DOBRMAN

DEVELOPMENTS IN
COPYRIGHT LAW FOR
AI-GENERATED WORK

By Julian Dobre

DEVELOPMENTS IN
COPYRIGHT LAW FOR AI-GENERATED WORK

By Julian Dobre 

Introduction

On July 8, 2024, the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) filed an application in Canada’s Federal Court to expunge or rectify the copyright registration of Ankit Sahni claiming that only humans can be authors.  

Mr. Sanhi used an AI tool called RAGHAV AI to generate an image titled Suryast which combined his own photo of a sunset with van Gogh’s famous painting Starry Night. He then sought to register copyrights around the world. He was granted a copyright registration in Canada on December 1, 2021. In his application, Mr. Sanhi listed both himself and RAGHAV AI as authors of Suryast.  

In its Federal Court application, CIPPIC is seeking a declaration that there is no copyright in the image Suryast, or, alternatively, that Mr. Sanhi is the sole author. 

US Comparison

In December of 2023, the US Copyright Review Board refused to grant Mr. Sanhi a copyright registration for the Suryast image. 

The US has a more mature copyright regime regarding AI than Canada, stemming from a case involving an Indonesian monkey. In 2015, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) filed a complaint on behalf of Naruto, an Indonesian macaque, on the grounds of copyright infringement. 

Naruto took several selfies of himself using a camera belonging to photographer David Slater, who was on assignment in Indonesia. PETA filed a complaint against Mr. Slater on the grounds that publishing and selling the photographs taken by Naruto infringed on the monkey’s copyrights. 

Credit: David John Slater
Selfie Taken By Naruto The Monkey

The US 9th Circuit dismissed PETA’s claim. They ruled that the monkey – and all animals who are not human – lack statutory standing under the US Copyright Act. Thus this bizarre ‘monkey selfie’ case set the foundations for whether work generated by artificial intelligence should be afforded copyright protection in the US. According to the logic of the US 9th Circuit decision, since AI is not human, work generated by AI should likewise not be afforded copyright protection. 

Policy Considerations

Canada already loses many of its best and brightest to its southern neighbor. Allowing AI-generated work to attract copyright protection would be another nail in the coffin for Canadian creativity because it would destroy the incentives to create in Canada. Creators would go to the US at an even faster rate, where their IP would be respected. 

Generative AI programs are trained on the work and labor of humans. It scrapes the internet, downloads human work en-masse, and then scrambles and reproduces that work for its users. It is not magic. It is theft.

AI companies will continue on their current path as long as there is a monetary incentive to steal the work of creators and reproduce it as the hottest new AI tool. If, however, AI tools are not afforded copyright protection, it cannot be protected and monetized, and it loses its value.  

It is imperative that Canada’s Federal Court establishes a strong precedent in the CIPPIC v Sanhi case. The Suryast image must not retain its copyright protection because copyright protection must remain exclusively for humans.  

This blog is for general information and entertainment purposes. It is not intended to be legal, business, or other professional advice to be relied on. Do not make or refrain from any decisions on the basis of this blog. Please contact us to receive advice from a qualified lawyer. 

BOOK YOUR FREE CONSULATATION