Despite the widespread growth of generative AI and the potential adoption of AI-generated content by enterprise companies, there is an elephant in the room that is rarely discussed.

Who owns the IP of AI-generated content?

https://medium.com/the-generator/ai-and-the-law-what-you-need-to-know-bfebb51b7d53

This is a very topical article, and provides insight into the nature of copyright itself.

The most important part of that article concerned the lawsuit filed by the artists whose work was used to inform AI generation.
It leads me to posit the idea that at the very core, all of the interpretation of data is an expression of the programmers, not the machine.
It’s the “RND” dilemma: How are random numbers actually derived?

“Watch Forever” got shut down because it included a transphobic joke, something that the AI generator could not have come by on its own if it were indeed drawing from Seinfeld scripts (there was never any use of the word in the series) — it’s most likely that the creators of the code entered that into the pool from which the AI drew, making it a user influenced outcome.

What the article does not cover is who owns the *recordings* which can be copyrighted (as “sound recording”).

Copyright for sound covers two distinct states - the content and the form. A recording of a song is one thing, and the lyrics/music is another.
Sure, an AI (which is more of an Algorithm Interpreter) “wrote” the song or music, but who owns the *recording*?
Was it made server-side or on your machine?
Don’t any of the settings you choose factor into the authorship?

I’m highly skeptical that we actually have AI at this point.
It’s more likely that we have a complicated flowchart that a computer follows, using a “random” seed at certain points to arrive at an unexpected outcome.

Here’s my crystal ball prediction:

Every online-AI produced song/visual/text/etc. will be saved in the servers from where they came.
They may not be able to copyright the content, but neither will the people who activated its generation.
Therefore, no monetization or exclusive rights. —And— (here’s the cynical part)
There will soon be no need for artists once the AI-generators become interesting enough for people looking for new, disposable entertainment … just a subscription fee.
The programmers will regularly update the options for users to either make generic or weird/abstract art suited to their tastes.

Which is dang for me, I’m afraid. Extra dang with dipping sauce.

There was an interesting article in Wired on this recently.

www.wired.co.uk/article/generative-ai-music