Generative AI Sparks Copyright Infringement Lawsuits as Federal Courts Grapple with Intellectual Property Protection
Generative AI technology is revolutionizing industries and transforming the way we create and consume content. However, this rapid advancement is also giving rise to complex legal disputes regarding copyright infringement. Federal courts are now inundated with lawsuits alleging infringement by those involved in training and distributing foundational generative AI models.
Among the companies facing legal action are Stability AI and Meta Platforms Inc. These lawsuits primarily raise concerns about the ownership and protection of the outputs generated by AI models. While some district court judges express skepticism about classifying these outputs as derivative works, claims of direct infringement during the training process have been allowed to proceed.
Simultaneously, there is a broader debate within all branches of government regarding the eligibility of AI models’ outputs for intellectual property protection. The Copyright Office and Patent Office currently maintain that AI models cannot be considered authors or inventors. However, this disagreement continues when it comes to determining who should receive credit for any expressive content within the AI-generated output. The question remains whether it should be attributed to the requester or the entity that developed and trained the AI model.
This dispute extends beyond traditional intellectual property rights. There are also calls for a federal right of publicity to combat AI deepfakes, which have raised concerns about unauthorized use of individuals’ images and likeness.
While AI’s rapid progress is causing significant legal challenges, it is not the only issue on the legal agenda this year. The US Supreme Court has granted certiorari in two intellectual property cases and is actively considering a third.
In Vidal v. Elster, the court is examining whether the denial of registration for the mark Trump Too Small by the US Patent and Trademark Office violates the First Amendment. This case, similar to last term’s Bad Spaniels case, requires the court to address First Amendment arguments in the context of trademark law and clarify that the denial of federal trademark rights does not restrict freedom of speech.
Another case, Warner Chappell Music v. Nealy, revisits the Copyright Act’s statutory damages period. The Supreme Court will determine whether a copyright owner can use the discovery rule to extend the three-year damages period when there was no prior knowledge of infringement. This case seeks clarification on an essential aspect of copyright law.
Patent eligibility continues to be a contentious issue as courts grapple with Section 101 precedent, and patent reform efforts take place in Congress. The proposed Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023 aims to establish a clear standard for patent eligibility and prevent the creation of judicial tests.
In summary, generative AI technology is pushing the boundaries of intellectual property protection, leading to a surge in copyright infringement lawsuits. As the courts navigate these challenges, the question of ownership and protection of AI-generated outputs remains unresolved. Meanwhile, the US Supreme Court is actively addressing significant intellectual property cases, including trademark and copyright issues, impacting future legal precedents.
