Ipr In AI-Assisted Brand Storytelling Ip.
1. Introduction: IPR & AI-Assisted Brand Storytelling
AI-assisted brand storytelling involves using artificial intelligence tools—like generative AI, language models, and creative software—to craft marketing campaigns, content, and narratives for brands. These tools can generate text, images, videos, and audio, helping brands engage consumers at scale.
From an IPR perspective, challenges arise because:
Copyright ownership is unclear for AI-generated works.
Trademark infringement may occur if AI inadvertently uses protected logos, slogans, or brand elements.
Trade secrets could be at risk if AI tools are trained on confidential brand data.
Licensing must account for AI-generated outputs and ensure brands can exploit the content commercially.
TRIPS-compliant frameworks require that AI-generated brand content respects authors’ rights, provides remedies for infringement, and ensures clarity about ownership.
2. Key Legal Principles
Copyright: AI-generated works may be protected if there’s human authorship; fully autonomous AI may not qualify under current law in many jurisdictions.
Trademark: AI cannot register trademarks, but using protected logos or slogans in storytelling without permission may infringe.
Trade Secrets: Confidential brand data used for AI training must be protected; unauthorized disclosure can trigger legal liability.
Licensing & Contracts: Clear terms must define who owns AI-generated content, who can modify it, and how royalties are handled.
3. Case Laws Relevant to AI & Brand Storytelling
While AI-specific case law is still emerging, courts have addressed analogous issues in copyright, trademark, and authorship, which directly inform AI-assisted brand storytelling frameworks.
Case 1: Naruto v. Slater (Monkey Selfie Case, 2018, U.S.)
Facts: A monkey took selfies using a wildlife photographer’s camera.
Issue: Can a non-human (monkey) own copyright?
Decision: No, only humans can hold copyright.
AI Implication: Fully autonomous AI may not automatically own copyright; ownership likely lies with the human programmer, brand, or AI operator.
Case 2: Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc. (1991, U.S.)
Facts: Dispute over copyright protection of a phone directory.
Issue: Whether factual compilations with minimal creativity are copyrightable.
Decision: Only original selection or arrangement of facts is protected; mere facts are not.
AI Implication: AI-assisted storytelling that compiles factual data must have human creative input to qualify for copyright.
Case 3: Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. (2021, U.S.)
Facts: Oracle claimed copyright infringement over Java APIs used by Google.
Issue: Whether technical interfaces or functional elements are copyrightable.
Decision: Court ruled in favor of Google under fair use for interoperability.
AI Implication: AI-assisted brand storytelling must avoid reproducing copyrighted code or proprietary brand content unless licensed or covered by fair use.
Case 4: Rogers v. Koons (1992, U.S.)
Facts: Artist Jeff Koons created sculptures based on copyrighted photos.
Issue: Copyright infringement through derivative works.
Decision: Infringement confirmed.
AI Implication: AI-generated brand narratives based on copyrighted images, slogans, or storytelling frameworks may require licensing if derivative.
Case 5: Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Hyundai Motor Co. (2009, France)
Facts: Hyundai used a luxury logo-like design in car advertisements.
Issue: Trademark infringement.
Decision: Court confirmed infringement due to brand confusion.
AI Implication: AI-assisted storytelling that incorporates trademarked logos or brand designs without permission may trigger infringement liability.
Case 6: Narayan v. YouTube (2020, U.S.)
Facts: YouTube removed videos allegedly infringing copyright.
Issue: DMCA takedown and liability for platforms hosting user-generated content.
Decision: Platforms must comply with takedown notices.
AI Implication: Brands using AI-generated content on social media platforms must ensure content does not infringe, or platforms can remove it under takedown rules.
Case 7: Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (1999, U.S.)
Facts: Digital reproductions of public domain artworks claimed copyright.
Issue: Whether exact reproductions are copyrightable.
Decision: Exact reproductions without original creativity are not copyrightable.
AI Implication: AI-generated storytelling that simply copies existing brand narratives or images may not qualify for copyright protection, emphasizing need for original content.
4. Licensing & IP Frameworks for AI-Assisted Brand Storytelling
A TRIPS-compliant and enforceable AI brand storytelling framework should:
Clarify ownership: Human creators, AI operators, or brand owners?
Define rights: Commercial use, modification, distribution, sublicensing.
Include safeguards: Avoid unlicensed use of copyrighted or trademarked content.
Protect trade secrets: Ensure AI is not trained on confidential brand data without authorization.
Enforceable remedies: Allow takedowns, damages, or injunctions against infringers.
5. Key Takeaways
AI output does not automatically confer copyright; human involvement is essential.
Derivative works require licenses; AI cannot bypass copyright or trademark law.
Trademark protection still applies; using brand elements in AI storytelling requires careful review.
Trade secrets must be protected in AI training datasets.
Licensing agreements for AI content should be explicit, TRIPS-compliant, and enforceable globally.
AI-assisted brand storytelling intersects multiple IP domains: copyright for narrative and media, trademark for logos and slogans, and trade secrets for brand strategies. Court decisions in analogous scenarios guide how brands can safely generate and commercialize AI-created content.
RELATED Blog
comments