AIGC's first copyright white paper was released, which is better than nothing

AIGC tools represented by ChatGPT, Midjourney, etc. are popular in various industries, not only improving the efficiency of enterprises, but also bringing new job opportunities for creators. However, as AIGC has become more and more involved in content production, copyright disputes have also increased. For example, AIGC works are very similar to previous works, is it an infringement? Is it an infringement to train a proprietary model with network material or other people's works? Can works created using open source models be used directly for commercial use?

In the face of the AI copyright issue that continues to spark heated discussions, Tezign Technology and Shanghai Everbright Law Firm jointly released the white paper "AIGC and Copyright Protection". This is also a white paper focused on copyright by the AIGC industry.

Image source: Generated by Unbounded AI

The legal community has not yet reached a consensus, and the specific situation will be discussed in detail

The white paper includes 10 AIGC copyright-related issues. Some issues have no unified conclusions in the legal field, and some issues need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis.

For example, is the content produced by AIGC protected by copyright? Who does the copyright belong to? There is a view that if it is only created by AIGC, because the subject of creation is a machine, the works created by it are not protected by law. However, some courts believe that the content created by AI comes from the creator's personalized information screening and typesetting, and the creation process of the intelligent writing assistant software in the technical synthesis meets the protection conditions of the copyright law for written works.

Does using online materials or other people's works to train proprietary models constitute infringement? For example, earlier this year, Getty Images and three artists sued Stability AI, arguing that it used 5 billion images obtained from the Internet "without the original author's consent" to train its artificial intelligence, infringing the rights of "millions of artists". right. According to my country's current copyright law, the terms applicable to AIGC should only exist in "personal use" and "scientific research". Obviously, the works produced by AIGC can only be enjoyed by oneself and cannot be commercialized.

During the AIGC generation process, using online materials or other people's works to make up images, does it constitute infringement? According to the white paper, if the pad map is directly used as a draft of someone else's work, and adapted on this draft. This involves the adaptation of the original copyright owner's work, which must be authorized by the original copyright owner, otherwise it is a kind of infringement.

What is the reality?

AIGC's copyright issue is a problem and not a problem.

But the problem is, once it happens to you, it can cost you dearly.

Not that the problem is that, taking pad pictures as an example, it is not impossible to directly use AIGC tools to adapt pictures that already exist on the Internet without the authorization of the original copyright owner. I have not seen which domestic platform and which user have been accused of infringement.

Some time ago, with the "AI Stefanie Sun" cover song incident, some people in the legal profession were worried about the infringement of the original creator: using other people's voice to cover songs requires personal authorization. However, according to the provisions of Article 24 of the "Copyright Law", if the cover work is only for personal study, research or appreciation, and the work that has been published by others is used for cover, then it can be used without the permission of the relevant right holder. , but this way of use must also remember not to affect the normal use of the original work, and it has to reasonably damage the legitimate rights and interests of the copyright owner.

In the era of "everything can be flowed, and flow is money", this provision of the "Copyright Law" may not be able to guarantee the rights and interests of creators. For example, a cover singer uploads a cover song to a public platform at home and abroad such as Xingyin, Xingzhan, or even Xingguan, and obtains huge traffic, which in turn earns rewards, traffic sharing and other benefits. Its use behavior has a profit-making nature. So, can this behavior be exempted?

However, when people in the legal profession were busy analyzing legal risks for "AI Stefanie Sun", Stefanie Sun herself unexpectedly responded in person. Stefanie Sun did not send a lawyer's letter to the client, but positively affirmed the power of AI, "it is so powerful that humans cannot surpass it, and it is just around the corner." In the face of this powerful technology, everyone is no longer unique and can be customized.

Obviously, AIGC's copyright issues are constantly being cut, and the reasoning is still chaotic.