Copyright Office provides guarantee for AI film production tools
The US Copyright Office announced on Wednesday that the use of artificial intelligence tools to assist the creative process will not destroy the copyright of the work.
In order to continue to adopt AI in the later production, the road has become more and more common, such as strengthening Hungarian dialogue in “barbaricists”. Studios' business model is based on powerful copyright protection, and he expressed concern that AI tools can be suppressed by regulatory obstacles.
In a 41 -page report, the copyright office also reiterated that the identity of the human author is important for copyright, and only the text prompt input AI system is not enough to claim the authors identity of the income.
This is the first time that the Copyright Office has been in ChatGPT for only a few months since March 2023. The report is consistent with the earlier position in the office, although it provides greater guarantees to the legitimacy of AI when it is used to supplement the creative process.
VIP+Analysis: Why use Gen AI videos in movies and TV content and fall into trouble
The report pointed out: “Use AI tools to assist instead of support for human creativity and does not affect the availability of output -out protection.”
Consistent with the earlier guidance, the office also believes that if the author creatively “selects and arrange” the elements generated by AI, a job is eligible to obtain copyright protection.
The report pointed out: “Copyright protects the original expression in the works created by human authors, even if the work includes the material generated by AI.”
The report marks an important event in the two -year debate of AI in the field of creativity. When the Copyright Office asked for this issue in 2023, it received more than 10,000 comments, including many artists and musicians comments. They believed that AI stole their works and posed a serious threat to their livelihood.
This is the second of the three AI reports input. The first was released in July last year. It is called for the formulation of legislation to fight the replica generated by AI to imitate a person's voice and similarities. The third report will solve the debate of whether the AI model is allowed to perform copyright protection without permission.
The office emphasized in the initial AI guide two years ago that the work created by machines does not meet copyright protection. Instructed copyright registrars do not meet any materials generated by AI.
The film association on behalf of seven major studios put forward questions about this regulation, saying that it was “misleading”, and in the context of film and TV shows, this will prove that this will be heavy and unvable. MPA quotes a series of post-production processes, such as De-EVE-EVER actor, deleting unwanted objects and rotoscoping-can benefit from AI.
MPA wrote: “The artist is enthusiastic about AI tools. These tools can enhance their work and develop the continuous technology development of these and similar tools.” In short, using AI technology provides opportunities for creators and their audiences. MPA members are optimistic about that future. “
VIP+Analysis: Why does the training of the studio training AI have inherent risks in the training of artists' works
In its report, the copyright office mentioned MPA's comments on DE-EVEN and other post-production effects, and said that “the auxiliary use of enhancement of human expression does not limit copyright protection”.
The office also stated that AI was used as a brainstorming tool or there was no problem with the outline of the creation of literary works.
It draws the position of the line to use systems such as Midjourney, which can generate images based on simple text prompts. To illustrate its point of view, the copyright office uses Google's Gemini to create a cat smoking image.
The office found that many elements of the image seem to be random. The conclusion is that users do not have enough control to claim the author's identity.
Some commentators believe that AI image generation is an iterative process, and users can claim control through multiple amendments by multiple prompts. This argument does not persuade the copyright office.
The report pointed out: “Modifying and submitting prompts many times, the user is rolling 'dice, which causes the system to generate more output, but it cannot change the degree of control of the process.”
The office also rejected the idea of creating additional copyright protection for the work generated by AI, and noticed the potential threat to human creators, and acknowledged “it is difficult to predict its impact on employment.”
The office said: “The impact of the materials generated by AI on human authors and its creative expression expressed concerns about society.” “If the author cannot make a living with his own crafts, their works may be less. We seem that if the spark of human creativity becomes less or dim, the society will be worse. “
VIP+excavated AI data and insights from all angles-choose a story