COPYRIGHT AUTHORSHIP IN THE AGE OF AI: CREATIVITY CAN BE CODED

Abstract

Through recent history, the development and advancement of machines has constantly challenged the concept of intellectual property and its foundational principles. The mass production of works of authorship through machines led to the emergence of copyright law as a means of protecting the rights of creators. As technology continues to evolve, the development of new forms of machine, such as artificially intelligent systems, has sparked discussions of the concept of authorship in copyright law. Can these advanced machines be deemed creative and produce original works? If so, who should be recognised as the author of these outputs – the creator of the program, the user or the machine itself? With the realisation that artificial intelligence systems, which have flourished in recent years, can produce unique works that are indistinguishable from those created by humans, these questions highlight the need for a careful reconsideration of the fundamental concepts of authorship like creativity and originality in copyright law. In this regard, this article primarily aims to explore the concept of creativity in copyright laws and discuss the arguments against AI creativity. By delving into various theories and approaches to creativity in the fields of psychology, philosophy and neuroscience; it argues that creativity can be coded, and artificial intelligence systems can be creative.

Keywords

• Copyright
• Intellectual Property
• Artificial Intelligence
• Creativity
• Authorship

YAPAY ZEKA ÇAĞINDA YAZARLIK KAVRAMI: YARATICILIK KODLANABİLİR

Abstract

Yakın tarihte, makinelerin gelişimi ve ilerlemesi sürekli olarak fikri mülkiyet kavramına ve onun temel ilkelerine meydan okumuştur. Yazarların eserlerinin makineler aracılığıyla kitlesel üretimi, yaratıcıların haklarını korumak amacıyla telif hakkı kanunlarının ortaya çıkmasına yol açmıştır. Teknoloji geliştikçe, yapay zekâ sistemleri gibi yeni makine türlerinin gelişimi, telif hakkı kanununda yazarlık kavramının yeniden tartışılmasını tetiklemiştir. Bu ileri düzey makineler yaratıcı olarak kabul edilebilir ve özgün eserler üretebilirler mi? Eğer öyleyse, bu çıktıların yazarı kim kabul edilmelidir: yapay zekâ yazılımının yaratıcısı mı, onun son kullanıcısı mı yoksa yapay zekânın kendisi mi? Özellikle son yıllarda gelişen yapay zekâ sistemlerinin, insanlar tarafından yaratılanlardan ayırt edilemeyecek derecede özgün eserler üretebildiğinin anlaşılması, telif hakkı hukukunda yaratıcılık ve özgünlük gibi temel kavramların dikkatlice yeniden değerlendirilmesini gerektirmektedir. Bu bağlamda, bu makale öncelikle telif hakkı kanunlarında yaratıcılık kavramını incelemeyi ve yapay zekâ sistemlerinin yaratıcılığına karşı sunulan argümanları tartışmayı amaçlamaktadır. Psikoloji, felsefe ve sinirbilimi alanlarında bazı yaratıcılık teorilerini ve yaklaşımlarını derinlemesine inceledikten sonra; yaratıcılığın kodlanabileceğini ve yapay zeka sistemlerinin yaratıcı olabileceğini savunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Telif Hakları
• Fikri ve Sınai Haklar
• Yapay Zeka
• Yaratıcılık
• Yazarlık

References

1. Abraham A, ‘Creative Thinking as Orchestrated by Semantic Processing vs. Cognitive Control Brain Networks’ (2014) 8 Frontiers in human neuroscience 95
2. Amabile TM and others, Creativity In Context: Update To The Social Psychology Of Creativity (Avalon Publishing 1996)
3. Amir O and Biederman I, ‘The Neural Correlates of Humor Creativity’ (2016) 10 Frontiers in human neuroscience 597
4. Andersson ÅE and Sahlin N-E, The Complexity of Creativity (Springer 2011)
5. Ballardini RM, ‘AI-Generated Content: Authorship and Inventorship in the Age of Artificial Intelligence’ in Taina Pihlajarinne, Juha Vesala and Olli Honkkila, Online Distribution of Content in the EU (Edward Elgar Publishing 2019)
6. Bartholomew M, ‘Copyright and the Creative Process’ (2021) 97 Notre Dame Law Review 61
7. Beaty RE and others, ‘Robust Prediction of Individual Creative Ability from Brain Functional Connectivity’ (2018) 115 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 1087
8. Beaty RE, Seli P and Schacter DL, ‘Network Neuroscience of Creative Cognition: Mapping Cognitive Mechanisms and Individual Differences in the Creative Brain’ (2019) 27 Current opinion in behavioral sciences 22

9. Benedek M and others, ‘To Create or to Recall Original Ideas: Brain Processes Associated with the Imagination of Novel Object Uses’ (2018) 99 Cortex 93
10. Boden MA, ‘Computer Models of Creativity’ [2009] AI Magazine 23
11. Boden MA, ‘Music, Creativity, and Computers’ in Jordan BL Smith, Elaine Chew and Gérard Assayag, Lecture Notes Series, Institute for Mathematical Sciences, National University of Singapore, vol 32 (CO-PUBLISHED WITH IMPERIAL COLLEGE PRESS 2016)
12. Bonadio E and Lucchi N, Non-Conventional Copyright (Edward Elgar Publishing 2018)
13. Bonadio E and McDonagh L, ‘Artificial Intelligence as Producer and Consumer of Copyright Works: Evaluating the Consequences of Algorithmic Creativity’ (2020) 2 Intellectual Property Quarterly 112
14. Bridy A, ‘Coding Creativity: Copyright and the Artificially Intelligent Author’ (2012) 5 Stanford Technology Law Review 1
15. Brown NI, ‘Artificial Authors: A Case for Copyright in Computer-Generated Works’ (2018) 20 Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 1
16. Calvino I, The Uses of Literature: Essays (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt 1987)
17. Cock Buning M de, ‘Autonomous Intelligent Systems as Creative Agents under the EU Framework for Intellectual Property’ (2016) 7 European Journal of Risk Regulation 310
18. Craig C and Kerr I, ‘The Death of the AI Author’ (2020) 52 Ottawa L. Rev. 31
19. Csikszentmihalyi M and Csikszentmihalyi M, Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention (HarperCollinsPublishers 1996)
20. Damasio AR, ‘Some Notes on Brain, Imagination and Creativity’ (2001) The origins of creativity 59
21. Fink A and others, ‘Creativity Meets Neuroscience: Experimental Tasks for the Neuroscientific Study of Creative Thinking’ (2007) 42 Methods 68
22. Fink A and Benedek M, ‘EEG Alpha Power and Creative Ideation’ (2014) 44 Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 111
23. Fink A, Graif B and Neubauer AC, ‘Brain Correlates Underlying Creative Thinking: EEG Alpha Activity in Professional vs. Novice Dancers’ (2009) 46 NeuroImage 854
24. Fischer C, Malycha CP and Schafmann E, ‘The Influence of Intrinsic Motivation and Synergistic Extrinsic Motivators on Creativity and Innovation’ (2019) 10 Frontiers in psychology 137
25. Gervais DJ, ‘The Machine as Author’ (2020) 105 IOWA L. REV. 2053
26. Getzels JW and Csikszentmihalyi M, The Creative Vision: A Longitudinal Study of Problem Finding in Art (John Wiley & Sons 1976)
27. Ginsburg JC and Budiardjo LA, ‘Authors and Machines’ (2019) 34 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 343
28. Grimmelmann J, ‘There’s No Such Thing as a Computer-Authored Work- And It’s a Good Thing, Too’ (2016) 39 Columbia Journal of Law & The Arts 403
29. Guilford JP, The Nature of Human Intelligence. (McGraw-Hill Inc, US 1967)
30. Harari YN, Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow (random house 2016)
31. Hristov K, ‘Artificial Intelligence and the Copyright Survey’
32. Ihalainen J, ‘Computer Creativity: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright’ (2018) 13 Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 724
33. Joyce C (ed), Copyright Law (8th ed, LexisNexis 2010)
34. Kasof J, ‘Creativity and Breadth of Attention’ (1997) 10 Creativity Research Journal 303
35. Kim KH, ‘The Creativity Crisis: The Decrease in Creative Thinking Scores on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking’ (2011) 23 Creativity research journal 285
36. Kleinmintz OM, Ivancovsky T and Shamay-Tsoory SG, ‘The Two-Fold Model of Creativity: The Neural Underpinnings of the Generation and Evaluation of Creative Ideas’ (2019) 27 Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 131
37. Kozbelt A, Beghetto RA and Runco MA, ‘Theories of Creativity’ in James C Kaufman and Robert J Sternberg (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity (Cambridge University Press 2010)
38. Kraft U, ‘Unleashing Creativity’ (2005) 16 Scientific American Mind 16
39. Miller AR, ‘Copyright Protection for Computer Programs, Databases, and Computer-Generated Works: Is Anything New Since CONTU’ (1993) 106 Harvard Law Review 977
40. Minsky ML, ‘Why People Think Computers Can’t’ (1982) 3 AI magazine 3
41. Nahmias E, ‘Your Brain as the Source of Free Will Worth Wanting: Understanding Free Will in the Age of Neuroscience’
42. Neubauer AC and Fink A, ‘Intelligence and Neural Efficiency’ (2009) 33 Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 1004
43. Patterson L, ‘Copyright and the Exclusive Right of Authors’ (1993) 1 J. intell. ProP. l. 1
44. Pearlman R, ‘RECOGNIZING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) AS AUTHORS AND INVENTORS UNDER U.S. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW By’ (2018) 24 Richmond Journal of Law & Technology 42
45. Pidgeon LM and others, ‘Functional Neuroimaging of Visual Creativity: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis’ (2016) 6 Brain and behavior e00540
46. Rachum-Twaig O, ‘Recreating Copyright: The Cognitive Process of Creation and Copyright Law’ (2016) 27 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. LJ 287
47. Rahmatian A, ‘Originality in UK Copyright Law: The Old “Skill and Labour” Doctrine Under Pressure’ (2013) 44 IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 4
48. Rosati E, ‘Originality in a Work, or a Work of Originality: The Effects of the Infopaq Decision Part I: Articles’ (2011) 58 Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA 795
49. ——, Originality in EU Copyright: Full Harmonization through Case Law (Edward Elgar Publishing Limited 2013)
50. Runco MA, ‘Creativity: Theories and Themes: Research’ [2007] Development and Practice. Amsterdam: Elsevier
51. Rust RT and Huang M-H, ‘The Feeling Economy’ in Roland T Rust and Ming-Hui Huang, The Feeling Economy (Springer International Publishing 2021) accessed 24 December 2022
52. Sadana D and others, ‘The Neuropsychology of Creativity: A Profile of Indian Artists.’ (2017) 15 Acta Neuropsychologica
53. Samuelson P, ‘Allocating Ownership Rights in Computer-Generated Works’ (1985) 47 U. pitt. L. rev. 1185
54. ——, ‘AI Authorship?’ (2020) 63 Communications of the ACM 20
55. Sawyer RK, Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation (2nd ed, Oxford University Press 2012)
56. Selvadurai N and Matulionyte R, ‘Reconsidering Creativity: Copyright Protection for Works Generated Using Artificial Intelligence’ (2020) 15 Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 536
57. Shtefan A, ‘Creativity and Artificial Intelligence: A View from the Perspective of Copyright’ (2021) 16 Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 720
58. Toliver Z, ‘The “Monkey Selfie” Case Has Been Settled — This Is How It Broke Ground for Animal Rights’ (PETA, 11 September 2017) accessed 25 December 2022
59. Varian HR, ‘Copying and Copyright’ (2005) 19 Journal of economic perspectives 121
60. Volkow ND, Rosen B and Farde L, ‘Imaging the Living Human Brain: Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Positron Emission Tomography’ (1997) 94 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2787
61. Walia C, ‘A Dynamic Definition of Creativity’ (2019) 31 Creativity Research Journal 237 Wallas G, The Art of Thought (Harcourt, Brace 1926)
62. Yanisky-Ravid S, ‘GENERATING REMBRANDT: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, COPYRIGHT, AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE 3A ERA—THE HUMAN-LIKE AUTHORS ARE ALREADY HERE—A NEW MODEL’ 68
63. Yen AC, ‘The Legacy of Feist: Consequences of the Weak Connection Between Copyright and the Economics of Public Goods’ (1991) 52 Ohio St. LJ 1343
64. Zaidel DW, ‘Creativity, Brain, and Art: Biological and Neurological Considerations’ (2014) 8 Frontiers in human neuroscience 389
65. Zatarain JMN, ‘The Role of Automated Technology in the Creation of Copyright Works: The Challenges of Artificial Intelligence’ (2017) 31 International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 91
66. Zhou K, ‘What Cognitive Neuroscience Tells Us about Creativity Education: A Literature Review’ (2018) 5 Global Education Review 20
67. Zioga I and others, ‘From Learning to Creativity: Identifying the Behavioural and Neural Correlates of Learning to Predict Human Judgements of Musical Creativity’ (2020) 206 NeuroImage 116311
68. Zurth P, ‘A CASE AGAINST COPYRIGHT PROTECTION FOR AI-GENERATED WORKS’ (2021) 25 UCLA Journal of Law & Technology 20