The excitement around AI-generated content is palpable. AI promises to fulfil a wide range of creative and functional needs quickly and efficiently. It can write books, blogs, and articles, design advertisements, create social media posts, develop visuals, and more. However, the surge in AI-generated content raises questions about originality and copyright protection for commercialising the content.
Sourcing vs. Plagiarism.
Based on human prompts, AI generates content by accessing a vast repository of digital material and synthesising it into new works. This process often involves repurposing existing material, raising concerns about plagiarism. The AI doesn’t create original content; instead, it reconfigures what already exists, often from sources with copyright protections — something human creators are not allowed or expected to do. Genuinely speaking- it is a new form of an old problem- plagiarism.
Before you point out, let me say that many human creators do the same! For example, I accessed many articles for this article, assimilated my thoughts, and then presented my point of view. So, what’s wrong- if AI does the same? The AI does not superimpose its thoughts and thinking while recreating- recrafting what it proposes.
Shaky on Copyright.
Copyright protection hinges on three main criteria: originality, a tangible medium, and human authorship. While AI-generated content might meet the requirement of being in a tangible medium, it falters on the other two fronts. AI content lacks originality since it is derived from existing works. Remember, the test of originality looks at substantial similarities and not differences. And it definitely fails the test of human authorship as algorithms, not humans, generate it.
Unless the rules are changed- the AI-generated material cannot be commercially protected, which may be why most Generative AI programs promise the user the freedom to use or say they own the content! However, if you were to try copyrighting it- you would be disappointed.
The Debate on AI vs Copyright Continues.
The debate around AI and copyright is ongoing and complex. Some argue that traditional notions of copyright are becoming obsolete in a rapidly evolving digital landscape. Others believe in democratising content and universal ownership, valuing productivity and accessibility over strict copyright enforcement. You can ignore this debate if you feel the same way.
It’s important to note that the debate on AI Content Copyright and the rules to harness AI capabilities within a safety net of universally accepted guidelines are ongoing and of significant relevance. This is a topic that we will be actively discussing and trying to resolve for some time.
Case for a Disclaimer.
To maintain transparency, content creators should disclose the use of AI in their work. This would help differentiate between predominantly AI-generated content and content primarily created by humans with some AI assistance.
Some digital content creators do mention if AI was used in content development. It may not be a case like the News and Advertorial, but the audience has the right to know. What do you think?
Humanising AI Content.
Many creators use AI for initial content generation but rely on human creativity to edit and refine the final product. This practice, while common, does not solve the issue of originality since the AI’s role in content creation remains significant. Do not consider it a possible escape route to claim the originality of content. It would not pass the test.
Individual Point of View on AI-generated Content.
Opinions on AI-generated content vary widely. The lack of consensus on copyright and commercial protection for such content leaves many questions unanswered. The debate will continue until the lawmakers and stakeholders work towards a shared understanding and framework- which is not expected soon.
Possible solutions include stricter regulations on using copyrighted material in AI training, more explicit guidelines on the attribution of authorship in AI-generated content, and the development of AI-specific copyright laws.
Many question the futility of such a debate. They question if it matters when the content is relevant, impactful, and to the brief. Is there a problem if no one objects and claims copyright?
Net-Net
AI-generated Content training involves using pre-existing, often copyrighted, content without explicit permissions or commercial transactions. This practice can lead to a homogenisation of creative works, potentially stifling originality and creativity in the long run.
Many global and national content creators refuse AI permission to access their content for training. Is that a step in the right direction?
Or would you want to access AI and check the politically correct stance and response?
DISCLAIMER. This article first had 1063 words, then AI condensed it to 383. What you read is the Humanised version (741 words) of that condensed article- as the condensed version lacked and blanked out many human thoughts- still with the use of AI- I do not claim to be the sole creator of this particular piece of work.
BLOG/032/2024 To connect, send an email, join on Twitter S_kotnala or subscribe to the weekly update.
