Xiaoli asks, “If something is done by AI, can a company still claim that the output belongs to them?”
In this episode, I address a question about whether a company can claim ownership of content generated by AI. From a legal standpoint, according to the US Copyright Office, content created by machines is ineligible for copyright as it is not made by humans. However, practically speaking, it depends on the tools and models used in the creation process. There are detection tools available to refute a claim if the content was copy-pasted from a machine-generated source. Still, if the content was originated by AI but written by a human, it’s difficult for the tool to pick that up. Moreover, if a company is using a fine-tuned model customized for them, detecting it’s going to be almost impossible because the model sounds a lot like the company’s voice. Although taking a company to court to prove that they are claiming ownership of AI-generated content might be very expensive and not worth it. So, yes, a company can claim ownership of AI-generated content, but whether it’s true or not is debatable.
Summary generated by AI from the transcript.
Can’t see anything? Watch it on YouTube here.
Listen to the audio here:
- Got a question for You Ask, I'll Answer? Submit it here!
- Subscribe to my weekly newsletter for more useful marketing tips.
- Subscribe to Inbox Insights, the Trust Insights newsletter for weekly fresh takes and data.
- Find older episodes of You Ask, I Answer on my YouTube channel.
- Need help with your company's data and analytics? Let me know!
- Join my free Slack group for marketers interested in analytics!
What follows is an AI-generated transcript. The transcript may contain errors and is not a substitute for watching the video.
Christopher Penn 0:00
In today’s episode jaldi asks, if something is done by AI? Can a company still claim that the output belongs to them? So this is a question of practicality.
Legally, and fair warning, I’m not a lawyer, my friend Ruth Carter, who runs geek law firm.com is a lawyer that specializes in AI.
Legally, according to the US Copyright Office, content created by machine is ineligible for copyright.
It may not be copyrighted, because a human did not make it.
Now, from a practical perspective, Could you demonstrate, you know, in a court of law, that a company used a machine to generate content? It depends, it depends on on the tools available and what model was used to make it.
For example, if a company had someone, say a junior person, just copy and paste something straight out of ChatGPT.
Yeah, a good number of detection tools exist that you could refute a claim that a company is saying that this content is theirs by saying no, that’s pretty clearly machine generated.
If on the other hand, though, the content was originated by AI, but a human being wrote it, it’d be very hard for that tool to pick that up, even though it was created by artificial intelligence.
So it depends on how AI is involved in the creation process.
It also depends on the model being used.
Again, if you’re using the stock off the shelf, ChatGPT instance uses GPT-3 point five or GPT-4 point oh, there are predictable statistical distributions.
And the way it writes that make it easy to detect, right, there’s just a function of how the model is trained and how it works.
If you use a different model, say you use stable LM, or llama, or alpaca or if Hakuna or any of the open source models, a lot of the tools that have been built to detect the use of AI will not work nearly as well on those models.
And again, these are just the off the shelf vanilla models that you get when you download these pieces of software.
If a company is using a fine tuned model that’s customized for them, detecting that it’s going to be almost impossible if the model was trained well detecting is gonna be almost impossible because a fine tuned model, right, so much like the source material, because it’s been told to bias itself at its output based on the source material.
So if you’re, if your company has a brand style guide, and a couple of 100 blog posts, that are of a consistent voice, when that gets turned into a fine tuning regimen for a large language model, the model is going to adapt and sound a lot like you a lot like you.
And as a result, a company might be able to claim Well, yeah, that we wrote this, whether they did or not, whether they use machines or not, they could make that claim.
And because the existing tools to prove to disprove that claim would fail, it will be very challenging for someone other than a company insider to say no to a machine made that not not a human.
And then there’s again, the practicality side of it.
If a company uses a tool like ChatGPT, to put up say a blog post to an e book or something.
And they claim that the output is theirs, even though it’s machine made a who is going to go through the expense of taking them to court to prove that.
And b What’s the value in doing that? What is the value to a competitor may be doing that, chances are a lot of the time it’s just not going to be worth it.
The only cases I can think of where you’d want to really throw down is if you had an axe to grind with that company.
Or if there were it was part of a much bigger set of issues that you are taking them to court for anyway.
That’s the trick with all anything legal in order for there to be enforcement.
In order for something to have legal standing, you got to go to court, and that costs a lot of money.
Lawyers are not cheap, understandably so.
And is it worth it? Is it worth it to take a company to court because you think they’re their most recent set of blog posts were AI generated? Probably not.
It’s probably not worth the time and effort unless you have an axe to grind and you want to drag them through court just to cost them a whole bunch of money.
In that case, it might be worth it.
I don’t know.
So, to answer the question, yes, a company can claim something.
Whether it’s true or not, is debatable.
But proving that could be very expensive.
So I suspect in a lot of cases for especially for low risk stuff like marketing content, people probably aren’t going to bother.
We we would all settle for market Be content that doesn’t suck but that’s the answer thanks for the question and talk to you soon if you’d like this video go ahead and hit that subscribe button
You might also enjoy:
- Marketing Data Science: Introduction to Data Blending
- How to Measure the Marketing Impact of Public Speaking
- Is Social Listening Useful?
- Almost Timely News, 17 October 2021: Content Creation Hacks, Vanity Metrics, NFTs
- Best Practices for Public Speaking Pages
Want to read more like this from Christopher Penn? Get updates here:
Get your copy of AI For Marketers