DOES CHAT GPT VOILATE COPYRGHT LAWS? IF IT DOES, WHO WOULD BE HELD LIABLE.

The world is currently partaking in a digital race where every individual is searching for a technological solution to man’s problems.

The wildfire spread of technology, much like a swift transmission of a viral outbreak, underscores the immense impact of solutions it has delivered.

The chat GPT AI technology which was developed by OpenAI and launched on November 30, 2022 currently has over 180 million users.

In October 2023, the bot had generated 1.7 billion users, isn’t this amazing?

Firstly, it is fundamental that I define the necessary terms.

Copyright is an exclusive protection given to intellectual properties or creative assets that include literary, artistic and musical works. It grants creators with the right to control how their work Is reproduced, distributed, performed, displayed and adapted by others.

Chat GPT is known for its capability to create poems, musical lyrics, articles, academic essays and even write books-- All these falls under the bridge of copyright.

HOW DOES CHAT GPT WORK

Chat GPT? makes use of a language called large language model. It is trained to create literary and artistic work by its exposure to a large amount of data downloaded from the internet. This bot cannot be said to have a mind of its own, but it works from a compilation of already existing contents to give your desired output.

It is clear from this, that the user influences the bot to create the required content; it creates only what the user inputs.

where a particular work looks familiar with an already existing work, can the owner of the original work sue for copyright infringement?

Who would be held liable for the infringement, the creator, the bot itself, or the user?

?

WHO OWNS CHATGPT CONTENT

There are numerous believes on the owner of chat GPT content, here are some beliefs.

a.????? Traditional copyright laws state that the person who creates the content is the owner.

b.???? Legal experts argue that since humans play significant roles in developing these models, they should retain ownership of the output.

c.????? Tech experts argue that if AI system autonomously creates content without human intervention, then it should be considered as the owner.

Asides these believes, different jurisdictions around the world have adopted different stands.

The United? Kingdom legislation has ?the copyright design and patent act of 1988 as their governing law for copyright.? The act defines a computer-generated work as generated by a computer in circumstances such that there is no human author to the work.

The term ‘generated by a computer’ is broad enough to capture AI created content.

The act goes on to define an author under copyright? ‘as a person by whom the arrangement necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.’

A person is required to give the necessary arrangement to a work, to be considered the author.

In accordance with Chat GPT, what can be considered as necessary arrangement?

AI required the input of text prompts to deliver an output, therefore the person who provides these text prompt can be considered as providing necessary arrangement for its creation, and as such is the author of the work.

Considering the limited human involvement, the length of copyright protection for an AI created work is 50 years from when the author generated the work : The copyright can expire even when the author is still alive.

In Nigeria the legal rule that covers copyright is the copyright act of 2022 which repeals the copyright act of 1988.

The act does not clearly cover computer created content, but it does some justice to it with its content. The answer according to the act is closely knitted with the UK legislation.

Starting with section 2(2) of the act which provides for literary, musical or artistic work to be eligible for copyright, the creator must have expended some effort to making the work which gives it an original character.

Section 108(1) of the act defines an author of an audio, visual or sound recording as the person responsible for the selection and arrangement in the making of the work. Using film making as a case study, the director is responsible for all these and can be considered as the author.

Relating this to AI content, the? user of the bot is responsible for the arrangement of the work through his inputs and as such, he is the author.

The AI bot itself, stated in its terms of use:

“…you are responsible for content, including ensuring that it does not violate any applicable law of these terms… As between you and open AI, and to the extent permitted by applicable law, you (a )retain your ownership right In input and (b) own the output. We hereby assign to you all our rights, title and interest, if any, in and to output…”

This policy Cleary lays ownership of its input and output on the user.

Under this question, I clearly conclude that the author who the manipulator of the bot is the owner of its output.

WHO IS HELD LIABLE IN CASES OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT

Copyright infringement is the use or production of copyright protected materials without permission from the original owner.

Section 36 of the copyright act 2022 describes someone who infringes as anyone who uses or reproduces a copyright work without license or authorization from the owner.

Chat GPT may unintentionally infringe on the copyright of already existing content by generating contents that closely resemble existing content on the web browser. In such cases who can be held liable?

Analyzing this from the judgment held in the USA monkey selfie case, where the judge held that an animal cannot be said to own copyright to anything, construes generally that nonhumans cannot own copyright and cannot be held liable for possible infringement.

In accordance with this, an AI bot is not a human, and cannot be said to own its content or be held liable in any form.

The human who is the manipulator of the bot should be held liable as he or she is responsible for the output through his input.

In Nigeria, which court has the jurisdiction to hear matters concerning copyright infringement?

Section 251(1)(f) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) bestows the power, exclusively in the Federal High Court.

The provision is same in section 7 of the Federal High Court act.

Section 46 of the copyright act provides that the Federal High Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction for trial of offences under this act.

Concluding from the above statues, the Federal High Court is conferred with the exclusive jurisdiction to hear matters concerning copyright infringement.

A copyright owner whose right has been infringed can enforce such right through civil proceeding even if the act carries criminal liabilities like penalties of fines and imprisonment.

The Nigerian copyright commission is usually the prosecutor.

Section 131 of the Evidence Act 2011 lays the burden of proof in civil cases on the person who asserts to such facts. In this case, the burden falls on the author of the original content.

The claimant must satisfy the court with proof that the AI had access to his work, then he must proof that the work is substantially similar with the underlying work.

ETHICAL USE OF AI

Although the builders of AI argue that an infringement from the bot will most likely be an accidental outcome. This is just a saying, and the law cannot align with this, which is why it is important to align your use with ethicality.

Firstly, it is important to actively involve humans in the use of the bot. the human is responsible for the editing, which may proofread and filter out likely copyrighted texts.

Secondly, if you are using chat GPT responses for commercial purposes, you should ensure that the right of potential copyright owners is respected. This could be done by acknowledging the tool in general; this could minimize legal risk.

CONCLUSION

The concept of fair use under copyright which allows for the limited use of copyrighted materials for critics, commentary or education,? without permission from the copyright owner may be used as a defense, it is still trite to take preventive measures while using the bot as it is clear that the users will be held liable in cases of infringement.

?

REFERENCES

1.????? Christopher T. Zirpoli, ‘Generative artificial intelligence and copyright law’ 29 September 2023.

2.????? Tiwalola Osazuwa and Akintunde Agunbiade, ‘Generative AI and copyright part 1 and 2’ 21 June 2023, https://www.mondaq.com/nigeria/copyright/1332518/generative-ai-and-copyright-part-1-and-2

?

?

?