347-787-6824The legal uncertainty surrounding copyright protection for AI-generated works is rooted in the foundational principles of copyright law, recent case law developments, and evolving guidance from the U.S. Copyright Office. This guide explores originality and authorship, key case law, regulatory updates, hypothetical scenarios, business risks, and reform proposals, all with a focus on how creators, developers, and businesses in New York can navigate ownership rights and infringement risks when human authorship is not clearly established.
At the heart of the issue, New York’s creative economy, including publishing houses, media outlets, advertising agencies, and tech startups, finds itself at a crossroads. The appetite for generative AI tools is undeniable, but the law’s insistence on human authorship risks leaving some of the most innovative outputs unprotected. The tension between innovation and doctrine runs through every legal dispute.
Ownership and Protection Under Copyright Law
Under U.S. copyright law, protection applies only to “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.” 17 U.S.C. § 102. This excludes ideas, procedures, processes, systems, and methods of operation. Section 101 defines an “author” to include individuals or entities for whom works are made for hire, but it does not account for non-human creators.
This statutory framework creates a core challenge for AI-generated works. Without clear human authorship, courts and regulators have repeatedly rejected copyright claims. Businesses may view AI tools as creative partners, but the law treats them as instruments like brushes or cameras. Until reform occurs, copyright attorneys in New York advise companies to ensure identifiable human input in every creative step.
Source: Areness Law
Case Law and Regulatory Guidance
Several recent cases highlight the copyright issues surrounding AI:
– Thaler v. Perlmutter (2023): The D.C. District Court ruled that works created solely by AI cannot be copyrighted. Human authorship remains a constitutional requirement.
– U.S. Copyright Office (March 2023 Guidance): Only human-authored portions of AI-generated works may be registered if the human maintains creative control.
– The New York Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp. (2023): Ongoing case alleging AI companies unlawfully used copyrighted works for training datasets.
– The Intercept Media v. OpenAI (2024): Plaintiffs alleged infringement through content scraping and removal of copyright management information.
These disputes show courts applying traditional principles to emerging technology. For New York’s media and publishing industries, the takeaway is clear: without meaningful human involvement, copyright protection remains limited.
Hypothetical Scenarios: Who Owns AI-Generated Content?
Imagine a business using AI for marketing visuals. If a human merely enters a vague prompt, the resulting work may lack copyrightable authorship. However, when a person exercises creative judgment, curating outputs, directing edits, and refining results, their contributions may establish authorship.
As Ranieri v. Adirondack Dev. Group (2016) explained, providing ideas does not make one an author. Authorship depends on expressive choices. For New York businesses, documenting human involvement in AI-assisted projects is crucial to support copyright claims.
Business Risks: Infringement and Licensing
Businesses relying on generative AI face two primary risks:
– Infringement Claims – AI trained on copyrighted datasets could expose both developers and users to liability.
– Ownership Disputes – Without clear agreements, questions may arise over who owns AI-assisted work.
For New York businesses, especially in media and advertising, proactive risk management is essential: define ownership in contracts, ensure human creative oversight, and work with an experienced intellectual property litigation attorney.
Proposals for Reform and Policy Considerations
Scholars and policymakers are exploring options to address AI copyright gaps:
– Expanding “authorship” definitions to recognize AI as a co-creator.
– Legislative amendments clarifying ownership of AI-generated works.
– Introducing sui generis rights, similar to EU database protections.
Any reform must balance rewarding human creativity with encouraging innovation. For now, industry-led solutions such as Adobe’s Content Credential system or standardized licensing frameworks proposed by groups like the Dataset Providers Alliance are filling the gap until legislation catches up.
Source: LinkedIn
Practical Steps for New York Businesses
To minimize risks while using AI in creative industries, businesses should:
– Ensure human creators actively guide and direct AI outputs.
– Document the role of human decision-making in the process.
– Use contracts that clearly define ownership of AI-assisted works.
– Monitor evolving case law and regulatory policies.
The safest path forward is to treat AI as a creative assistant—not an author—and assume courts will scrutinize human input.
Why Choose the LAW FIRM OF DAYREL SEWELL, PLLC?
For businesses and creators in New York navigating the complex world of AI-generated copyright issues, the LAW FIRM OF DAYREL SEWEL, PLLC, provides trusted legal guidance.
– Proven Experience in intellectual property and copyright litigation.
– Strategic Legal Solutions tailored to AI and emerging technology challenges.
– Client-Centered Approach, ensuring your business goals remain protected.
– Comprehensive Representation in negotiation, litigation, and compliance.
Whether you are a startup, media company, or creative professional, the LAW FIRM OF DAYREL SEWELL, PLLC, offers the expertise to safeguard your rights and manage risks in this evolving legal landscape.
Contact the LAW FIRM OF DAYREL SEWELL, PLLC, today to schedule a consultation and protect your creative assets.
FAQs
– Can AI-generated works be copyrighted in New York?
No, works created solely by AI cannot be copyrighted under current U.S. law. Human authorship is required, though human contributions in guiding AI may qualify for protection.
– Who owns AI-assisted works in a business setting?
Ownership depends on contracts and human involvement. If an employee or contractor uses AI, businesses should clarify rights in agreements to avoid future disputes.
– What legal risks do New York businesses face when using AI?
The biggest risks include infringement claims from training data and uncertainty over who owns AI-generated content. Proper contracts, documentation, and compliance help mitigate these issues.
– How can the LAW FIRM OF DAYREL SEWELL, PLLC help?
The firm provides expert legal counsel on copyright disputes, intellectual property litigation, and contract drafting for businesses using AI in New York.
