The Creative Revolution: The Enigma of Authorship in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
In the midst of the artificial intelligence (AI) revolution, new questions emerge that transcend the foundations of intellectual property, shaping a new chapter where creativity is intertwined with technology. The question that resonates with essential force is: Who deserves credit as the author of a work spawned by AI? This query stands as the epicenter of an era marked by the convergence of human creativity and the ingenuity of technology.
The explosion of innovation fueled by generative AI has propelled artistic, musical, and literary production to a dimension of efficiency and originality previously unexplored. Yet, in the midst of this creative renaissance, a cardinal question arises: Is AI a tool at the service of the creator or a subject with its own rights?
The epicenter of this debate lies in the very nature of AI. Is it a mere instrument in the hands of creators or an autonomous agent in the creative process? The answer to this dilemma determines who holds copyright: the human being who orchestrates the symphony of AI or AI itself?
The dilemma is further complicated by unraveling the degree of human participation in the conception of a work. Is the human creator the true architect if AI plays a significant role in the gestation of the work? These theoretical questions are crucial for charting a path in the still unexplored territory where creativity and technology converge.
Artificial intelligence, as the forge of intelligent machines capable of processing data, learning, and adapting, unfolds in a simple formula: x = y, where “x” represents the input (the instruction or process dictated by the user) and “y” is the AI’s output (the work). This equation is the key to unraveling how AI processes information and gives life to tangible results.
In comparing AI to conventional tools such as cameras or brushes, the imperative need to recognize the human creator as the true author is highlighted. Just as a camera, no matter how advanced, cannot be attributed the authorship of a photograph, AI stands as a tool in the hands of the creator, not the source itself of the work.
This principle is essential for future copyright legislation in the age of AI. Recognizing that authorship rests with the active creator, not the tool, safeguards the rights of creators and ensures fair compensation for their genius.
However, practical complexities require meticulous attention. The obligation of creators to declare the use or non-use of AI could jeopardize trade secrets and creative processes.
In the hypothetical scenario of possible demands from copyright registration offices, ethical and practical dilemmas would arise. The imposition of declarations without revealing sensitive details could be a step in the right direction. Similarly, allowing authors to submit works to registrations without revealing confidential information would be a more friendly alternative. However, the creation of a confidential verification procedure raises ethical concerns by violating the privacy of creators and generating inequalities between those who use AI and those who do not.
Some hypothetical examples of requirements that copyright registration offices could implement include:
- Requiring authors to submit their works to a registration office revealing confidential information, a requirement that in other industries would represent a violation of trade secret.
- Establishing a confidential verification procedure to determine whether a work was created with AI or not is problematic and unethical for the following reasons:
- It is not fair. A confidential verification procedure would give AI-using creators an unfair advantage over non-AI-using creators. AI-using creators could avoid confidential verification simply by declaring that they used AI, while non-AI-using creators would be required to reveal confidential information not associated with AI. Additionally, the statement “I did not use artificial intelligence to create my work” is an indefinite negation. And by definition, an indefinite negation is a statement that cannot be proven or disproven. This means that it is difficult for a court to determine if an author is telling the truth when they claim that they did not use AI in the creation of a work.
- It violates the privacy of creators. A confidential verification procedure would require creators to reveal confidential information about their creative processes, such as prompts used, data sources, or the author’s working methods.
- This information could be used by competitors or third parties to copy or plagiarize the author’s work.
The balance between transparency and protection of confidential information is essential. Safeguards that preserve the confidentiality of creators, such as allowing declarations about the use of AI without revealing sensitive details or establishing confidential verification procedures, are imperative. Under excessive scrutiny of copyright laws, it risks limiting the commercial exploitation of works created with and without AI, leading authors to explore alternatives that do not necessarily benefit society as a whole.
In this sense, a rigorous examination of these laws could make it more difficult and expensive to register works, discouraging creativity by leaving authors uncertain about their ability to protect their rights. Excessive disclosure of confidential information could also force authors to resort to less beneficial forms of exploitation for their economic sustenance and audience reach.
