top of page
Writer's pictureDaniel Rudis

The Content Conundrum: Debating AI-Generated Content, Copyright and Data Security

The ongoing debate surrounding the ownership of content generated by AI has sparked various interesting arguments.

OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, assigns ownership rights to users according to their terms of use. However, the question arises when multiple parties generate the same output, leading to uncertainties regarding the enforcement of rights between them. ChatGPT itself dismisses ownership over the generated content as an AI language model, raising questions about the initial transfer of ownership rights to users.

Most jurisdictions require original and creative authorship by a human for copyright protection. Consequently, works created by autonomous AI tools generally do not qualify for copyright protection, potentially dedicating them to the public domain. The reuse of content used to train AI-models poses legal uncertainties, particularly if derived from others' intellectual property.

Lawyers propose that AI-generated work may either belong to the public domain or be considered a derivative work of the training data. Key considerations include the extent of differentiation between the output and the training data. While generative AI currently lacks content sources, some argue that the AI itself should be cited as a source in the output. Another question arises regarding whether ChatGPT itself can be patent-protected. Initially, OpenAI started as an open-source non-profit company. As commercialization continues, the question of patenting seems increasingly topical. The rapidly evolving technology and the fact that much innovation in deep learning algorithms continues to take place in the open-source space makes it difficult to delineate proprietary intellectual property. Regarding user safety, it is important to note that the system logs and retains every conversation, including personal data, for training purposes. Users should exercise caution when sharing sensitive information, as it could potentially appear in responses to other users' prompts.

Clearly, this domain necessitates discussions and legal reassessment. Presently, works created solely by AI, even from human-written prompts, lack copyright protection. Court cases involving artists and AI platforms are deliberating whether copyrighted material can be used for training. Given the proliferation of AI-driven business ideas, it is essential to be mindful that rules may change.

Digipal provides personalized commentaries for investment portfolios, prioritizing the protection of client data. For us it is essential to leverage state-of-the-art technology in combination with proprietary AI tailored to our specific business needs. What information goes where during processing is of critical importance. In Digipal's case, no data about customers' investment portfolios is shared with online service providers whatsoever.

48 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page