Content published by the AI chatbot ChatGPT may appear to have been written by a person. Although the technology has many potential applications, some crucial issues regarding content ownership are raised by its outstanding capabilities.
The legal definition of computer-generated works is in the UK. They are “produced by machine in conditions such that there is no human author of the work,” according to the Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act of 1988. According to the law, copyright may apply to artificial intelligence (AI) content. Yet, it might be challenging to identify the original sources of the responses provided by AI chatbots, some of which may be protected by content copyright.
First, should ChatGPT be permitted to use original content created by other parties to produce its responses? The second is whether AI itself can be regarded as an author—especially when that output is creative—or whether only humans can be given credit for AI-generated content.
Let’s start with the first query. A large language model is a technology that underpins ChatGPT (LLM). It is exposed to enormous data sets, such as a sizable number of web pages and publications, to get better at what it does.
Currently, the UK only permits text and data mining (TDM) developers to work on non-commercial projects. According to the conditions of use of OpenAI, users are given “all its right, title, and interest in the output.”
However, the business advises users to ensure their content use complies with all content copyright services. The terms and conditions lack the permanence and power of a legal right like copyright because they are also vulnerable to change.
The only remedy is to make rules and regulations more clear. Otherwise, each organization will have to file a lawsuit on its own to prove that they are the rightful owner of the works that an AI uses. Furthermore, we are rapidly approaching a situation in which all protected materials will be utilized by others without the original author’s authorization if governments do not take action.
Who can assert copyright to AI-generated content is the second question. It’s feasible that individual users or businesses responsible for creating the AI may possess the copyright of the output of a chatbot in the absence of a claim by the owner of the original content used to generate an answer.
The fundamental tenet of copyright law is that only works produced by people are eligible for protection. The algorithms that power ChatGPT were created at OpenAI, therefore, it would seem that the business has content copyright protection over those. But perhaps not for chatbot responses.
Early adopter businesses can profit from the current situation by employing AI to improve the efficiency of their operations. Further advancements in content copyright services are certain to come. Companies frequently have an advantage when they are the first to offer a good or service to a market; this circumstance is known as the “first-mover advantage.”
The problem with AI content that is based on copyrighted materials still exists. The AI system’s capacity to respond to user requests could be hampered by its inability to rely on copylefted content. We would have to accept a new era of open innovation where intellectual property rights are irrelevant if the content is to be built on protected works.
I started my career as a freelance content writer, back in 2012. With a flair for language, grammar and literature, I have constantly improved my skills. Branding has always been my favorite niche. Having written tons of content pieces, I possess enough knowledge about the branding world. My write-ups are research-backed, in-depth, and informational. A keen desire to explore things both from the consumer’s and business’s point of view is what sets me apart.