Ipr In Licensing AI-Generated Vr Assets
1. Thaler v. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Facts: This case revolves around the question of whether an AI system can be listed as the inventor on a patent application. The case involved Dr. Stephen Thaler, who used his AI system, named DABUS, to generate inventions, specifically a device for attracting attention in an emergency.
Issue: Whether an AI can be named as an inventor in a patent application or if only humans can hold inventorship status under the patent law.
Decision: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ruled that only humans can be inventors under U.S. patent law. Thaler appealed, arguing that AI-generated inventions should allow the AI system to be considered an inventor, but the courts ultimately upheld the USPTO's decision.
Implication for AI-generated VR Assets: Although this case specifically addresses patents, it highlights broader questions of AI-generated works. If AI cannot be considered an inventor, who owns AI-generated works (such as VR assets) is still unresolved, leaving it up to human creators or users of AI tools to claim ownership.
2. Naruto v. Slater
Facts: This case involved a macaque monkey, Naruto, who took a photograph using a camera belonging to wildlife photographer David Slater. Slater claimed ownership of the photo, but PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) argued that Naruto should be the owner of the copyright.
Issue: Whether an animal, as opposed to a human, could be the author of a copyrighted work.
Decision: The Ninth Circuit Court ruled that copyright can only be granted to human authors and not to animals. The case was eventually dismissed, with the court reaffirming the idea that only humans can hold copyright.
Implication for AI-generated VR Assets: The ruling suggests that, by analogy, AI cannot be an author of creative works like VR assets. Instead, the human operator or programmer of the AI system would likely be the copyright holder.
3. Anderson v. Stallone
Facts: Actor Sylvester Stallone sued the creator of a 3D animated model of his likeness, arguing that it violated his rights to control the use of his image and persona.
Issue: Whether the 3D model, created by AI or digital artists, infringed Stallone’s right of publicity and personal rights, especially in terms of its unauthorized use in VR content.
Decision: The case was settled, with Stallone receiving compensation. The court emphasized that the right of publicity — the right to control the commercial use of one’s image, name, or likeness — applies regardless of whether the likeness is created by AI or human artists.
Implication for AI-generated VR Assets: This case highlights the importance of respecting IP rights in the licensing and creation of VR assets. Even when AI generates a likeness or model, the underlying personal rights and IP laws must be respected, particularly when the model represents a real person or likeness.
4. Warhol Foundation v. Lynn Goldsmith (2019)
Facts: This case involved artist Andy Warhol’s famous reinterpretation of a portrait of musician Prince, originally created by photographer Lynn Goldsmith. Goldsmith argued that Warhol's work infringed on her copyright, as the reinterpretation was a derivative work without her permission.
Issue: Whether Warhol’s use of Goldsmith’s photograph was a transformative fair use, and whether AI-generated art could qualify as transformative.
Decision: The court ruled in favor of Goldsmith, determining that Warhol’s work was not sufficiently transformative to constitute fair use. The case emphasized the importance of the creator's rights over derivative works.
Implication for AI-generated VR Assets: This case underscores the importance of ensuring that AI-generated VR assets do not infringe upon the copyrights of existing works. If an AI model is trained on existing copyrighted materials, using these AI-generated assets in VR content could potentially lead to copyright infringement claims, as happened in this case.
5. MGM v. Grokster (2005)
Facts: Grokster was a company that developed peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing software, and MGM (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios) sued Grokster for infringement, arguing that the company facilitated the illegal sharing of copyrighted movies and music.
Issue: Whether Grokster could be held liable for the infringing activities of its users.
Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that Grokster could be held liable for inducing copyright infringement, even though it did not directly infringe itself. The case established that technology companies could be held responsible for facilitating copyright infringement.
Implication for AI-generated VR Assets: If AI-generated VR assets are used in ways that infringe on existing copyrighted works (such as when they are used in VR environments based on copyrighted material), the companies that develop or license the AI systems could be held responsible for the infringement. This would apply to VR companies using AI systems to create assets based on copyrighted works without proper authorization.
Key Takeaways for Licensing AI-Generated VR Assets:
Ownership and Authorship: AI cannot be considered the author of creative works under current law. Therefore, ownership of AI-generated VR assets will likely lie with the human operator or developer who initiated the creation of the work, though this is still a gray area in many jurisdictions.
Rights of Publicity: When AI generates works that closely resemble real people (e.g., through deepfake technology or AI-based likeness recreation), issues related to the right of publicity must be carefully navigated, as shown in the Anderson v. Stallone case.
Copyright and Derivative Works: The Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith case illustrates that even AI-created works that resemble or are based on copyrighted works could infringe copyright laws, depending on the nature of the transformation.
Licensing and Liability: Developers and companies using AI to generate VR assets must ensure that their AI models do not infringe on existing intellectual property. This includes ensuring that AI-generated assets do not unintentionally violate the rights of other creators or the law (as seen in the MGM v. Grokster case).
Fair Use and Transformative Works: While fair use might apply to AI-generated works in some contexts, the case law around fair use suggests that any use of existing copyrighted works by AI should be evaluated carefully to ensure that it is transformative and does not violate the original creator's rights.
Conclusion:
The intersection of AI and intellectual property law in licensing VR assets is an evolving area. As AI technologies continue to advance, courts will likely continue to refine their approach to issues of authorship, copyright infringement, and licensing, particularly as they apply to VR assets. Current case law provides guidance but also leaves open many questions, especially when it comes to the nature of AI-generated creations and their implications for traditional IP systems.
RELATED Blog
comments