Which Is Correct: The Czech Court or the Beijing Internet Court on Ai-Generated Copyright?

As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to advance, its ability to create original content raises various legal questions, including whether AI-generated works should be eligible for copyright protection. If so, courts have the challenge of determining who owns the intellectual property rights attached to such protection.

Courts globally face the same dilemma, highlighting the lack of regulation in this area and the need for clear guidance on how authors’ work is protected when AI is a factor.

Two recent court decisions from the Czech and Beijing Internet Courts provide contrasting views on this issue, raising critical points about how AI can and should be regulated. This article examines both rulings and considers which approach other jurisdictions should favour and adopt.

AI and copyright law

Copyright protects creators’ rights over their original works, including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic creations. Copyright protection automatically arises provided the relevant work is original and in a fixed form; it does not apply to mere ideas.

Copyright grants the owner of the work exclusive control over its use and distribution for a specified period. The primary purpose of the law is to encourage creativity and innovation by ensuring creators benefit financially and receive recognition for their efforts.

Intellectual property laws were traditionally designed to protect works created by human authors, so the recent rise of AI has resulted in courts worldwide applying outdated laws to a fast-developing technological landscape.

AI-generated content refers to works produced by algorithms and machine learning systems without direct human authorship. In recent years, people have been using AI to compose music, write articles, and create art, often whilst using other people’s copyright-protected works. Therefore, AI challenges the general requirement for human authorship and originality, prompting a much-needed re-evaluation of copyright laws.

The Czech decision

The recent Czech case required the court to decide whether an AI-generated artwork deserves copyright protection. The plaintiff used AI software, DALL-E, to create an image of two parties signing a business contract, which he then uploaded to his company website. The defendant subsequently used the same image on his website, and the plaintiff initiated legal action against him for copyright infringement.

The plaintiff argued he should be entitled to copyright protection because he generated the image using his specific prompt. However, the Czech Copyright Act defines an author of copyrighted works as a “natural person”.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate authorship, dismissing the case. More notably, it stated that a work must involve a degree of human creativity and originality to be eligible for copyright protection. This decision indicates that, even where an AI system produces results due to human input, copyright laws will only apply if the prompt is unique enough. It also follows that AI cannot be deemed an author for intellectual property purposes, as it is not a natural person.

This decision emphasises the necessity of human authorship in copyright law and the importance of preserving originality in an ever-increasing tech-centric world.

The Beijing decision

Interestingly, the Beijing Internet Court recently addressed similar facts and reached a different conclusion. The plaintiff generated an image using AI, which he posted to a social media platform. The defendant then copied the picture and shared it on a public site. The plaintiff issued legal proceedings seeking compensation and the removal of the image from the defendant’s site.

The court recognised an AI-generated image as eligible for copyright protection, relying on the argument that its creation involved significant human effort and creativity, even if the AI program produced the final output. The court considered the degree of human involvement in generating the picture, including the uniqueness of the prompts and parameters the plaintiff dictated. The Beijing court thus extended copyright protection to AI-generated images.

This decision reflects a drastically different stance on integrating AI into society and the tension between decisions across jurisdictions. It’s feasible that the motivation behind the Beijing ruling is to encourage investment and innovation in fast-developing AI technologies.

Key takeaways

Comparing the Czech and Beijing decisions provides a vital insight into the rapid pace of AI development and the law’s ability to keep up with it. Some key takeaways from each ruling are:

Neither court denied AI’s growing importance in creative processes, but their interpretations of authorship and originality were wholly distinct.
The Czech court adopted a more traditional approach to copyright principles, emphasising the need for human creativity.

• The Beijing court took a more flexible, modern approach, recognising the role of human input in developing AI systems and using it to generate artistic creations.
• These decisions highlight the broader implications of applying copyright laws to AI. The Czech ruling could serve as a precedent for other EU countries, potentially leading to a unified stance prioritising natural persons as authors.
• On the other hand, the Beijing decision is more likely to influence countries at the forefront of technological advancement and innovation, encouraging them to adapt their copyright laws to protect AI-generated works.

Decisions in other jurisdictions

Courts globally should also address this issue. Comparing approaches in other jurisdictions helps paint a picture of other countries’ stances on integrating AI into creative endeavours and whether a traditional or progressive approach is correct.

In the US, a court held that copyright protection does not apply to AI-generated works, emphasising human authorship as a cornerstone of copyright laws. This ruling supports the Czech court’s view that traditional notions of originality and creativity should be preferred.

Much like the Beijing court, Japan has taken a more flexible approach to AI and copyright. A recent review of their “Approach to AI and Copyright” document highlighted the potential for AI content to be eligible for copyright protection, provided human input is used to generate its results. Whether protection arises would depend on various factors, including the specific prompts, the number of generations and modifications, plus subsequent human amendments to the work.

In February 2024, the Ministry of Trade in India published a statement confirming that its intellectual property laws do not require amending to account for AI-generated content. While the Indian Copyright Act similarly refers to an author as a “person”, this statement indicates that AI creations are capable of protection.

Which decision is correct?

Determining which court’s decision is “correct” is largely subjective; it depends on individual perspectives on AI and how it integrates with international legal frameworks. Both decisions offer valid viewpoints reflecting different legal principles and cultural attitudes towards enhanced technology.

Each decision can be considered based on its adherence to existing laws, adaptability to new technologies, and fairness to stakeholders.

The Czech decision is likely to be favoured by those who wish to preserve established legal norms and the clear distinction of what constitutes a protected work. It upholds the essence of copyright law – to protect human creative endeavours – and ensures the law remains unaffected by AI-generated content.

The Beijing decision will likely be considered correct by supporters of innovation and technological advancement. It promotes the integration of AI into creative spaces, encouraging investment and development in AI technologies while continuing to recognise human contributions. It reflects a forward-thinking perspective and an openness to adapt to existing laws to reflect modern practices.

If one had to decide, the Beijing ruling is much less resistant to the inevitable growth of AI, offering a balanced approach that also acknowledges human creativity. While the Czech decision provides a more straightforward application of existing laws, these principles are quickly becoming outdated as technology progresses at lightning speed.

Conclusion

It’s evident from the contrasting decisions worldwide that the issue of AI-generated works and copyright is complex. The Czech and Beijing decisions offer contrasting yet insightful perspectives on navigating this emerging legal territory, and it will be fascinating to see which approach is favoured moving forward.

While it’s essential to recognise traditional copyright principles and encourage uniqueness and innovation, courts and intellectual property laws cannot simply ignore the abundance of AI and technology across all industries.

Determining which approach is correct depends on various factors, and future rulings can no doubt learn valuable lessons from both decisions. Legal clarity and consistency are vital, but so are innovation and adaptability. As AI evolves, further research and potential legal reforms will be necessary to develop a coherent and balanced approach to AI-generated copyright.