Copyright Implications Of Holographic Public Art Exhibitions Generated By Algorithms
đź“Ś I. Overview: Holographic Public Art and Algorithms
Holographic public art exhibitions involve visual art displayed using holograms in public spaces. When these artworks are generated by algorithms, legal questions arise about:
Authorship – Who is the “author” when the art is algorithmically produced?
Ownership – Who owns the copyright: programmer, institution, or AI?
Derivative works – If AI is trained on existing copyrighted art, does the output infringe prior works?
Public display – Does exhibition in public spaces trigger additional rights, such as moral rights of creators or property rights of the venue?
Key point: Copyright law generally protects original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium, but the status of AI-generated works is complex.
đź“Ś II. Key Copyright Issues
1. AI as Author
Most jurisdictions (including the Philippines and U.S.) require a human author.
Works generated solely by an algorithm may not qualify for copyright, unless human authorship is significant in creation.
2. Derivative Works
If AI is trained on copyrighted art to generate new holograms, this may be considered a derivative work.
Unauthorized use of copyrighted material in training datasets or output can trigger infringement claims.
3. Public Display & Moral Rights
Public exhibition triggers moral rights protections:
Right to attribution
Right to prevent distortion, mutilation, or derogatory treatment of a work
Even if a hologram is algorithmically generated, if it mimics a preexisting artist’s style, the original artist could claim moral rights violations.
⚖️ III. Case Law Examples (6 Detailed Cases)
*Case 1 — Naruto v. Slater (Monkey Selfie Case, U.S. 2016-2018)
Facts:
A monkey took selfies using a wildlife photographer’s camera. The copyright office rejected the claim for the monkey as author.
Holding:
Only humans can be authors under copyright law. AI-generated works similarly cannot claim copyright in most jurisdictions if there is no human creative input.
Implication for Holographic AI Art:
Purely algorithmic holograms may lack copyright protection if the human contribution is minimal.
Exhibitors may need to rely on contracts or patent/IP protections rather than copyright.
*Case 2 — Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (UK 2023, AI Authorship)
Facts:
Dr. Stephen Thaler argued that an AI system (“DABUS”) should be recognized as an inventor. UK IP authorities rejected AI authorship claims.
Implication:
Algorithmically generated holographic artworks without human intervention are likely not protected under current copyright law in the UK and similar jurisdictions.
Human input in selecting, curating, or modifying outputs can establish copyright.
*Case 3 — Authors Guild v. Google, Inc. (U.S., 2015)
Facts:
Google scanned copyrighted books to create search snippets. Authors sued for copyright infringement.
Holding:
Court ruled it constituted transformative fair use, adding new value without substituting the original market.
Implication for Holographic Art:
If AI-generated holograms transform copyrighted works in a highly creative and non-substitutive way, fair use defenses may apply.
Example: algorithmic reinterpretation of paintings into holographic forms for public education.
*Case 4 — Cariou v. Prince (U.S., 2013)
Facts:
Richard Prince created derivative art using copyrighted photographs. Court analyzed whether works were “transformative.”
Holding:
Works can be derivative without infringing if sufficiently transformative and adding new expression.
Implication:
AI-generated holograms based on copyrighted art may avoid infringement if the output is sufficiently transformative, e.g., changing medium, format, or perspective.
*Case 5 — Monkey Selfie Analogy in Philippines: Philippine Copyright Office Position (2021)
Facts:
POC guidelines clarified that works generated by non-humans (robots, AI) cannot be copyrighted.
Implication:
For AI-generated holographic exhibitions in the Philippines, copyright likely vests in the human operator/programmer who makes creative decisions (curating style, selection, or narrative).
Case 6 — Artists v. AI Art Platforms (Various, 2022–2023, U.S.)
Facts:
Artists sued AI art generators for using copyrighted artworks as training data without consent.
Holding:
Litigation is ongoing, but initial rulings indicate unauthorized use of copyrighted works for AI training may infringe copyright, even if final outputs differ.
Implication:
Holographic public art exhibitions generated by algorithms trained on copyrighted datasets may be at risk of infringement claims.
Exhibitors must either:
Use public domain works, or
Obtain licenses, or
Ensure outputs are sufficiently transformative.
🔍 IV. Broader Legal Principles
| Issue | Principle |
|---|---|
| Authorship | Human authorship is required; AI alone cannot claim copyright |
| Derivative Works | Algorithmic art based on copyrighted material may be derivative |
| Moral Rights | Original authors may object to use of their style or elements |
| Fair Use / Transformative | Significant modification or transformation may avoid infringement |
| Public Display | Public exhibition triggers moral rights and possible contractual permissions |
| Licensing | Use of datasets for training or output requires explicit licenses |
🧠V. Practical Recommendations
Identify human contribution – Curate, select, or modify outputs to establish copyright.
Verify training data – Ensure AI is trained on licensed, public domain, or permissively licensed works.
Moral rights considerations – Avoid reproducing copyrighted styles in a way that harms reputation.
Contracts for public spaces – Ensure venue rights and audience usage are contractually cleared.
Transformative design – Incorporate substantial original expression to reduce derivative work risks.
đź“Ś VI. Conclusion
AI-generated holographic public art challenges traditional copyright frameworks.
Human authorship is critical for copyright protection.
Derivative work and moral rights risks must be managed, especially when AI is trained on existing copyrighted art.
Legal precedent from Naruto v. Slater, Cariou v. Prince, and AI authorship cases show courts carefully balance transformation, human input, and originality.
Exhibitors should implement copyright clearance, licensing, and creative human oversight to mitigate legal risk.
RELATED Blog
comments