Copyright In AI-Generated Visualizations Of Ancient Vietnamese River Festivals.
I. Public Domain and Historical Cultural Heritage
Ancient Vietnamese river festivals are historical and cultural facts. Historical events, traditions, costumes, and rituals are not protected by copyright.
1. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.
Principle Established: Copyright protects original expression, not facts.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Supreme Court held that factual compilations must demonstrate a minimal degree of creativity. Mere effort or “sweat of the brow” is insufficient.
Application to AI Festival Visualizations:
The historical fact of a river procession is not protected.
The traditional layout of boats, attire, and rituals cannot be monopolized.
However, a creative visual interpretation (color palette, lighting, cinematic framing) may qualify as original expression.
Thus, copyright cannot attach to the festival itself, only to the creative representation.
II. Mechanical Reproduction vs Creative Interpretation
If AI merely recreates a historically accurate depiction based strictly on archival materials, protection may be denied.
2. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.
Issue: Whether exact photographic reproductions of public domain artworks are protected.
Held: Faithful reproductions lacking originality are not copyrightable.
Relevance:
If AI generates a purely faithful reconstruction of an ancient Vietnamese river festival based on historical paintings or documents:
It may be treated like a mechanical reproduction.
No new copyright would arise if there is no creative deviation.
However, if the AI-generated visualization introduces:
Stylized interpretations,
Imagined perspectives,
Creative atmospheric elements,
then originality may exist.
III. Human Authorship Requirement in AI Works
Modern copyright law generally requires human authorship.
3. Naruto v. Slater
Issue: Whether a non-human (a monkey) could own copyright in a photograph.
Held: Only humans can be authors under U.S. copyright law.
Application:
If an AI autonomously generates a digital painting of a Vietnamese river festival without meaningful human control:
The AI cannot be considered the author.
Copyright may not exist.
This case reinforces that non-human creators cannot hold copyright.
4. Thaler v. Perlmutter
Issue: Whether AI-generated artwork without human involvement qualifies for copyright.
Held: Human authorship is a constitutional and statutory requirement.
Court’s Reasoning:
The court confirmed that works “produced by a machine without human intervention” are not registrable.
Application:
If a historian inputs a prompt such as:
“Generate a realistic 13th-century Vietnamese river festival with dragon boats and imperial banners”
but exercises no creative control over the output,
→ The resulting visualization likely lacks copyright protection.
However, if the human:
Iteratively refines prompts,
Edits details,
Modifies lighting and composition,
Combines AI outputs manually,
then the human contributions may qualify as protected expression.
IV. Derivative Work Doctrine
AI visualizations based on ancient artwork or historical paintings raise derivative work concerns.
5. L. Batlin & Son, Inc. v. Snyder
Issue: Whether minor alterations to a public domain object create a new copyright.
Held: Derivative works require substantial originality.
Application:
If AI:
Slightly modernizes an old Vietnamese temple mural depicting a river festival,
Adjusts colors minimally,
Makes trivial stylistic changes,
this may not meet the originality threshold.
Meaningful transformation is required.
6. Schrock v. Learning Curve International, Inc.
Issue: Whether photographs of existing copyrighted objects could qualify as derivative works.
Held: A derivative work must add independent creative elements.
Relevance:
If AI-generated festival imagery:
Introduces new perspectives,
Adds imagined ceremonial choreography,
Creates cinematic composition absent from historical sources,
those creative elements may be protected—even if based on historical subject matter.
V. Substantial Similarity and Training Data Issues
If AI is trained on existing protected artworks (for example, modern paintings of Vietnamese festivals), infringement risk may arise.
7. Arnstein v. Porter
Principle: Two-part test for infringement:
Copying in fact
Improper appropriation (substantial similarity)
Application:
If an AI-generated visualization closely resembles a contemporary artist’s depiction of a Vietnamese river ceremony:
Courts may apply substantial similarity analysis.
Even stylistic imitation may be examined.
8. Rogers v. Koons
Issue: Whether a sculptor infringed a photograph by recreating it.
Held: Transformative claims failed because the copied elements were substantial.
Application:
If AI recreates a specific copyrighted photograph of a Vietnamese river festival scene with minimal transformation:
It may infringe.
Claiming “AI reinterpretation” will not automatically shield liability.
VI. Fixation and Digital Artwork Protection
Even if subject matter is public domain, fixation matters.
9. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony
Issue: Whether photographs qualify as original works.
Held: Photographs are copyrightable when they reflect the photographer’s creative choices.
Importance:
This foundational case recognizes:
Creative arrangement,
Lighting,
Pose,
Composition.
Application:
If a human meaningfully directs AI to produce a carefully arranged visualization with deliberate aesthetic control, that direction may satisfy authorship under Burrow-Giles reasoning.
VII. Cultural Heritage and Moral Rights Considerations
In civil law jurisdictions (including Vietnam), moral rights are significant:
Right of attribution
Right of integrity
Distortion of culturally sensitive ritual festivals through AI may raise moral rights or cultural protection issues, even if copyright law does not directly prohibit it.
Vietnam’s intellectual property regime recognizes strong moral rights for authors, though ancient anonymous works complicate enforcement.
VIII. Ownership Scenarios
Scenario 1: Fully Autonomous AI Visualization
→ Likely no copyright (Thaler principle)
Scenario 2: AI + Significant Human Editing
→ Copyright in human contributions
Scenario 3: Faithful Historical Reconstruction
→ Possibly no protection (Bridgeman logic)
Scenario 4: Creative Cinematic Reimagining
→ Likely protected as original digital artwork
Scenario 5: Use of Modern Copyrighted Paintings as Training Basis
→ Risk of infringement (Arnstein, Rogers analysis)
IX. Key Legal Doctrines Summary
| Legal Issue | Governing Case | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Facts not protected | Feist | Festivals themselves unprotected |
| Mechanical reproduction | Bridgeman | Faithful AI copies unprotected |
| Human authorship | Naruto, Thaler | AI alone cannot be author |
| Derivative works | Batlin, Schrock | Substantial originality required |
| Infringement test | Arnstein | Substantial similarity applies |
| Transformative defense limits | Rogers | Recasting must be meaningful |
| Creative fixation | Burrow-Giles | Creative control may establish authorship |
X. Conclusion
Copyright in AI-generated visualizations of ancient Vietnamese river festivals depends primarily on:
Human creative involvement
Degree of originality
Extent of transformation
Relationship to training data
Cultural and moral rights frameworks
The legal trend—especially in the United States—emphasizes:
Human intellectual creation,
Protection of genuine artistic judgment,
Avoidance of monopolizing historical or cultural heritage.
Thus:
Ancient festivals themselves remain in the public domain.
Pure AI outputs lack copyright.
Human-guided AI artworks may qualify.
Substantial similarity to protected works can trigger infringement liability.
RELATED Blog
comments