#auslaw

Just a small ramble about AI and copyright law because I find it incredibly interesting. So I'm sure a lot of people are familiar with the infamous Naturo v. David Slater case that occurred in America in the mid-2010s, in which a monkey took a selfie on a man's camera and Slater, said man, was trying to claim copyright over it. It was ruled in the end that he did not own copyright, but nor did the monkey as the monkey is not a person and has no legal footing of ownership.

Under the Copyright Act 1968, only humans in Australia can claim copyright and legal ownership over a produced item, meaning any good. I am trying to find proof of this and am unable to at this time but I also think its reasonable to say that the law prohibits the manufacturers of a product hold any claim to things produced with their product to certain degrees (i.e. Sony doesn't own images taken with sony cameras once they sell them).

I am curious to see how this translates into AI-generated images. As of now there are no laws of copyright in Australia regarding AI images so if we were to apply the current copyright law who would own those images?

Well, you must be human to hold copyright which AI is not. But to use the camera manufacturer analogy, can the creator of an AI reasonably own anything produced with their product, especially given the nature of AI at this point in time.

If current AI models are simply reading the internet and merging information how are we able to put a title of ownership on parts of an image. A library doesn't own the books they shelve anymore than you don't legally own a book just because you read and referenced them.

In the monkey analogy, we are the monkey, using a tool (the camera or the AI) and the owner of the camera is the creator of that AI. As our current laws stand no one owns those images!

MR MERKEL: I am not sure how familiar your Honours are with the tweeting process, and I may be a little inaccurate - - -

KIEFEL CJ: I think some more than others is the answer to that.

MR MERKEL: I think I am at the bottom of the barrel, your Honour, but I have tried to understand it a little.

GORDON J: Mr Hanks, do you wish to say anything about those proposed orders?

MR HANKS: We support them, your Honour.

GORDON J: A big change of attitude.

MR HANKS: Change of instructions, your Honour. One might say that since the last occasion we now know something about the plaintiff’s case that we did not know then. We have seen submissions.

GORDON J: I have been naughty.

GAGELER J: Mr O’Bryan, can I just take you up on this. I interpret it as a concession, that there is some conflict or tension between section 43 and section 85ZZH. For my own part, I cannot see it.

MR O’BRYAN: Yes. I now feel like I should withdraw this concession very rapidly.

MR WILLIAMS: I think it was Justice Gordon who said you perhaps will not often have a company acting as trustee of many trusts but we do in the commercial world. Many corporate superannuation trustees find themselves, for example, in exactly that situation. The largest professional trust companies find themselves in exactly that situation. Many of them are trustees of hundreds if not thousands of separate trusts. Perhaps Justice Gordon might be more attuned with some of the misconduct that has gone on in relation to those trusts than some others of us but - -

KIEFEL CJ: I do not think that comment is necessary.

MR WILLIAMS: I am sorry, your Honour, it was meant to be amusing and it was not and I apologise.

KIEFEL CJ: Perhaps out of place.