The document discusses the rising legal issues surrounding generative AI tools and their use of copyrighted content for training. Numerous claims have been made against AI companies for copyright infringement, including a high-profile case by Getty Images regarding the unauthorized use of over 12 million images. The evolving legal landscape indicates that existing laws may not adequately address the complexities of AI-generated content, and future rulings will be pivotal in defining the rights of creators and the responsibilities of AI companies.

1. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE & INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Generative AI tools are in demand due to their ability to generate content at the press of a button. The tools
are able to develop sophisticated visuals or compelling textual works within seconds. They are developing at
a rapid rate and continue to cement their place within the creative sector, with brands such as Coca-Cola
recently releasing an advert containing AI-generated content.
The AI systems are trained on extensive datasets of text and images. The training data will almost certainly
contain works that are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. If the EU’s Artificial
Intelligence Act is approved, companies will be required to publish summaries of the copyright materials used
to train the AI.
Copyright and Trade Mark Infringement
Issues of copyright infringement have been raised around the world. A class action brought by a group of
artists in California alleges that the AI systems: Stability AI, Midjourney and Deviant Art, have infringed many
thousands of copyright works, both in the input and the output of the AI systems. The claimants argue that
their works have been “scraped” and thereby copied by the defendants in order to train their AI systems,
without obtaining a licence. The claimants allege that the defendants embedded and stored compressed
copies of the training images, and further processed the compressed copies when generating output, in

2. response to text prompts. The claimants’ second argument is that the works created by the AI systems are
derivative of the claimants’ works. End users are able to prompt the AI system to create a work “in the style”
of an artist, resulting in alleged vicarious copyright infringement. This may be particularly distressing for
artists who risk being under-priced and outpaced by AI competition in the creative sector.
Getty Images also brought a claim against Stability AI for copyright and trade mark infringement. Getty
Images state that without obtaining a licence Stability AI copied over 12 million images from its website,
including the metadata describing the images. Getty Images states that it has agreements with other AI
companies to license such use: something which may become more common between rightsholders and
generative AI companies. Getty Images also claims that the output of Stability AI has infringed its trade
marks, as some images produced by Stability AI contain the Getty Images Watermark, which they claim may
cause consumer confusion.
Opt-Out Requests
Recently, Mr Kneschke, a German photographer, requested that LAION, an AI database, remove his images
from its database. LAION’s database is used by companies such as Stability AI for training purposes. LAION
responded to the request stating that it does not store any of Mr Kneschke’s images in its database but
instead store links to locations where his works are available online. The letter also contained an invoice for
€887, stating that Mr Kneschke had made an unjustified claims of copyright infringement. Mr. Kneschke
argues that during the collection of the dataset, LAION downloaded his images in order to evaluate them to
obtain information. Mr Kneschke claims this collection process amounts to copyright infringement.
AI-Generated Music
Streaming services removed the song “Heart on My Sleeve” at the request of Universal Music Group. The
song was created by an AI system trained on copyright content, including songs by the musicians Drake and
The Weeknd. The AI system was able to generate a synthetic copy of their voices. Universal has also asked
streaming services to block AI systems accessing songs which Universal owns, to prevent AI systems using
that content for training purposes. This represents another developing legal battleground between
rightsholders and AI companies.
Data Protection Hurdles
AI companies faced further issues regarding their datasets when ChatGPT was temporarily suspended in Italy
following a data breach, and concerns over the lack of an age verification mechanism. The Italian Data
Protection Authority commented that no information is provided to users or data subjects whose data are
collected by the AI companies. They also found no legal basis for the massive collection and processing of
data for training purposes. OpenAI confirm that it has addressed or clarified the issues raised by the Italian
Data Protection Authority. However, the company could face further challenges following similar
investigations in Canada.
Conclusion
The above cases reflect the developing legal landscape surrounding generative AI tools, as different
jurisdictions seek to tackle these issues. It is clear that existing legislation was not intended to consider the
modern technical processes used by AI tools, and how they may result in infringement. The outcomes of
these cases will hopefully help clarify whether AI companies will be required to compensate creators in order

3. to train their AI on copyrighted material. It will also clarify whether creators can opt out of the reproduction
of their work, used to train AI systems, and how this can be achieved.
It's understandable that creators would seek to enforce their rights against the AI companies that could force
them out of their own market, but it remains to be seen how the Courts will balance their rights against the
development of AI technologies.
Please visit: https://brandsmiths.co.uk/blog/view/artificial-intelligence--intellectual-property-the-state-of-
play