Copyright For Canadian AI-Generated Cinematic Storyboards.
1. Overview of Copyright in Canada
In Canada, copyright is governed primarily by the Copyright Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42. Key points relevant to AI-generated works include:
Copyright protects “original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works.”
Originality requires skill and judgment by a human author.
There is ongoing debate about whether AI-generated works can have copyright protection, because traditional copyright law assumes a human author.
Canadian law has not yet directly addressed AI-generated storyboards in court, but existing cases and statutory interpretation provide insight.
2. Human Authorship Requirement
Under Canadian law, copyright protection requires human authorship. AI cannot currently be an “author” because it is not a legal person.
Section 5(1) of the Copyright Act: “The owner of the copyright in a work shall be the author, unless the work was made in the course of employment.”
This implies the author must be human; a machine itself cannot hold copyright.
The key issue for AI-generated storyboards: If a human inputs prompts and guides the AI, can they claim authorship? Courts consider how much skill, labor, and judgment the human contributed.
3. Relevant Case Laws in Canada
3.1 Tele-Direct (Publications) Inc. v. American Business Information Inc., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 954
Facts: Tele-Direct compiled telephone directories and American Business claimed copyright infringement.
Principle: The Supreme Court of Canada emphasized that originality requires skill and judgment, not merely labor or mechanical effort.
Relevance to AI: Simply generating content mechanically (as AI does) may not qualify. Human creative input must involve judgment and originality.
3.2 CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 339
Facts: The case concerned photocopying legal materials.
Principle: The Court ruled that originality does not require novelty or creativity, but must reflect some exercise of skill and judgment.
Relevance: For AI storyboards, if a human artist carefully crafts prompts, sequences, and adjustments, that may constitute enough skill and judgment to claim copyright.
3.3 Canadian Admiral Corp. v. Rediffusion Inc., [1954] Ex. C.R. 149
Facts: The case involved television broadcasts and mechanical reproduction.
Principle: Mechanical reproduction alone does not confer copyright; human authorship is central.
Relevance: AI-generated images are mechanical; the copyright question turns on human contribution to the creative process.
3.4 Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Bell Canada, 2012 SCC 36
Facts: This case involved whether digital reproductions of music files violated copyright.
Principle: Copyright extends to works in fixed form, but the Court again emphasized human authorship and fixation.
Relevance: AI outputs fixed cinematic storyboards, but if no human creative input exists, they may not be protected.
3.5 Théberge v. Galerie d’Art du Petit Champlain Inc., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 336
Facts: Concerned reproduction of paintings and the concept of originality.
Principle: Mere mechanical reproduction is insufficient; the authorship element must be preserved.
Relevance: For AI-generated storyboards, this supports the principle that the machine cannot be the author; human creative contribution is key.
3.6 University of London Press v. University Tutorial Press [1916] 2 Ch 601 (UK case cited in Canada)
Facts: Academic question papers’ copyright examined.
Principle: Emphasized that works must involve intellectual creation, not just labor.
Relevance: In Canada, courts often cite UK precedents for guidance on originality. AI-only generated storyboards likely fail this standard.
4. Key Takeaways for AI-Generated Cinematic Storyboards
Human Input Matters: If a human guides AI through prompts, edits outputs, and sequences shots, the human may be considered the author.
Mechanical Output Alone Not Protected: AI’s raw output without human creative intervention is likely not copyrightable in Canada.
Case Law Trend: Courts consistently emphasize skill, judgment, and originality.
Potential Approach: Filmmakers could claim copyright by documenting their creative decisions in generating AI storyboards.
5. Practical Implications
Use AI as a tool, not a sole author.
Document human decisions: choice of scenes, style, composition, prompts, and edits.
Consider licensing agreements with AI service providers, as AI-generated works may have separate contractual considerations.
RELATED Blog
comments