|
|
Recent developments in Artificial Intelligence (AI) have sparked a crucial moral and legal debate in the field of copyright and intellectual property . Examples such as the first prize for an AI-generated work in the Colorado State Fair's Annual Art Competition, along with the decision of the US Copyright Office , responding with the refusal to register this and others works created by AI , have triggered a series of fundamental questions about the authorship and legal protection of these creations. Companies have also entered the AI scene: recently, Toy Planet and toy catalogs circulated on social networks.
The covers were generated by AI supposedly to reduce costs in design or illustrators . The notable similarities between the characters and the style of both covers raise the usual dilemmas about authorship and the ethics Fax Lists of not remunerating creation. The moral issue of not paying for a creation and its impact on the employment of human creators becomes central . The question arises: Should AI have copyrights? Current regulations exclude non-human works from such rights, as evidenced by previous court cases such as Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Naruto v Slater.
The owner of the camera sold the photo and was sued by an animal association to enforce the primate's copyright over the image the English courts ruled that animals do not have legal personality to sue for copyright infringement . Under current regulations authorship is reserved exclusively for human beings . This poses a challenge in distinguishing between works generated by AI and those created by humans. The difficulty in discerning this difference has led to copyright revocations in cases where AI intervention in creation has been discovered, such as the comic Zarya of the Dawn,which once obtained registration.
|
|
發表於 18:03:13