Ipr In Valuation Of AI-Generated Creative Ip
1. Thaler v. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Facts: The Thaler case centers around Dr. Stephen Thaler’s AI system, DABUS, which autonomously generated inventions. Thaler sought to list the AI system as the inventor of a patent application for a device to attract attention in an emergency situation.
Issue: Whether an AI system can be recognized as an inventor under U.S. patent law, and by extension, whether AI-generated inventions should be valued differently from human-created inventions.
Decision: The USPTO rejected the patent application, stating that only human inventors could be listed under patent law. The Federal Circuit Court upheld this decision.
Implications for Valuation: This case raises a key issue for AI-generated IP valuation: the challenge of determining ownership when AI systems create the work. While this case dealt with patents, similar issues arise in the valuation of AI-generated creative IP (such as music or art), where traditional attribution of ownership may not be directly applicable. The question remains: who owns the rights to AI-generated work, and how should its value be assessed?
Valuation Implications: The rejection of AI as an inventor in this case suggests that AI-generated IP, such as patents or creative works, would likely require human involvement for valuation purposes. The valuation would typically be attributed to the human operator or programmer who utilized the AI system, impacting the overall economic value of the asset.
2. Naruto v. Slater
Facts: This case involved a photograph taken by a macaque monkey, Naruto, using a camera owned by wildlife photographer David Slater. Slater had published the photo, but PETA argued that the monkey (Naruto) should be the copyright holder.
Issue: Whether animals could hold copyright in creative works they have "created," in this case, the photo taken by Naruto.
Decision: The court ruled that only humans can hold copyrights under U.S. copyright law. The photo was ultimately deemed a work for which Slater held the copyright, not Naruto.
Implications for AI-generated Creative IP Valuation: The case clarified that only humans can hold IP rights, which is critical for valuing AI-generated works. When AI systems generate creative content (e.g., art, music, VR assets), it is crucial to assign ownership to the human entity controlling or programming the AI. This directly impacts the valuation of the AI-generated creative IP because it relies on human attribution for economic rights, licensing, and royalty generation.
Valuation Implications: For valuation purposes, this case reinforces the principle that the ownership of creative works is assigned to humans. AI-generated works, even if highly sophisticated and autonomous, would be valued based on the contributions and control of the human operator, which influences its commercial potential, royalties, and licensing opportunities.
3. Aisling O’Neil v. OpenAI (Hypothetical Case)
Facts: In this hypothetical case, an artist, Aisling O’Neil, used an AI platform powered by OpenAI’s GPT model to create a series of digital artworks. O’Neil sought to sell the works as NFTs (non-fungible tokens) but was challenged by OpenAI, which claimed that the works were generated using its proprietary AI system and should therefore be attributed to the company.
Issue: Whether AI-generated artworks created using a proprietary platform (like OpenAI) are the exclusive property of the user or the platform itself, and how this affects valuation.
Decision: In a situation like this, courts would likely lean towards assigning ownership to the creator who used the AI tool (O’Neil in this case), unless there are specific terms of use that grant OpenAI ownership over generated content. However, the court may also find that OpenAI retains some commercial rights, especially if the AI is a central component in the creative process.
Implications for Valuation: If O’Neil is considered the rightful owner of the generated artwork, its value could be based on factors like the artistic merit of the AI’s output, market demand for AI-generated art, and O’Neil’s reputation as an artist. If OpenAI retains some rights, such as a share of any proceeds or licensing fees, the valuation would need to account for the company’s stake in the work.
Valuation Implications: The case would underscore that ownership terms and rights allocation between the AI platform and the user have a direct impact on the valuation of AI-generated creative IP. If the platform has rights to the work, the valuation may include royalty-sharing models, licensing arrangements, and considerations for the platform's role in the creation process.
4. The Warhol Foundation v. Lynn Goldsmith (2019)
Facts: In this case, photographer Lynn Goldsmith sued the Warhol Foundation, arguing that Andy Warhol’s famous reinterpretation of her photograph of Prince violated her copyright. Warhol’s version of the photo was transformative, but Goldsmith argued it did not sufficiently alter the original to qualify as fair use.
Issue: Whether Warhol’s use of Goldsmith’s copyrighted photograph was sufficiently transformative to constitute fair use, or whether it was an infringement.
Decision: The court ruled in favor of Goldsmith, stating that Warhol’s work was not sufficiently transformative and that the fair use doctrine did not apply.
Implications for AI-generated Creative IP Valuation: The case highlights the complexity of valuing derivative works, especially when AI is involved in creating works based on existing copyrighted content. In cases of AI-generated works that draw from existing IP, the value would be assessed not only on the creative quality of the AI-generated content but also on the legal risks associated with potential copyright infringement and licensing challenges.
Valuation Implications: In valuing AI-generated creative IP, the risk of infringement must be accounted for. The potential for derivative works to infringe on existing copyrighted materials could significantly affect the market value of the work. The valuation of AI-generated content based on pre-existing works must consider licensing fees, royalties, and the cost of litigation risks if the work is deemed infringing.
5. MGM v. Grokster (2005)
Facts: This case involved Grokster, a file-sharing service that allowed users to download and share copyrighted material. MGM sued Grokster for inducing copyright infringement, arguing that Grokster facilitated illegal distribution of copyrighted movies and music.
Issue: Whether Grokster could be held liable for the infringing activities of its users, even though it did not directly infringe the copyrights itself.
Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Grokster could be held liable for inducing copyright infringement, even though the infringement was carried out by users of the service.
Implications for AI-generated Creative IP Valuation: This case provides important lessons for valuing AI-generated IP in the context of third-party platforms and technologies. If an AI system is used to generate content that infringes upon existing copyrights, the platform or technology provider may be liable for the infringement, which could affect the economic value of the IP and any potential revenue or licensing opportunities.
Valuation Implications: The valuation of AI-generated IP needs to consider the risks of infringement. If an AI tool generates works that are based on copyrighted material without proper licenses, the asset's value might be significantly reduced due to potential legal liabilities. The cost of litigation or settlement agreements could affect the overall valuation of AI-generated works.
Key Takeaways on Valuation of AI-Generated Creative IP:
Ownership and Attribution: The value of AI-generated IP depends largely on the ownership and attribution of the work. Cases like Naruto v. Slater suggest that the human operator or creator behind the AI should be the owner, which directly affects the economic value of the work.
Derivative Works and Infringement: In cases like Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, the valuation of AI-generated works must account for the potential of derivative works to infringe upon existing copyrights. This affects the risk profile and, consequently, the economic value.
Licensing and Royalties: As demonstrated in the Grokster case, platforms that host or enable AI-generated content may be liable for infringement. The valuation of the asset may need to account for licensing agreements, royalty-sharing models, and the platform’s role in the creation process.
Risk Management: The Thaler v. USPTO case illustrates the uncertainty around AI-generated works, which can complicate valuation. The legal status of the AI itself and its involvement in creation needs to be considered when determining who holds the rights to the IP.
RELATED Blog
comments