We are edging closer to the point where each individual might have their own AI

In the realm of artificial intelligence unfolding possibilities, one of the most profound shifts on the horizon pertains to copyright matters. Much of the regulatory tussle will undoubtedly play out in this arena. How copyright law shapes up could potentially determine the broader sharing of AI’s benefits across society. Moreover, it could wield influence over each country’s competitive edge regarding their AI model creation capabilities.

In truth, everything seems up for discussion in today’s landscape, with a myriad of proposals laid out on the table. Let’s delve into a few of them here. In the United States, the prevailing rule dictates that works produced through AI do not accrue copyright protections. A case in point is the comic book “Zarya of the Dawn.” The creator’s bid to register this work with the U.S. Copyright Office faced rejection due to the AI-generated images. The office greenlit only the registration of textual content and the graphic arrangement, leaving the visual aspects devoid of safeguard.

A divergent perspective comes from Lawrence Lessig, a distinguished Harvard professor and a trailblazer in digital law. Lessig asserts that AI-generated creations should be afforded copyright protection. According to Lessig, this copyright should be credited to the individual who facilitated the creation (through instructions and interactions with the AI). Yet, for the creator to assert this copyright, a requirement to register the work within a sort of “public registry” is put forth. This registry would streamline the process of identifying the owner of each creation. Evidently, Lessig’s proposal is nothing short of daring.

This concept could ignite a global “gold rush” as individuals strive to produce a plethora of AI-generated content that would subsequently undergo registration. The upshot could be AI-crafted content generating revenue for creators via licensing. This viewpoint perceives AI as a conduit for human creativity – an enigmatic and compelling perspective.

In Japan, a different approach is under consideration. The country has opened the door for using copyrighted works in training AI tools. This distinction has led to Japan being hailed as a “machine learning paradise.” The nation’s ambition to lead in this domain is evident, as it readily grants the use of copyrighted material for AI development purposes.

Nevertheless, the most captivating notion proposed revolves around a new breed of copyright tailored for personalized AIs. I believe we stand on the brink of a time when each individual could possess their own AI counterpart. Take, for example, a musician like Drake or Gilberto Gil. They could compile their entire artistic portfolio and convert it into an AI entity, which would then be fortified by copyright protections.

Subsequent creative undertakings related to these artists would take shape in collaboration with their AI counterparts. The fruits of this creative partnership would be shared between the original creator and those who engage with their work. To elaborate further, if Gil were to have his unique AI, his creations would continue to evolve and be open to collaborative efforts. At the same time, if someone collaboratively generates something using his AI, the rewards of that collaborative endeavor would be distributed equitably.

This notion of personalized AI offers a more appealing alternative than having an artist’s entire body of work assimilated into a vast AI model, where it could potentially become just another ghost within the machine.

What’s Out: Exclusive copyrights for humans

What’s In: Debates about copyrights and AI

What’s Next: AI having their own copyrights