SERBIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Stevan Pajović, Tamara Simić Pajović, Medo Zornić and Jelena Stoljiljković, T-S Legal
Training data and the limits of copyright attribution Finally, the influence of the works of authors used to train AI systems cannot be ignored. However, as it is a case of millions of works by known and unknown authors, it would not be feasible to treat them as potential candidates for authorship of the generated content. This raises another unresolved issue in copyright the- ory: the relationship between input data and output creativity. While the works contained in training data- sets are essential to the functioning of AI systems, their influence is diffuse and statistically mediated rather than directly traceable to a particular work. This makes traditional notions of derivation and adaptation difficult to apply in a meaningful way. Conclusion The authors hope to have provided fresh insights into the potential issues and challenges that intellectual property law may encounter in relation to AI. The intention has been to highlight the complexity of the question of authorship in relation to works generated by AI, not to offer a definitive solution. Finally, in order to see what the possibilities of generative AI really are, the authors asked ChatGPT to write the conclusion to this article. When asked to provide a the conclusion, ChatGPT produced the following response.
“The conclusion of this paper can be summarized as follows: the authorship of works generated by artifi- cial intelligence presents a challenge to the existing legal framework, because artificial intelligence cannot itself be regarded as an author. Potential candidates for authorship include the developers who developed the technology and the users who directed its opera- tion. A key factor in attributing authorship to the user is the existence of a substantial creative contribu- tion during the content generation process. Also, the rights of the authors whose works were used to train artificial intelligence systems must also be taken into account, which further complicates the issue. Further research is needed to determine the most appropri- ate legal solutions capable of both protecting rights and fostering innovation in this rapidly evolving field.” Ultimately, the legal system is being forced to evolve at the same pace as the technology it seeks to regu- late. Whether through reinterpretation of existing doctrines or the creation of entirely new legal categories, the challenge will be to preserve the core principles of copyright originality, human creativity, and fair attri- bution, while adapting to a world where machines increasingly participate in the production of culture.
260 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook