.

There are some works that enter the public domain the moment they’re created. For example, works or images created by the government are automatically rendered public, non-copyrightable images. In order to determine whether Bot Dylan’s songs would be copyrightable, we have to determine whether the researchers that fed the AI machine the songs would hold copyright protection in the resulting new songs created by the AI machine. But is that a stretch?

ai machine
Unless a creator had an extensive role in the AI machine’s work, they can’t seek copyright protection in the work.

The Supreme Court outlined their ideas of what constitutes ownership of a creative work by a computer in a 1973 court case, Goldstein v. California. There, the Court interpreted the authorship requirement to include “any physical rendering of the fruits of creative intellectual or aesthetic labor.” The Supreme Court reasoned that in most cases, in order for a computer to generate any kind of artistic work, there must be significant input from an author or user, and only then can the mastermind behind the AI machine hold copyright protection in the work.

A year later, Congress created the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU), which studied a variety of new technology issues, including the issue of authorship of computer-generated works. Although CONTU did not expound on the topic extensively, it did conclude that authorship rights should go to the user when the user makes a very substantial contribution to the output. But when the user does very little and most of the output is left up to the AI machine, then it is less likely that the user may own the copyright in the output. 

A great example of an instance in which copyright protection would exist in a creator rather than an AI machine is Photoshop. If you think about it, Photoshop is an algorithm – there’s software behind a designer’s ability to shape an image using Photoshop tools. However, the designer’s input is necessary to the final product – they’re the one deciding what will go where, and directing the algorithm to deploy their creation.

Courts will generally put a lot of emphasis on whether the researcher had any substantial input beyond the simple creation of an algorithm or process for which the computer generates creative work. For example, the Rembrandt example would be one such project in which the software developers could likely exert copyright protection over the artistic work, since there was likely a lot of creative thought behind the project. But could the same be true for the makers of Bot Dylan?

It’s hard to say. You see, the researchers that created the Bot Dylan AI machine didn’t exactly reinvent the wheel – they didn’t create a new algorithm, but rather input over 23,000 song transcripts written in an age-old music notation form in order to ‘teach’ the bot how to play the music.

In fact, Dr. Ben-Tal’s team isn’t the first to utilize ABC music notations to teach computers how to write music. So, even if you could make the argument that the practice for making the music itself is copyright protected, would his team be able to hold copyright protection in that process? It seems unlikely.

Does the copyright have to belong to somebody? If we’re looking to the copyright law outlined above, the answer is no. So, if Dr. Ben-Tal and his team want to exert any type of copyright protection over Bot Dylan’s songs, they’ll have to prove that their input into the songs’ creation was sufficiently creative enough to warrant that type of copyright protection – and if they can’t, these new songs officially belong in the public domain.

Should an AI machine hold copyright protection over a work? Let us know in the comments!

About the author

Nicole Martinez

Nicole is a writer and law school graduate with a dedicated focus and passion for the arts, and a particular interest in Latin American art and history. Nicole has extensive experience working with art galleries and museums in Buenos Aires and Miami, and explores cultural landscapes across the Americas through her writing.

You can e-mail Nicole at [email protected]

Add Comment

Click here to post a comment

The Latest From Artrepreneur

  • An Interview With Syd Carpenter

    Sculptor Syd Carpenter on working as an ornamental gardener, Fellowship programs and the challenges of being a Philadelphia artist.The post An Interview With Syd Carpenter appeared first on Artrepreneur. […]

  • Mastering Your Pitch Presentation

    Your best ideas are only as good as how well you can sell them, and mastering the art of the pitch presentation takes time, research, and devotion.The post Mastering Your Pitch Presentation appeared first on Artrepreneur. […]

  • How to Land Top Freelance Gigs

    From cementing your personal branding to building a digital portfolio highlighting your best work, here's how you land the top freelance gigs available.The post How to Land Top Freelance Gigs appeared first on Artrepreneur. […]

  • Bill Carroll: Career Advice from the Artist, Professor & EFA Studios Director

    Pratt Institute professor and EFA director Bill Carroll talks about his career trajectory, lessons from the art market, and the fundamental shifts he's made in the pursuit of his art.The post Bill Carroll: Career Advice from the Artist, Professor […]

  • Develop an Art Catalog, Sell More Work

    From keeping an art archive to keep your studio organized to developing a sleek art catalog for sales, artists should incorporate an organizational routine if they're looking to grow their business.The post Develop an Art Catalog, Sell More Work […]

  • How to Create the Perfect Pitch Deck

    When preparing to present your services to a potential client, what should go into your pitch deck? From services offered to payment schedules, here's how to create a deck that lands the gig.The post How to Create the Perfect Pitch Deck appeared […]

  • How Museum Hotels Like 21c Serve Art to Their Local Communities

    Museum hotels like 21c are finding new ways to engage with their local art communities. Here's how artists can work collaboratively with this innovative new concept.The post How Museum Hotels Like 21c Serve Art to Their Local Communities appeared […]

  • How to Host a Meetup for Local Artists

    Organizing an art meetup is an excellent way to build community. We sit down with the founders of successful initiatives like the Portland Artist Network and the Rural America Contemporary Art Group.The post How to Host a Meetup for Local Artists […]

  • AR as Visual Narrative: In Conversation with Todd Berreth

    NC State University professor Todd Berreth discusses his evolution as an artist and technologist, with a focus on exploring visual narrative within an AR framework.The post AR as Visual Narrative: In Conversation with Todd Berreth appeared first on […]

  • How This New Startup is Elevating AR Creatives

    As the prevalence of augmented reality technology continues to rise, more creatives look to incorporate it into their practice. Companies like Poplar are looking to support AR creatives.The post How This New Startup is Elevating AR Creatives […]

  • Ahol Sniffs Glue on Retail Partnerships and Never Selling Out

    Artist Ahol Sniffs Glue shares insights on managing your brand, taking on retail partnerships and embracing the hustle.The post Ahol Sniffs Glue on Retail Partnerships and Never Selling Out appeared first on Artrepreneur. […]

  • What is Participatory Design in the Arts?

    Introducing principles of participatory design and participatory art into your work can create a more personal experience for your audience, while also promoting repeated viewings for new experiences.The post What is Participatory Design in the […]

  • Let’s Get Virtual! VR Innovations Bridge Fine Arts & Technology

    How is VR and AR affecting the fine arts sector? In a conversation with [email protected] radio, Grace Cho and Todd Berreth discuss emerging trends in VR art.The post Let’s Get Virtual! VR Innovations Bridge Fine Arts & Technology appeared first on […]

  • Mi-Kyoung Lee on Developing a Practice Far From Home

    Born in South Korea, Philadelphia-based artist Mi-Kyoung Lee weaves fiber and plastic to create ethereal sculptures that meditate on labor and domesticity.The post Mi-Kyoung Lee on Developing a Practice Far From Home appeared first on Artrepreneur. […]

  • How an Artist and Musician Collab Can Help Double Your Audience

    From album cover art to costumes and set designs, pairing an artist and musician for an ongoing collaboration is a wonderful way to expand both their networks.The post How an Artist and Musician Collab Can Help Double Your Audience appeared first on […]

  • Why Artists Should Still Use Handwritten Notes

    Looking for a way to connect with your private collectors? Handwritten notes remain a charming gesture that makes a lasting impression.The post Why Artists Should Still Use Handwritten Notes appeared first on Artrepreneur. […]

  • Is The End of the Art Fair in Sight?

    Is the art fair model dead? The advent of online art sales and the high cost of participation has the art world wondering whether more fairs equals more problems.The post Is The End of the Art Fair in Sight? appeared first on Artrepreneur. […]

  • Ditch the Pricey Rent and Run a Pop Up Gallery Instead

    Throughout history, artists have held a pop up gallery exhibition as an intrepid way of drawing attention to their work. Here's why you shouldn't wait for a gallery to come knocking.The post Ditch the Pricey Rent and Run a Pop Up Gallery Instead […]

  • Exploring Alternative Art Spaces to Show Your Work

    Galleries aren't the only places looking to show art. Alternative art spaces like cafes and music venues can help you expand your influence and your market.The post Exploring Alternative Art Spaces to Show Your Work appeared first on Artrepreneur. […]

  • NYAA Grad Matthew Alfonso Durante on Taking Risks

    Artrepreneur sits down with NYAA grad Matthew Alfonso Durante and talk about rural Wisconsin, coming to New York and comic books.The post NYAA Grad Matthew Alfonso Durante on Taking Risks appeared first on Artrepreneur. […]