The Lawsuit: Who Owns AI-Generated Code?
The recent class-action lawsuit filed in California was focused on an AI tool called GitHub Copilot, which automatically writes working code as the programmer types. The coder who filed the case argued that the code-writing tool might be infringing copyright because it doesn’t provide any attribution for the open-source code it reproduces. Some open-source code, for example, is covered by a license that requires attribution.
It should be noted that GitHub’s CEO has said that Copilot now has a feature that can be enabled to prevent copying from existing code.
DALL-E Prompts Questions About Copyright And Ownership Of AI-Generated Images
Another recent example of generative AI that has prompted industry questions about copyright and ownership is OpenAI’s DALL ·E tool. DALL·E 2 is an AI system that can create realistic images and art from a natural language description using a process called “diffusion” (see: https://openai.com/dall-e-2/). Although for a subscription, users are given full usage rights to reprint, sell and merchandise the images they create with the tool, creative professionals have been asking questions about generative AI ownership issues like the ones mentioned above.
Other Examples Of Generative AI Tools
GitHub Copilot and DALL·E are by no means the only AI generative tools available. Others (and there are many more) include:
– Images (text-to-image) – Starryai, Crayon, and NightCaf.
– Video (text-to-video) – Synthesia, Lumen5, and Elai.
– Design – Khroma, Designs.ai, and Wizard.
– Audio (text-to-speech voice generators) – Replica, Speechify, and Play. Ht.
– Music -AIVA, Jukebox, and Soundraw.
– Text – Jasper.ai, Peppertype, and Copy.ai
– Code (text-to-code) – Tabnine, PyCharm, and Kite.