Ipr In AI-Generated Nft Copyright Protection.
IPR IN AI-GENERATED NFT COPYRIGHT PROTECTION
1. Key Concepts
When AI generates art, music, or film content, and it is minted as an NFT, the legal questions revolve around:
Who owns copyright?
Human author vs. AI tool vs. NFT creator
Is AI-generated work protected under copyright?
Some jurisdictions only grant copyright to human authors
NFT ownership vs. IP ownership
Buying an NFT does not automatically transfer copyright
Derivative works
If AI training data included copyrighted works, does the NFT infringe?
2. Key Legal Issues
| Issue | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Authorship | AI cannot hold copyright. The human who prompts, curates, or selects output may claim authorship. |
| Derivative works | AI trained on copyrighted material can produce infringing content. |
| NFT ownership | Ownership of the token ≠ ownership of copyright. |
| Moral rights | In some jurisdictions, authors retain moral rights (even in AI-assisted works). |
| Licensing clarity | NFT sale contracts must clarify what rights the buyer receives. |
CASE LAWS (DETAILED)
1. Naruto v. Slater (Monkey Selfie Case, 2018)
Facts
A macaque took a selfie using a photographer’s camera.
Photo was uploaded and commercialized.
Question: Who owns copyright?
Legal Issue
Can a non-human (monkey or AI) own copyright?
Court Decision
Non-human entities cannot hold copyright.
Copyright only exists for works created by humans.
Principle for AI NFTs
AI-generated works cannot hold copyright unless a human author is identified who contributed creative input.
2. Thaler v. Commissioner of Copyright (AI Inventor Case, 2022, USA)
Facts
Stephen Thaler argued his AI system "DABUS" should be recognized as an inventor/author.
Applied for copyright/patent protection in the US.
Court Decision
Copyright and patent law only recognize human authors/inventors.
AI cannot be the legal author.
Principle for AI NFTs
Human who directs or curates AI output can claim copyright.
Without human creativity, AI output is in the public domain.
3. Naruto v. Slater Analogy in NFTs (Hypothetical Extension)
Courts emphasize creative contribution.
Simply minting AI output as an NFT without human intervention ≈ no copyright.
NFT buyer may only get the token, not the content’s copyright.
4. Getty Images v. Stability AI (2023)
Facts
AI company Stability AI trained its model on Getty’s copyrighted images.
Created derivative works and sold outputs, including NFTs.
Legal Issue
Can AI use copyrighted images for training?
Are NFT outputs infringing?
Court Considerations
Copying images for model training is potential infringement if commercial exploitation occurs.
NFTs minted from AI outputs using copyrighted training data may infringe even if AI generated them autonomously.
Principle
NFT creators must ensure AI training data does not violate copyright; otherwise, NFTs are derivative works.
5. Miramax v. Tarantino – AI Hypothetical Extension
If AI generates a new version of Pulp Fiction scenes, the studio may claim:
Copyright in underlying characters, dialogue, and plot
NFT minting is derivative exploitation
Courts may treat AI as a tool, and the human operator of AI could be liable if IP rights are infringed.
6. Dr. Stephen Thaler’s “AI Copyright Registration” Cases (Various Countries)
US, UK, and EU courts consistently ruled:
AI cannot hold copyright
The human directing AI may hold copyright if they exercised creative control
Courts distinguish:
Fully automated AI output (no copyright)
Human-curated AI output (potential copyright)
Implication for NFTs
For NFT protection:
Include detailed records of human contribution
Use smart contracts to specify ownership
7. Stable Diffusion & MidJourney Lawsuits (2023–2024)
Facts
AI art platforms generate images using massive datasets scraped from the internet.
Some generated NFTs resemble copyrighted works (e.g., Disney characters).
Legal Issues
Infringement through AI-generated derivative works
Commercial exploitation via NFTs
Key Observations
Courts are considering:
Whether output is substantially similar to copyrighted works
Whether AI training involved infringing datasets
NFT creators may face liability even if AI output was “original-looking”
LEGAL TAKEAWAYS FOR AI-GENERATED NFT COPYRIGHT
NFT Ownership ≠ Copyright Ownership
Buyer gets token; human author holds copyright.
AI Cannot Be Copyright Owner
Only humans with creative input can claim copyright.
Training Data Matters
Using copyrighted content to train AI without license = potential infringement.
Human Creativity is Key
Curating, editing, selecting AI output establishes copyright eligibility.
Licensing Terms Must Be Explicit
NFT sales should clearly define:
Display rights
Commercial rights
Resale/royalty terms
Liability disclaimers
Global Consistency
US, EU, India align: non-human authors are not recognized.
NFT marketplaces may be liable for hosting infringing AI NFTs.
RELATED Blog
comments