Management of Intellectual Property in AI-Generated Artworks

 

Dr. Tripti Sharma ¹, Dr. J Jabez ², Dr. Varsha Agarwal ³, Ankit Sachdeva ⁴ , Velvizhi K ⁵, Ashmeet Kaur ⁶

 

¹ Professor, Department of Computer Science and Engineering (Cyber Security), Noida Institute of Engineering and Technology, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India

² Professor, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

³ Associate Professor, ISME - School of Management and Entrepreneurship, ATLAS SkillTech University, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

⁴ Centre of Research Impact and Outcome, Chitkara University, Rajpura- 140417, Punjab, India

⁵ Assistant Professor, Department of Management, Aarupadai Veedu Institute of Technology, Vinayaka Mission’s Research Foundation (DU), Tamil Nadu, India

⁶ Chitkara Centre for Research and Development, Chitkara University, Himachal Pradesh, Solan, 174103, India

 

 

1. INTRODUCTION

Algorithms that can be used to generate paintings, music, animations and even intricate multimodal compositions now effectively stand next to human artists such as unwearying apprentices with flawless memory and unpredictable sophistication Picht (2023). With the artists, technologists and cultural institutions experimenting with these new creative alliances, questions of intellectual property (IP) become a background as shadows before a new light. Is it possible to say that creativity can be linked to something which lacks consciousness? What are the duties after the imagination of a machine is influenced by millions of human-made work? These are the questions that the current discussion of the world revolves around, so IP management becomes one of the most pressing issues in the age of creativity with the help of AI Garg (2023). The growth of generative models has erased classic lines of authorship and originality. Although previous digital solutions were used as brushes or lenses controlled entirely by human will, the modern AI systems, particularly those based on deep learning, can provide semi-autonomous creative capabilities. They recombine, restructured and rethink the information based on the mass training corpora. This renders the resultant production familiar and new as a mosaic made out of pieces of forgotten galleries. This quality, however, makes it harder to legalize creative contribution, in which the past has depended on human intellect and self-expression William et al. (2023). The protection of AI-generated content in many jurisdictions continues to be in a legal grey area whereby the author is not a human being and the enforceability of any copyright is undermined.

Figure 1

Figure 1 Human–AI IP Interaction Block Diagram Model

 

Combined with legal doubts, there are ethical and practical issues that arise due to the training of the AI systems. The datasets used to train models are frequently scraped off the internet, which contains copyrighted artworks the creators of which may never have given their permission to such use. It poses a conflict of innovation and decency, with critics citing that AI systems are enjoying the work of many artists and do not even give them credit Solbrekk (2021). In the meantime, licenses of platform-specific terms of use, which lie between a free open-source license and a prohibitive commercial contract, provide an additional complexity to the matter and define the opportunities available to users in utilizing and monetizing AI-generated content as illustrated in Figure 1. With the growing utilization of generative AI in industries, IP management proves to be very important in protecting creative ecosystems. Artists would like to be sure that their work is not going to be watered down, copied, and used. Developers need to find an answer to the question of liability. It is not easy for the policymakers to develop innovative policies and at the same time be fair. These conflicts of interest ensure that the issue of IP management in AI generated art becomes a complex multi-disciplinary question that involves the understanding of law, ethical considerations and technological knowledge Ghanghash (2022).

The study examines the concept of the intellectual property being handled responsibly in the time of machine-creativity. It aims to map the changing landscape of human expression at the crossroads of algorithmic production, as well as providing the roads to enable harmonized, prospective policy-making by analyzing the controversies of legal frameworks, authorship, and ethics, and for new technological solutions.

 

2. Conceptual and Legal Foundations

The intellectual property of art created with AI technologies is based on a set of fundamental ideas under which societies have conventionally organized the definition of creativity, ownership and protection. With algorithmic creation these pillars are calligraphy which is the same as old maps being drawn on the new continents, the boundaries still display De Rassenfosse et al. (2023), yet the land underneath those boundaries have changed. These are just some of the basic principles that one has to know before investigating more intricate issues of ownership and enforcement. The very core of the debate is the notion of authorship, which traditionally needed human mind to create the creativity of a piece. Most jurisdictions have made copyright doctrines based on the fact that originality is the result of human intellectual activity, a jolt of willfulness worked into the ultimate product Aziz (2023). This is made more difficult by the fact that AI systems tend to be the source of outputs that are produced by statistical forecasting instead of by the conscious artistic eye. Although users can create prompts or control the process of iteration, the inner decisions made by the model are opaque, produced with the help of layers of learned patterns Israhandi (2023). This generates a conflict between the human hand pushing the system and the logic of the machine doing the work, and the lawmakers have to discuss the extent to which the human input suffices to offer protection to an artwork.

Figure 2

Figure 2 Human–AI Creative Contribution Spectrum

 

Originality is the second pillar which has conventionally been perceived as an independently constructed work that exhibits low creative flair. Millions of existing works are also fed into AI systems, and the model internalizes the pattern as opposed to copying it Weisenberger and Edmunds (2023). However, this distinction between inspiration and derivation is unclear when the machine is an opaque process of learning. Courts have started to think that the AI-generated outputs can possibly ever be meaningfully original when they are produced in the shadow of so many hidden influences. With the changing nature of the discussion, originality might require a redefined sense to consider the computational creativity without the unwarranted extraction of the already established artworks as illustrated in Figure 2.

Its legal basis is the legal status of the AI-generated outputs. Non-human authors are not considered as such and such works are copyrightable in numerous countries at present. In certain jurisdictions, a human in the loop may claim rights when his part has been creative enough, whilst in others they may not allow claims at all when the machine has done the expressive work Famiglietti and Ellerbach (2023). This disjointed international strategy makes the task of artists and businesses, particularly the ones that operate internationally, uncertain. The legal discussion becomes further when we look at the place of training data, which exists in the nexus of copyright, fair use, and database rights. The question of whether training on copyrighted content qualifies as infringement is debatable and lawsuits as well as regulation proposals continue to seek to define the boundaries. Others propose that training is non-expressive and transformative and others perceive it as an unlicensed exploitation of cultural labor.

 

3. Authorship, Ownership, and Creative Contribution

Whether an AI-generated artwork can be regarded as the author of the given work is the central matter of the intellectual property issue, creating one of the most complicated knots in the field. Conventional authorship presupposes a human mind, which defines the expressive decisions, a creative spark that leads the work between the will and the end design Ning (2023). In the AI-mediated creation, however, this spark is diffused over human instructions, algorithmic processes and large-scale statistical inference. When a human being enters some prompts, refines outputs, adjusts parameters, or culls variations, his or her hand is like a constant hand on the rudder of a vessel being driven by an unknown engine. The creative input exists, though it is not consistently preeminent, and laws differ greatly in the extent to which human intervention is needed before authorship is achievable. Certain jurisdictions would require physical control of expressive elements based on data provided in Table 1, whereas, in other jurisdictions, a conceptual direction or high-level decision making is deemed adequate and the boundary between authorship and facilitation is constantly shifting Bisoyi (2022).

Table 1

Table 1 Comparative Analysis of Licensing Approaches
License Type	Restrictiveness Level	User Rights	Limitations	Typical Use Case
MIT License	Very Low	Full reuse and modification	No content protection	Open-source research
Apache 2.0	Low	Broad use + patent grant	Attribution required	Academic/industrial models
CC-BY	Medium	Reuse with attribution	No control of derivatives	Creative content sharing
Proprietary A	High	Limited output rights	Usage restrictions	AI art platforms
Proprietary B	Very High	Restricted commercial use	Strict platform control	Corporate AI systems

 

The situation of ownership is also problematic. Under the traditional copyright models, ownership is a natural progression of authorship, whereas with AI systems the rights chain extends further to include: the model developers, the dataset curators, the platform providers and the final-users who create the artwork. All these participants do not play the same role in the end result. The architecture and training rules are designed by developers, the training data are collected and organized by the curators, and the prompts through which the generative engine operates are designed by the users. Who owns the output is thus less of a question of determining who the one creator is, and more one of comprehending the ways of joining different types of creative work together. Other platform terms of service endeavor to address this by assigning rights to the user on generation, whereas some retain partial or complete rights to the outputs. This contractual layer frequently takes the role of default authority on ownership, particularly in a jurisdiction where AI-generated work is not considered a piece of copyrightable content Vig (2022).

The idea of creative contribution makes the situation even more complicated. In art created by man, creativity is regarded not as in the final product itself but in the decisions, revisions and interpretations that lead to the development of the product. The value added by the user can be the richness and richness of the prompt, or the curative loop that filters and narrows down the outputs. Although the role of the AI is mechanical, it can include the creation of expressive details, which the user was not necessarily imagining. This creates some very critical questions: Is creativity calculated by intention, by process or by aesthetic result? Is the autonomous generation behaviour of the model to be regarded as part of creative equation, although it is not conscious? And in case such a model accesses stylistic patterns of a vast array of human works in training data, what about the invisible community of creators whose work passes through the algorithm?

 

4.  Training Data, Ethical Use, and Licensing Issues

The basis of AI-made art has been constructed on the foundations of vast pools of training data and this implicit substrate influences the aesthetic behaviors of the generative models as well as the ethical and legal controversies that have emerged around them.

Table 2

Table 2 Ethical Risk Matrix for AI Training Data
Dataset Type	Ethical Risk Level	Legal Risk Level	Primary Concern	Example Cases
Copyrighted Artwork	High	High	Unauthorized scraping	Illustrator lawsuits
Cultural Heritage Data	High	Medium	Misappropriation and distortion	Tribal motif misuse
Sensitive Imagery	Very High	Very High	Privacy & harm	Faces, medical images
Public Domain Data	Low	Low	Minimal risk	Historical archives
Licensed Databases	Low	Medium	Contractual compliance	Commercial datasets

 

Training datasets can also be viewed as enormous libraries that are uncated and in which images, paintings, cultural trends, and stylistic items can freely linger. Although these datasets can be used to train AI systems to learn rich visual structures, they are often built by mass scraping online material, most of which is legally regulated, culturally sensitive, or created without its presence in a machine-based learning pipeline as in data provided in Table 2. This brings a major question, does a model have the right to learn morally or legally, of works in which it has no right to do so? The positive viewpoint on training tends to emphasize that it is a process of non-expressive, transformative activity that resembles a student learning about art history, whereas many critics view it as an industrial-level exploitation of creative work without any attribution, consent or payment. Consequently, the dataset turns out as the source of creativity as well as the contention of ethical controversy. Ethics of training data go into the realms of culture as well. Indigenous motifs, sacred symbols or traditional designs that are not owned by an individual can be inadvertently captured by the AI systems and used across the board. When such trends are revealed in the outputs of AI, they run a risk of becoming unattached to the cultural identities that make them relevant and heritage becomes a raw material to be remixed by algorithms.

Figure 3

 

Figure 3 AI Training Data Ethical Risk Map

 

Another factor that adds to the complexity is the problem of licensing, which specifies a manner of how users can interact legally with the AI-generated outputs. Various models have different licensing regimes and the terms can determine whether a work of art can be commercialized or repackaged as in Figure 3, revamped, re-used or incorporated into other creative works. Open source models often come with wide ranging freedoms, but are sometimes accompanied by terms of use which limit their harmful or deceptive use. Proprietary models on the other hand depend on platform specifications that determine ownership, use limitations and content limitations. Other sites allow creators to enjoy complete commercial rights to work, whereas others demand joint ownership, or take downstream restrictions. Since most jurisdictions do not secure AI-generated works under copyright, such licenses can serve as an alternative legal framework, serving the role of scaffolding that supports an incomplete legal framework until the final legal framework can be developed.

 

5. IP Enforcement, Risk Management, and Emerging Solutions

Intellectual property rights in the AI-generated artworks are one of the most complicated frontiers in the modern creative governance. Classical enforcement is based on the idea of detecting copying or unlicensed derivatives, but it is challenging with the products of AI generation since they are not necessarily duplications but can represent statistical copies. In a case where a model is creating a piece of art that has a similarity to a safeguarded style or motif, the similarity can be diffuse, by chance, or a result of training patterns and not an intentional imitation. With this, enforcement will be like trying to chase a shadow which does not exactly come into a standstill. The holders of rights have challenges in proving substantial embodiment or showing that there is guarded articulation in the output of the model. In the meantime, platforms have a hard time formulating policies which would allow freedom of users and stop the exploitation of current artists. In the absence of common standards, enforcement turns piecemeal, moving away into courtroom combat, to platform-specific rules which can be highly uneven in their degree of fairness and transparency.

Figure 4

Figure 4 AI Art IP Enforcement Lifecycle

 

Risk management is becoming a major aspect as inventors companies and organizations are trying to cross this grey terrain. Artists have concerns about their work being consumed into datasets without their permission such as in an unwanted distortionary stylistic parody. Those companies which employ AI technology are concerned about how they may accidentally upload unauthorized content which will be used to bring forward a claim of copyright infringement, reputational harm or breach of contract. In order to reduce these risks, new forms of best practice, focus on documentation and transparency. Other organizations also have internal IP compliance policies, consider as high risk assets, or users verify the sources of sensitive material. Such measures are like navigators who are distorting in uncertain waters that provide a structure and predictability despite lawful shoreline being far away as shown in Figure 4. There is also the development of new technical and regulatory approaches for responsibility and enforcement in the field. Generative models are being introduced with watermarking technology that can be used to add identifiers to output through invisible and cryptography marks. Registries based on blockchain also assist in provenance as they give an immutable time and ownership record, which can be especially handy in the context of claiming rights in a jurisdiction where copyright laws are ambiguous. At the regulatory level, policymakers are deliberating on frameworks concerning the transparency on training-data, disclosure of output and liability on the part of the developers. Among the proposals are compulsory labeling the datasets, opt-out of artists, and standard notices about the extent of human participation in a created work.

 

6. Interpretation and Analysis

The results of the study demonstrate that there is a creative ecosystem in flux, with the old intellectual property structures being overloaded with the burden of new generative technologies. In every part, the results are drawn to the same central conclusion: AI-generated art does not fit in any of the existing legal or ethical categories since it disperses the creative workforce across human beings, machines, data, and technologies. This distribution creates a topography in which authorship is diffusive, ownership is negotiated and not presupposed and creativity itself extends beyond its human resources. The discussion highlights that the capabilities that render AI art so potent, namely, its ability to acquire patterns, recycle styles, and create new expressions, are the same ones that lead to the development of the fundamental conflicts regarding accountability, fairness, and protection.

Figure 5

Figure 5 Proportions of Major Dataset Sources Used for Training AI Art Generation Models

 

In the Training Data Source Composition chart, it can be noted that web-scraped content is the most significant contributor since it represents over fifty percent of the data driving generative models as shown in Figure 5. Licensed and open-source contents compose 35 percent of the total with culturally sensitive archives occupying the least percentage. This imbalance raises important ethical and legal issues because the usage of scraped content often does not have explicit permission of original creators.

An important consequence of this work is the fact that norms of authorship do not readily project onto the creation mediated by machines any more. The spectrum model that was created in the study demonstrates that AI artworks exist on a continuum and they do not separate into a binary opposition between "human-created" and "machine-generated." The majority of creative outputs are in the gray area, whereby the human will influence the generative process, but not entirely control it. The implications of this shift to policymakers include the need to re-evaluate the basis of copyright on human creativity or the need to recognize the contribution of human hybridity in this case.

Figure 6

Figure 6 Heatmap Illustrating Ethical and Legal Risk Intensity Across Dataset Types and Usage Contexts.

 

The Ethical Risk Heatmap offers a relative perspective of possible risks based on the type of data set and its usage in the context of various applications. The datasets with sensitive and identifiable-image pose the highest risk scores, particularly when they are engaged in the research or in the creation of derivatives. There are also increased dangers in commercial and derivative uses in copyrighted and cultural content. This trend shows that risk is not homogeneous, it is greater based on the nature of the data as well as the purpose of its utilization. The outcome analysis further indicates that the ethical and legal section of the AI creativity line is the training data as shown in Figure 6. The study indicates that models that have been trained using large datasets (unconsented) create unanswered questions regarding impartiality, cultural sensitivity, and economic equality. Artists whose artworks are used to train corpora in some way or another feel a sense of deprivation when AI systems emulate stylistic elements that belong to their own or cultural identities. This supports the necessity of greater mechanisms of transparency, consent-based data curation and community sensitive data governance. New technologies such as opt-out registries, dataset labeling and culturally sensitive training practices provide promising avenues, although they are not uniformly used as an industry practice.

Figure 7

Figure 7 Comparative Restrictiveness Levels Among Open-Source and Proprietary AI Model Licenses

 

The index of the restrictiveness of the licensing has an evident gradient between open-source licenses that have minimal restrictiveness and proprietary ones that impose more severe restrictions on the use of output. Conversely, proprietary structures are more restrictive, which is indicative of the apprehensions of abuse, commercial ownership, and brand reputation. This comparison demonstrates the significant difference in model accessibility and user rights between the types of licensing, which will determine the possibility to distribute AI-generated artworks and commercialize them as shown in Figure 7. The analysis of licensing and enforcement shows another complexity level: due to the lack of the traditional copyright protection of the AI-generated results, the contracts and platform licensing models have become informal IP regimes. This dominance on a contractual basis provokes the issues of asymmetry of power where big technological platforms possess rights, establish limits of use and determine the terms which can dominate over the old rules of IP. The lifecycle as well as the risk-management diagrams created in this study assist in demonstrating how enforcement is being transferred out of the system of public law to the system of a platform-controlled enforcement. Although these platform protocols give short-term transparency, they could also have a negative effect on the disintegration of global creative standards, as well as on the long-term independence of users of their own works.

 

7. Conclusion and Future Directions

The high pace of development of AI-generated works has put intellectual property arguments in a different field of operation, exposing an apparent incompatibility between the classic legal principles and the ambivalent character of human-AI creativity. Generative models pose a threat to authorship by doing what expressive tasks used to be carried out by humans. The ownership is disputed between developers, dataset curators, platforms, and end-users who all play a part in the creative chain. Ethical concerns are raised from the murky practice of training data and raise concerns of consent, cultural integrity, and the unacknowledged influence of human artists whose creations are used to train algorithms. Simultaneously, it becomes difficult to enforce as the courts are dealing with the issue of copying on the basis of algorithms and not direct copying. These tensions are signs not of the failure of IP governance, but transition. Such new solutions as watermarking, blockchain provenance, dataset transparency, hybrid licensing schemes and platform-level policies are promising. They still are in their developing stage, but they present a framework on which the creativity of machines can be harmonized with fair and responsible rights management. They also point out that in order to deal with the IP in AI art, it is necessary to collaborate in law, technology and culture and in creative practice.

In the future, there are priorities that is necessary. It is necessary that the policymakers define the legality of the outputs created with the use of AI and redefine the concept of originality and authorship to match the modern ways of creating. Transparent data governance which is agreeable to both the parties should be the norm. The technical research should continue in the development of provenance tracking tools that can be trusted. The players in the industry may be required to adopt dynamic licensing frameworks that have a stronger expression of joint creative contribution. The coordination will also be required internationally to avoid a piecemeal regulation and protect uniformly across the borders.

 

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

None. 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

None.

 

REFERENCES

Aziz, A. (2023). Artificial Intelligence Produced Original Work: A New Approach to Copyright Protection and Ownership. European Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning, 2(2), 9–16.

Bisoyi, A. (2022). Ownership, Liability, Patentability, and Creativity Issues in Artificial Intelligence. Information Security Journal: A Global Perspective, 31(4), 377–386.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19393555.2022.2060879  

Famiglietti, P., and Ellerbach, C. L. (2023). Protecting Brands in the Age of AI. Lexology.  

De Rassenfosse, G., Jaffe, A. B., and Wasserman, M. F. (2023). AI-Generated Inventions: Implications for the Patent System. Southern California Law Review, 96, 101–126.

Garg, A. (2023). IPR Issues Concerning Artificial Intelligence – Patent – India. IPR Issues Concerning Artificial Intelligence – Patent – India.

Ghanghash, S. (2022). Intellectual Property Rights in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: A study Reflecting Challenges in India and International Perspective. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research, 11(6), 72–80.

Israhandi, E. I. (2023). The Impact of Developments in Artificial Intelligence on Copyright and Other Intellectual Property Laws. Journal of Law and Sustainability Development, 11(11), e1965.

Ning, H. (2023). Is it Fair? Is it Competitive? Is it Human? Artificial Intelligence and the Extent to Which We can Patent AI-Assisted Inventions. Journal of Legislation, 49(2), 421–448.

Picht, P. G. (2023). AI and IP: Theory to Policy and Back Again – Policy and Research Recommendations at the Intersection of Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property. IIC – International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 52, 916–940.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-023-01344-5  

Solbrekk, K. F. (2021). Three Routes to Protecting AI Systems and Their Algorithms Under IP Law: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 16(3), 247–258. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpab033

Vig, S. (2022). Intellectual Property Rights and the Metaverse: An Indian Perspective. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 25(3), 753–766.

Weisenberger, T., and Edmunds, N. (2023). Copyright and AI-Generated Content: Establishing Scope Requires More Than Registration. Lexology.  

William, P., Agrawal, A., Rawat, N., Shrivastava, A., Srivastava, A. P., and Ashish. (2023). Enterprise Human Resource Management Model by Artificial Intelligence Digital Technology. In Proceedings of the 2023 4th International Conference on Computation, Automation and Knowledge Management (ICCAKM). IEEE, 1–6 https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCAKM58659.2023.10449624

William, P., Bani Ahmad, A. Y., Deepak, A., Gupta, R., Bajaj, K. K., and Deshmukh, R. (2023). Sustainable Implementation of Artificial Intelligence-Based Decision Support System for Irrigation Projects in the Development of Rural Settlements. International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications in Engineering, 12(3s), 48–56.

William, P., Panicker, A., Falah, A., Hussain, A., Shrivastava, A., and Khan, A. K. (2023). The Emergence of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Contemporary Business Management. In Proceedings of the 2023 4th International Conference on Computation, Automation and Knowledge Management (ICCAKM), IEEE, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCAKM58659.2023.10449493

William, P., et al. (2023). Impact of Artificial Intelligence and Cyber Security as Advanced Technologies on Bitcoin Industries. International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications in Engineering, 12(3s), 131–140.