Ipr In AI-Assisted Robotic Copyright Disputes.
Intellectual Property Rights in AI-Assisted Robotic Copyright Disputes
As AI and robotics become capable of creating art, literature, music, or inventions, traditional copyright and patent laws are being tested. Key issues include:
Authorship – Who is the author: human, AI, or both?
Infringement – Can AI-generated works violate someone else’s copyright?
Training datasets – Does training AI on copyrighted works constitute infringement?
Platform liability – Are AI providers responsible for outputs generated by their AI?
Below are detailed cases illustrating these issues.
1. GEMA v. OpenAI (Germany, 2025)
Facts:
The German music rights society GEMA sued OpenAI, claiming that ChatGPT had been trained on copyrighted song lyrics without permission, and that the AI could reproduce these lyrics on request.
Legal Issue:
Does an AI model infringe copyright if it memorizes copyrighted works during training?
Outcome:
The Munich Regional Court ruled in favor of GEMA, holding that AI reproduction of copyrighted works—even from memorized knowledge—is actionable infringement.
Significance:
Training AI on copyrighted works without a license can violate copyright.
Reproduction inside the AI model can be considered infringement.
Sets precedent for liability of AI developers in Europe.
2. Zarya of the Dawn (USA, 2023)
Facts:
The comic Zarya of the Dawn included AI-generated illustrations from Midjourney. The creator applied for copyright protection without disclosing AI involvement.
Legal Issue:
Can AI-generated images receive copyright protection in the U.S.?
Outcome:
The U.S. Copyright Office rejected copyright for the AI-generated images, granting protection only for the text and human-authored narrative.
Significance:
Confirms that pure AI creations are not copyrightable in the U.S.
Only human contributions receive copyright protection.
Highlights limits of AI-assisted creativity under current law.
3. Li v. Liu (China, 2023)
Facts:
An artist used an AI tool to generate images but provided detailed prompts and made extensive adjustments to outputs.
Legal Issue:
Can works created with substantial human input but using AI tools receive copyright protection?
Outcome:
The Beijing Internet Court ruled the work was copyrightable because the human had significant creative control over the AI-generated images. The AI itself was not considered the author.
Significance:
Human creativity and decision-making matter more than mere AI output.
Shows that AI can be treated as a tool, not an author.
Contrasts with U.S. rulings that disallow AI authorship.
4. Ultraman AI Image Case (China, 2024)
Facts:
An AI service generated images resembling the copyrighted character Ultraman. The rights holder filed a suit alleging infringement.
Legal Issue:
Does AI-generated content that resembles copyrighted works constitute infringement?
Outcome:
The Guangzhou Internet Court held the AI-generated images infringing, ordering the service provider to remove the images and pay damages.
Significance:
AI-generated outputs can infringe if they are substantially similar to protected works.
AI platforms can be held liable for enabling infringement.
5. Stability AI & Midjourney Artists’ Lawsuits (U.S. & U.K., Ongoing)
Facts:
Several artists sued Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt for using their copyrighted images to train AI models without permission.
Legal Issues:
Does training AI on copyrighted art constitute infringement?
Are AI-generated outputs derivative works violating copyright?
Outcome:
The courts allowed plaintiffs to refile claims with amended complaints. Cases are ongoing, with some rulings focusing on the extent of copying in training and whether outputs are “substantially similar” to copyrighted works.
Significance:
Central question: is training on copyrighted data a violation or fair use?
Sets up major precedent for AI art platforms.
6. Anthropic AI Training Case (USA, 2025)
Facts:
Authors sued Anthropic for allegedly infringing copyright by training the Claude AI on millions of copyrighted books.
Legal Issue:
Is training AI on copyrighted material fair use?
Outcome:
A federal judge ruled that training AI models is transformative and falls under fair use, but acquisition methods of books matter for ongoing liability.
Significance:
Training itself can be legally protected under fair use doctrine.
Shows U.S. courts recognize AI learning as similar to human learning from reading.
7. Foundational Precedents: Non-Human Authorship
Naruto v. Slater (2018) – U.S. court held a monkey could not claim copyright for a selfie. By analogy, non-human creators (AI) cannot hold copyright.
Thaler v. U.S. Copyright Office – AI inventor DABUS sought recognition as an author. U.S. courts rejected this, reaffirming that copyright requires human authorship.
Significance:
Establishes the principle that copyright cannot attach to non-human creators.
Impacts AI-generated works globally.
Key Legal Themes
Human Authorship Required – Most courts require significant human creative input.
Training Data & Fair Use – Courts are split; some view training as fair use, others as infringement.
Output Liability – Generating content similar to copyrighted works can be infringement.
Platform Liability – AI developers may be responsible for infringing outputs.
Jurisdictional Differences – U.S. strict on human authorship, China more flexible, Europe developing nuanced rules.
Conclusion:
AI-assisted creative tools and robotics are reshaping copyright law. Courts are balancing innovation, human creativity, and the rights of original creators. Future legislation will likely clarify:
Ownership of AI-generated works
Limits of training datasets
Liability of AI developers and platforms
RELATED Blog
comments