1 Introduction

Recently, the field of artificial intelligence (AI) has witnessed remarkable advancements, triggering transformative changes across industries worldwide, from metaverse-based education to Web3 blockchain technologies [1]. The art world is no exception, with the emergence of AI-generated art marking an exciting and innovative frontier. This development has brought forth a host of challenges and opportunities, igniting profound questions about the essence of creativity, artistic ownership, and the very definition of art itself. As AI-generated art continues to gain prominence, it has spurred crucial inquiries into the realm of copyright law [2], creating the moral status of AI [3]. The traditional framework of copyright law is rooted in the assumption that creative works are products of human authorship, rendering it increasingly challenging to keep pace with the relentless innovations in machine-driven creativity. This complexity has given rise to a multifaceted legal landscape surrounding AI-generated art [4], characterized by ongoing debates regarding the rightful ownership of these creations. The implications of redefining artistic ownership and copyright in the era of machine creativity are far-reaching and potentially transformative. Some argue that AI-generated art should be protected under the same copyright laws that apply to traditional art, while others advocate for the creation of new legal frameworks that acknowledge the collaborative role of machines in the creative process. Craig and Kerr offer a comprehensive and insightful discussion on the concept of copyright subsistence in AI-generated works [5]. Additionally, Bonadio and McDonagh [6] provide a thorough examination and deliberation of potential legal frameworks for addressing machine-generated works, including alternative approaches to copyright, such as exploring scenarios like a public domain arrangement and the implementation of a sui generis system. Recent contributions to the field of authorship and AI can be also found in [7,8,9,10].

The ongoing discourse on the legal status of AI-generated art holds substantial implications for artists, collectors, and the wider art community, influencing the development of equitable AI models, as recently proposed by Xivuri and Twinomurinzi [11]. As the distinctions between human and machine-generated art become increasingly indistinct, it is essential to engage in a thoughtful and nuanced dialogue regarding the evolving essence of art and the influence of AI on its future. By exploring the legal dilemmas and possibilities posed by AI-generated art, we can gain a more profound comprehension of the significant effects these technological advancements will exert on the art world and society at large.

Jiang et al. provide a comprehensive historical perspective, offering an insightful discussion on the challenges encountered during the evolution of both AI tools and AI systems [12]. In recent years, rapid advancements in AI technology have ushered in transformative changes across diverse industries [13, 14]. Kaynak has referred to this era as 'The Golden Age of AI' [15]. The art world is no exception, as the rise of AI-generated art has posed distinctive challenges and opportunities. This phenomenon has sparked fundamental inquiries into the nature of creativity, artistic ownership, and the very essence of what defines art. As the boundaries between human and machine-generated art continue to blur, traditional copyright laws struggle to keep pace with these technological innovations. This article will explore the complex legal landscape surrounding AI-generated art, discuss the ongoing debate over who should hold the rights to these creations, and examine the potential implications of redefining artistic ownership and copyright in the age of machine creativity.

The advent of cutting-edge technologies like AI has significantly facilitated various aspects of our lives, including work, daily living, and creative endeavors. However, this progress is accompanied by challenges, as existing legal frameworks struggle to adapt and address the rapid pace of technological advancements. Consequently, when new legislation is introduced, it often fails to align with and adequately respond to real-world situations. To address this issue, we propose exploring legislative approaches regarding the copyright of visual works co-created by humans and AI, with the aim of determining the most suitable direction and identifying necessary adjustments to ensure alignment with the current situation. In order to obtain the aforementioned suggestions, we have conducted a survey of opinions from relevant sample groups using two approaches: qualitative and quantitative research. The details are as follows:

  • Quantitative survey: We conducted a quantitative survey through an online questionnaire, targeting a sample group of 100 participants.

  • Qualitative survey: We conducted interviews with two relevant professional groups, consisting of 5 legal professionals and 5 creative professionals, to gather in-depth insights.

2 Literature review and objectives

Our primary research objectives are as follows:

To determine the distribution of copyright ownership between works created by individuals and AI, with a focus on identifying the specific criteria or factors that influence this division.

To analyze and provide interpretation on whether works created in collaboration with AI should be considered eligible for copyright protection, including the examination of the degree of AI's creative contribution and the potential legal implications for such collaborative works.

2.1 AI and authorship

2.1.1 Human versus AI-generated works

The debate surrounding the authorship of AI-generated works is at the heart of the literature on AI and copyright. Some scholars argue that AI-generated works lack the necessary human creativity to be eligible for copyright protection [16]. In detail, the discussion concerning AI authorship and the resulting legal complexities is central to the literature on AI and copyright. Within this realm, scholars are engaged in a debate where some contend that AI-generated works lack the essential human creativity required for copyright protection. This ongoing debate reflects the evolving landscape of creative expression in the digital age. While AI systems can autonomously generate content that exhibits complexity and originality, the absence of human involvement in the creative process raises fundamental questions about traditional copyright paradigms. On one hand, proponents of AI-generated works argue that these creations can push the boundaries of what is artistically possible and should be afforded protection. On the other hand, skeptics maintain that without direct human authorship, AI-generated works challenge established legal definitions of creativity and originality, necessitating a reconsideration of copyright frameworks to accommodate this emerging form of art and innovation. The evolving discourse around AI authorship and copyright law reflects the need for a nuanced and adaptable legal framework that can effectively navigate the complexities of AI-generated content.

2.2 AI-generated art: an overview

AI-generated art pertains to the generation of visual, auditory, or literary works through the utilization of AI algorithms [17], frequently leveraging deep learning techniques. Notable instances encompass Google's DeepDream [18], OpenAI's DALL-E [19, 20], and Janelle Shane's experiments with generative adversarial networks (GANs) [21]. These systems draw upon extensive datasets, training their models to produce innovative content by discerning and emulating established patterns and artistic styles.

2.3 Copyright law

Copyright law constitutes a legal framework meticulously crafted to safeguard the rights of individuals who generate original works without replication from existing sources. Works crafted in this manner garner protection in accordance with the specific categories delineated by copyright law [22,23,24]. Copyright law serves as a meticulously designed legal framework aimed at protecting the creative efforts of individuals who produce original works free from direct replication of preexisting sources. Within this legal framework, various categories are defined to govern the protection of such works [25]. However, in the context of AI-generated creations, copyright law faces unique challenges [26, 27]. The question of authorship and ownership becomes particularly complex when the creative process involves a significant contribution from AI. This complexity necessitates a closer examination of copyright law, with a focus on cases where AI plays a substantial role in content generation. In the following discussion, we will explore the implications of AI's increasing role in the creation of artistic and literary works and consider how copyright law may need to adapt to this evolving landscape.

Presently, copyright law is explicitly reserved for creations authored by human beings. Despite the cognitive capabilities and learning processes akin to humans, AI operates by assimilating vast datasets and iteratively improving itself through error recognition (programming). This distinction raises pertinent queries regarding whether AI-generated works can be deemed the creative output of individuals. The uncertainty stems from the AI's operational methodology, which may encompass the organization or randomization of patterns that deviate from the complete vision of the human creator, thus raising concerns about their acceptability.

2.4 The use of AI in creating works and copyright protection

In the context of today's rapidly evolving technological landscape, AI has seamlessly integrated itself into various aspects of our daily lives, with increasing emphasis on the development of trustworthy AI [28]. This integration extends to the generation of textual content, the composition of audio pieces, and the creation of visual artwork, as AI is increasingly utilized to produce a wide range of works through algorithms and extensive datasets, employing machine learning techniques [29].

The growing integration of AI into the creative process has ignited a widespread debate that transcends the realms of technology, art, and law. This debate revolves around the fundamental question of whether AI-generated works should be entitled to the protections traditionally granted by copyright law. At the heart of this discourse are two opposing viewpoints: one camp staunchly argues in favor of extending copyright protection to AI-generated works, asserting that these creations exhibit a level of creativity and innovation that warrants legal safeguarding. In contrast, the opposing viewpoint contends that AI-generated works lack genuine creativity, as they do not involve the same depth of human input and ingenuity found in works entirely authored by human creators [22].

One notable and consequential aspect of this ongoing debate is that AI-generated works currently exist in a precarious legal gray area. The existing copyright framework, rooted in the assumption that creative works are exclusively products of human authorship, does not encompass AI-generated creations. As a result, AI-generated works are currently excluded from the purview of copyright law. This legal vacuum has created a pressing need to address the copyright status of AI-generated art and its implications in a world where humans and machines collaborate in the creative process.

Recognizing these gaps and ambiguities in the current legal and intellectual property landscape, this study embarks on a journey to thoroughly investigate and provide clarity on the complex interface between AI-generated art and copyright law. By scrutinizing the challenges and opportunities presented by AI-generated works, this research aims to contribute to the ongoing discourse, foster an understanding of the multifaceted implications of AI in the creative domain, and help shape the future of copyright law in an AI-driven world.

3 Methodology and results

3.1 Quantitative survey

To collect opinions on the copyright of images created jointly by humans and AI, the authors created an online survey. The survey consists of the following types of questions:

 

Scoring criteria

Screening questions

1

2

3

4

5

Have you had experience using AI to create works in the field of art?

     

Are you familiar with copyright law?

     

Do you have knowledge about copyright law for works created using AI?

     

Part 2: Questions about creating works using AI

1

2

3

4

5

AI can create images comparable to humans

     

There are differences between images created by humans and AI

     

Do you think that AI owns the works it creates?

     

Should works created by AI be considered the works of the creator?

     

Can the identity of AI be identified by its artistic works?

     

AI can work on tasks for clients more accurately than humans can

     

Do you think that AI should be recognized as a person?

     

Part 3: Copyright Law

1

2

3

4

5

Should "works" created by AI be eligible for copyright protection?

     

Should "images" created by AI be protected by copyright law?

     

Should the person who creates a work using AI be granted copyright ownership of the resulting image?

     

Could images created by AI potentially infringe on someone else's copyright?

     

Can images created by AI be used for commercial purposes?

     

Do you agree with the fact that copyright law does not currently accept images created by AI?

     

Do you think that copyright law should be adjusted to better accommodate the era of AI?

     

Should there be specific copyright laws for works created using AI?

     
  1. Research scoring criteria 5 = Strongly agree 4 = Agree 3 = Neutral 2 = Disagree 1 = Strongly disagree.

The survey, involving 100 participants, was intentionally designed to yield data that contributes to and enriches the ongoing legal discourse surrounding AI authorship. By meticulously collecting insights from individuals with diverse professional backgrounds, the survey aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the various perspectives and ideas related to AI-generated works and their eligibility for copyright protection.

This survey data serves as a valuable resource for the legal discourse on AI authorship by offering empirical evidence of how professionals from different fields perceive the creative process in AI-generated works and their potential implications on copyright law. By exploring and documenting these varied viewpoints, the data informs the legal discourse by highlighting the complexities and nuances that arise in defining authorship in the context of AI. It offers real-world insights into how individuals with legal and creative expertise perceive the role of AI in the creative process and its alignment with existing copyright frameworks. Moreover, the survey data can support or challenge existing legal arguments and positions. It may reveal trends and consensus among professionals, providing a basis for legal scholars and policymakers to make informed decisions regarding copyright regulations for AI-generated content. If the data suggests a divergence of opinions or highlights significant concerns, it could prompt discussions on the need for potential legal amendments or the creation of new legal frameworks that address the evolving landscape of AI authorship.

The survey was meticulously designed and executed to provide comprehensive insights into the perspectives and ideas of individuals from diverse professional backgrounds. To ensure the credibility and replicability of the research, explicit details regarding the survey's methodology, advertisement approach, and participant selection criteria are essential.

  1. 1.

    Survey Methodology: The survey was conducted through a structured online questionnaire, which was made accessible through a variety of platforms, including email invitations, social media, and professional networks. The questionnaire was designed to gather data on participants' perceptions and viewpoints regarding the subject matter. The questions were carefully formulated to be clear, concise, and relevant to the research objectives.

  2. 2.

    Advertisement and Recruitment: Participants were invited to take part in the survey through a multifaceted advertisement strategy. This included targeted email invitations sent to individuals within the specific professional categories (Creative, Legal, and Others). Additionally, the survey was shared on various social media platforms and professional networks, allowing for a broad and diverse pool of potential participants. It is worth noting that the advertisement and recruitment processes were transparent, providing potential participants with a clear understanding of the survey's purpose.

  3. 3.

    Participant Selection Criteria: The criteria for selecting participants were designed to ensure the representation of each professional category while maintaining a diverse and unbiased sample. Participants were categorized into the Creative field, Legal professionals, and individuals from various other fields based on their self-reported professions. No specific restrictions or requirements beyond these self-reported professions were imposed on participants. The selection process aimed to reflect the diversity of opinions and perspectives across these professional groups.

Based on a survey of 100 participants, the authors divided the sample group into three categories according to their professions, namely Creative, Legal, and Others, to examine the perspectives and ideas of each profession. The distribution was as follows: 54 individuals in the Creative field, 9 lawyers, and 37 in other fields. It was found that the opinions of each profession did not significantly differ from one another, yielding the following results:

3.2 Creative by AI

figure a

More than 50% of the sample group agreed that AI can create works that are comparable to those created by humans. However, such works can be distinguished as being created by either humans or AI.

figure b

Furthermore, the works created should be considered human creations rather than AI creations.

3.3 Copyright law

figure c

Regarding copyright law, 59% of the sample group agreed that images or works created by AI should be protected by copyright. Moreover, 67% agreed that the person who created the work should hold the copyright for the created work and should be able to use it for commercial purposes.

However, there are still 55% who believe that such works may potentially infringe on the copyrights of others.

figure d

In terms of current copyright law, 76% of the sample group believe that the law should be revised and updated to better suit the current situation, including having specific copyright laws for works created by AI.

3.4 Qualitative survey

For the qualitative survey, the authors conducted in-depth interviews with a carefully selected sample group comprising individuals from two distinct professional backgrounds—legal professionals and creative professionals. This selection process was designed to capture a diverse range of perspectives relevant to the study's focus on AI-generated artistic works and copyright law. Each group, consisting of five individuals, was chosen based on their professional roles and expertise in the subject matter.

Choice of Legal Professionals: Legal professionals, including lawyers and legal experts, were included in the sample group because of their in-depth knowledge of copyright law. Their expertise in the legal aspects of intellectual property rights and their role in shaping and interpreting these laws make their opinions highly relevant to the study. Their insights can shed light on the legal implications of AI-generated creative works and the potential need for amendments to copyright regulations.

Choice of Creative Professionals: Creative professionals, on the other hand, were selected because of their direct involvement in artistic and creative endeavors. This group typically includes artists, writers, designers, and individuals actively engaged in the creative process. Their perspectives are invaluable in understanding the practical implications of AI in creative industries and how it impacts the creation and protection of artistic works.

The questions posed during the interviews were carefully crafted to solicit opinions on critical aspects of AI-generated art and copyright law. The relevance of these specific respondents lies in their ability to provide informed and practical insights into the study's focus areas. Legal professionals offer legal expertise, while creative professionals offer firsthand knowledge of the creative process and the impact of AI on their work.

By conducting interviews with these distinct groups, the study aims to gain a comprehensive understanding of the intersection between AI, art, and copyright law, taking into account the legal and creative dimensions. This approach ensures that the research incorporates diverse viewpoints that are directly pertinent to the study's objectives, enriching the depth and scope of the findings. Five individuals from each group were interviewed using the following questions:

  • What are your thoughts on using AI to create artistic works?

  • What are your thoughts on the copyright law for works created using AI?

  • Do you think works created using AI should be granted copyright protection? Why or why not?

  • Do you consider AI-generated works as copying from others' works?

  • Do you think the current copyright law is appropriate or not?

  • If the copyright law for works created using AI were to be amended, what changes do you think should be made?

During interviews with all five legal professionals, a unanimous consensus emerged that bestowing copyright upon works generated using AI is presently an unviable prospect due to the lack of existing supportive legal frameworks. To bring about legislative amendments, a thorough comprehension of AI's inner workings is imperative. However, legal experts currently grapple with an insufficient understanding of AI's operations, rendering it challenging to pinpoint necessary modifications. Nevertheless, they concur that the existing legislation has grown outdated and struggles to keep pace with the swiftly evolving technological landscape. Consequently, they advocate for revisions to copyright law that better accommodate technological progress.

In the subsequent interviews with creative professionals, the sample size was expanded to include eight participants beyond the initial five. Among the eight individuals engaged in art production, a unanimous sentiment emerged, stressing the necessity and critical importance of enacting legal regulations to govern AI. They emphasized that the ramifications of AI directly impact their professions. Several also underscored the fact that, in many countries, the art sector still fails to generate substantial income and frequently relies on significant government support. Therefore, the ease with which AI can generate and employ artistic works for commercial purposes could potentially jeopardize the livelihoods of artists. Multiple participants expressed a shared viewpoint that the establishment of regulatory laws to govern AI is essential and pivotal, as the ascent of AI-generated art presents a substantial threat to their professions in the absence of appropriate regulations.

4 Conclusions

The emergence of AI-generated art has brought to the forefront a pressing legal issue within copyright law. The current copyright framework predominantly caters to works of human origin, leaving AI-generated art in an ambiguous and uncertain legal realm. This predicament arises from the conventional belief that creativity is the exclusive domain of human authors, making the application of traditional copyright principles to AI-generated art a complex challenge.

Our research on copyright law in the context of AI-generated works brings to light a crucial reality—the existing legal framework fails to extend recognition to these innovative creations. Copyright law's inherent limitation lies in its recognition of works produced solely by human hands. However, the rapid and transformative technological advancements, particularly the remarkable progress in AI development, have led to an increasing integration of AI into various aspects of daily life, professional endeavors, and creative pursuits. AI significantly contributes to streamlining processes and improving outcomes. Unfortunately, the current state of copyright law falls short in accommodating this ever-evolving landscape.

The research, comprising both quantitative and qualitative surveys conducted with a diverse sample group, emphasizes the compelling necessity to adapt copyright laws to the contemporary context marked by profound technological advancements. This urgency arises from the fact that humans and machines are now collaborators in the creative process. As a result, both parties involved rightfully deserve recognition and protection under copyright laws. Furthermore, works resulting from the joint efforts of humans and AI must be included within the protective purview of copyright law. In essence, our findings have far-reaching implications for copyright law and policy, signaling the need for a reconsideration and adaptation of existing legal frameworks to embrace the changing landscape of creativity in the age of AI.

The findings of this research hold significant implications for copyright law and policy in the context of AI-generated artistic works. The study's insights reveal a compelling need for revisiting and modernizing existing copyright regulations to accommodate the rapid evolution of AI technology and its impact on the creative industries. Legal professionals, well-versed in copyright law, emphasize the inadequacy of current legal frameworks and call for amendments to better align with technological advancements. Meanwhile, creative professionals stress the critical importance of establishing regulatory laws to govern AI, highlighting the potential threats to artists' livelihoods in a landscape where AI can easily produce artistic works for commercial use. These unanimous sentiments from both professional groups underscore the urgency of adapting copyright law and policy to address the unique challenges posed by AI-generated art, thereby safeguarding the rights and interests of both creators and the broader creative ecosystem.

5 Recommendations

When it comes to adjusting laws, several factors need to be considered, and these considerations may vary depending on each country's specific regulations. In this research, we will primarily focus on discussing the perspectives regarding the regulations and operational aspects that should be applied. In addition to the group responsible for proposing and drafting these laws, it is imperative to involve AI experts in the drafting and consultation process. Furthermore, experts in system operations should be part of this collaborative effort, given the intricacy of AI systems and the necessity for multi-party cooperation. Given the complexity inherent in AI systems, it is vital to factor in their operational dynamics when formulating new regulations. Particularly, experts in AI development can offer invaluable insights into how these systems function and their utility in creative processes, all while ensuring that the resulting works enjoy copyright protection.

While we acknowledge that the current sample size is sufficient for preliminary analysis, our future endeavors include expanding these sample sizes to gain a more granular understanding of the results. In our forthcoming research, our objective is to broaden the scope by increasing sample sizes and diversifying the spectrum of professionals and experts involved. This expansion will facilitate the comprehensive exploration of perspectives and insights at the intricate intersection of AI, copyright, and creativity. Moreover, we intend to delve deeper into the formulation of specific criteria and considerations for adapting copyright laws in response to AI's evolving role in creative processes. By actively involving a wider range of stakeholders, encompassing AI experts and professionals specialized in AI system operations, we anticipate attaining a more profound comprehension of the multifaceted issues at hand. This understanding will play a pivotal role in shaping and guiding future legislative efforts and regulatory frameworks that can effectively address the challenges and opportunities presented by AI within the creative domain.

When considering works that are co-created by both humans and AI, it becomes apparent that adjustments in copyright laws are necessary to legitimize these works. However, specific guidelines must be established for their use in commercial contexts, particularly concerning revenue generation. For instance, it is essential to contemplate whether such works can be utilized, and if they are, to determine the allocation of revenue among involved parties. These issues are intricate and require meticulous deliberation, as they involve striking a balance among the interests of various stakeholders, including the creators of these works, the users, and the copyright holders. In terms of recognizing copyrights for works collaboratively produced by humans and AI, the authors posit that copyright laws can indeed be adapted to acknowledge such works. Nevertheless, there must be well-defined rules governing their utilization in commercial settings for revenue generation, encompassing considerations such as whether these works can be used, and if so, how the generated revenue is to be apportioned among the involved parties.