Every AI will have its own terms of use. DALL·E 2’s Terms of Use dated 3 November 2022 specify that as between a user and Open AI, a user owns their prompts and uploads. Open AI also assigns to the user all rights in any images generated by DALL·E 2 for that user (subject to the user complying with those Terms of Use, and to a licence to use inputs and output to develop and improve the services).
If you have not heard of OpenAI’s machine learning models DALL·E and DALL·E 2, the link is here: https://openai.com/dall-e-2/. It’s absolutely amazing, and we would suggest you have a go before reading this article.
The prompt “Hamster playing the violin out at sea by Rembrandt” generated this image:
The authors of this article disagree on the aesthetic merits of this particular image, but there is no doubt that DALL-E 2 can create fantastic images with commercial value and use.
To give another example, this was from “cherry blossom in a william morris print”:
And this was from “oil painting of daydreaming”:
This astounding leap forward in AI comes with many questions. We have set out some legal considerations below.
Every AI will have its own terms of use. DALL·E 2’s Terms of Use dated 3 November 2022 specify that as between a user and Open AI, a user owns their prompts and uploads. Open AI also assigns to the user all rights any images generated by DALL·E 2 for that user (subject to the user complying with those Terms of Use, and to a licence to use inputs and output to develop and improve the services).
But does copyright subsist in it? A brand wanting to commercialise an image will want that image to have copyright so that it can prevent third parties from using the image.
The CJEU said in Infopaq C-5/08 that works are protected if they are original in the sense that they are their “author’s own intellectual creation”. The Court of Appeal in SAS v World Programming [2013] EWCA Civ 1482 interpreted the UK’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 in accordance with this. In Painer C-145/10 the CJEU said that “an intellectual creation is an author’s own if it reflects the author’s personality”, and that a “photograph is an intellectual creation of the author reflecting his personality and expressing his free and creative choices in the production of that photograph”.
Is the text prompt provided by the user of DALL-E 2 enough to mean that the user gets copyright in the generated image? Short verbal instructions to a human painter would not give rise to any copyright in the resulting painting.
And, can an image created by an AI reflect the AI’s personality or express its free and creative choices? These are big philosophical questions.
The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 was of course drafted before these judgments, and does deal with computer-generated works. If there is no human author, section 9 says that for computer-generated works, “the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken”. If the text prompt is enough, then the human user entering that prompt is the author. If not, who is it that makes “the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work”? Is that the user who has typed in a short text prompt, or is it the person who has spent ages training the AI?
If you want copyright in an AI generated work, it may be possible to edit it in a way that you create a new copyright work.
Machine learning systems are trained using data – and that training involves copying. Some countries permit this – Article 4 of the EU’s Digital Single Market Directive allows data mining for commercial purposes, but rightsholders can opt out of it. Japan and Singapore also have exceptions, and it may be fair use in the US. There is currently no specific exception in UK law. The UK Government has said that it will allow data mining “for any purpose” without an opt-out. There will still be a “lawful access” safeguard for rightsholders, but that may be quite limited.
DALL·E 2 has clearly been trained on copyright images and, if asked, will produce an image of Super Mario painted by Andy Warhol, or Mickey Mouse in the style of Picasso. These probably infringe Nintendo and Disney’s copyright. It’s arguable whether they infringe Warhol and Picasso’s copyright. In the circumstances, we have not reproduced the images!
One can also upload an existing image and edit it using AI, or generate variations. These could certainly still infringe.
So DALL·E 2 can be used to generate infringing images, and one receives no warranty from Open AI that the images are free to be used.
DALL·E 2 can create some amazing images. It raises a lot of interesting questions, and not all of those have answers yet. What we are sure of is that it will be transformational.
This article was first published in Trademark Lawyer in November 2022.
Partner
giles.parsons@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)20 7337 1505
National law firm Browne Jacobson has advised long standing retail client, Wilko on the sale and leaseback of its Nottinghamshire distribution centre in Worksop to logistics specialist DHL for £48m.
In the ongoing complex litigation between Optis Cellular Technology LLC and Apple Inc., the Court of Appeal ([2022] EWCA Civ 1411) has upheld the High Court’s findings that implementers of standard-essential patents (SEPs) cannot refuse to accept a FRAND license and continue activities in the meantime which constitute infringement: that party must commit to accept a court-determined license if it wishes to avoid an injunction.
Law firm Browne Jacobson is pleased to announce that Suzanne Harlow has been appointed Non-Executive Director of its Retail, Consumer & Logistics sector.
The war on plastic is being taken to a new level, and businesses that don’t consider sourcing recycled packaging materials could face costly implications.
Earlier in the year a number of fashion retailers, boldly announced the introduction of a charging fee for returning any product purchased via their online store. Yet, despite this commercial, and perhaps somewhat controversial decision, at least one major fashion giant that adopted this approach has recorded ‘historic highs’ in its September profits. Browne Jacobson partner, Cat Driscoll who heads up the firm’s commercial team in Manchester and is also head of its Fashion & Beauty sector discusses whether this change has put the average consumer off and whether the days of free returns are long gone.
Every AI will have its own terms of use. DALL·E 2’s Terms of Use dated 3 November 2022 specify that as between a user and Open AI, a user owns their prompts and uploads. Open AI also assigns to the user all rights in any images generated by DALL·E 2 for that user (subject to the user complying with those Terms of Use, and to a licence to use inputs and output to develop and improve the services).
This article is the second in a series to help firms take a practical approach to complying with the ‘cross-cutting rules’ within the new ‘Consumer Duty’ (CD) framework. The article summarises what it seems the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is seeking to achieve from the applicable rules (section 2 below) and potential complications arising from legal considerations (section 3).
A deepfake of Bruce Willis is advertising Russian mobile phones. Many great artistic and metaphysical questions are raised by this performance. However, this article is going to look at the intellectual property law implications, from a UK perspective.
The fashion industry has a mountain to climb when it comes to sustainability. More than 8% of greenhouse gas emissions come from the apparel and footwear industries, and approaching three-fifths of all clothing ends up in incinerators or landfill within a year of being made.
Created at the end of the Brexit transition period, Retained EU Law is a category of domestic law that consists of EU-derived legislation retained in our domestic legal framework by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This was never intended to be a permanent arrangement as parliament promised to deal with retained EU law through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (the “Bill”).
The Chancellor’s recent mini-budget provided a significant announcement for business as it was confirmed that the off-payroll working rules (known as “IR35”) put in place for public and private sector businesses from 2017 and 2021 will be scrapped from April 2023.
Browne Jacobson has bolstered its commercial practice in the UK with the appointment of commercial contracts and international trade specialist, Emma Roake, into its City-based London team.
The Court of Appeal overturned the “fire and re-hire” injunction, finding that there was nothing in the express contractual provisions preventing Tesco from giving the notice to terminate employment in the usual way.
As has been widely reported this week, some 3,000 UK workers are taking part in a six month trial to assess the viability of a four-day working week without any reduction in their normal pay.
Amongst the measures being introduced are new rules on online reviews, price reduction promotions, enhanced rights for free digital consumers, GDPR-style fines and information requirements on online markets.
In anticipation of the adoption of the Building Safety Bill, our specialist compliance and regulatory team will give an overview of the measures proposed in the Bill.
From 6 April 2022, right to work checks on all migrant or settled prospective employees must be online and checks on British or Irish nationals will be manual (free) or digital (charged for).
The Presidents of the Employment Tribunals England and Wales and Scotland have issued a new road map for 2022-23, providing an update on the resourcing challenges faced by employment tribunals and the steps put in place to address these.
The Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Act 2022 was finally passed yesterday (24 March) and comes into force immediately.
Browne Jacobson has broadened its national construction and engineering offering with the appointment of construction partner Zoe Stollard into its Birmingham office.
Browne Jacobson’s national IP lawyers are celebrating after being ranked in the 2022 World Trademark Review (WTR) 1000 - the independent guide which recognises leading trade mark experts across key jurisdictions around the globe.
The Government appears set to announce plans on ‘living with Covid to restore freedom’. With the success of the retail and hospitality sector key to recovery, what protections will be on offer to tenants to deal with Covid-19 rent arrears?
In Nissan v Passi, the High Court recently considered the issue of an employee retaining confidential documents belonging to his former employer in the context of the employer’s application for an injunction seeking the return of such documents from the employee.
The levelling up white paper sets out a set of 12 priority ‘missions’ to be pursued by national and local government in the years to come. With measures covering regeneration, communities, connectivity, education, R&D, employment, and health.
The High Court has granted an injunction against Tesco preventing the dismissal and re-engagement (‘fire and rehire’) of employees in an attempt to remove a contractual entitlement to enhanced payment terms.
Browne Jacobson’s corporate finance lawyers have advised omnichannel prestige beauty retailer Sephora on its acquisition of Feelunique.
Our corporate finance team have advised the Myers Family Office, on its purchase of Vian Marketing, the holding company for leading stand-up paddleboard business, Tushingham Sails which is best known in the market for its Red Paddle Co brand.
All of the ‘big four’ supermarkets have seen equal pay claims submitted. The majority of these cases involve workers arguing that they have not been paid equally compared to distribution centres of the business.
Following on from our recent article on the release of the updated Code of Practice for dealing with commercial rent arrears that have accrued throughout the pandemic, we continue to highlight what the overall principles seek to ensure - fairness and proportionality for both landlords and tenants across each step of the arbitration process.
In July this year, four years to the month after its introduction into UK law in the Supreme Court’s seminal judgment in Actavis v Eli Lilly, the court handed down its latest decision applying the ‘doctrine of equivalents’.
The Court of Appeal has held that an AI machine cannot be named as the ‘inventor’ of a patent, because it is not a ‘natural person’, and is therefore also incapable of transferring the right in that patent to a person.
In Stuart Delivery Ltd v Augustine, the Court of Appeal was asked to consider the principles governing when the ability to appoint a substitute negated the obligation to personally perform work.
No retail and logistics specialist will have been surprised by the news that ecommerce businesses, responding to high customer demand during the pandemic, have contributed to a jump in warehouse lettings, or that one of the ecommerce disrupters within the retail sector has been rapid grocery delivery services.
