A gimmick, but not the point"
Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2025 8:18 am
The court's decision confirms the opinion of many experts that the rights to works created by AI belong to the user who created the "object" using one or more neural networks, says Just AI Marketing Director Yulia Ryzhikh. After all, he determines the parameters, formulates the prompt and controls the content generation process, she continues: "Such a decision can stimulate a more responsible attitude to the use of technology, copyright protection and, finally, the establishment of a clear position on the issue of ownership of intellectual rights to content created by AI."
Director of NP SPAS ivory coast whatsapp number database (Community of Users of Copyright and Related Rights) Anatoly Semenov considers the decision "legal and justified". However, the lawyers interviewed by Forbes are generally not so categorical on the issue of who owns the copyright to a product created with the help of AI: the user, the AI developer, or is not subject to protection at all. Although the case is very indicative, it nevertheless has a "rather indirect relation" to the general discussion, says Alexandra Orekhovich, a teacher at the educational platform Moscow Digital School. In this particular case, the court, she says, recognizes the right of authorship for the creators, since, in addition to using deepfake technologies, "other actions were performed" that are recognized as a creative contribution to the creation: "The decision is rather cautious in its wording, which is understandable, given the circumstances of the case."
Orekhovich points out that disputes over the copyright of AI-generated works are gaining momentum around the world. "For example, on November 29, the Internet Court of China issued a ruling recognizing the copyright of the AI-generated product as belonging to the user," she points out.
At the same time, the decision in the case of Reface Technologies versus Business Analytics was made in a simplified procedure, that is, without calling the parties to present their positions, says Spartak Khulkhachiev, leading legal adviser of the intellectual property practice at the EBR law firm: “It seems that today, for such an important socio-economic phenomenon as AI, it is impossible to do without oral expression of positions and judicial debates.”
Filmway Production producer Alexander Zarshchikov calls the case "an interesting precedent," but in his opinion, it's not so much about deepfakes as it is about ignorance of the law: in this case, deepfake became a gimmick, but not the essence of the dispute, and the same fate would befall anyone who wanted to use someone else's video for their own interests. "The defendant, who decided to use the video for his own advertising, seemed to be sure that the video was created entirely by a neural network, and it turned out to be a filmed video and had quite clear copyright holders (including the director, actor, editor, etc.), who, in turn, transferred the rights to the production company. And the court is absolutely right that deepfake is just an additional tool for processing video materials, which in no way cancels the validity of the rights," Zarshchikov believes. "But the defendant was more let down by ignorance of the material: there were enough messages on the Internet that the video was generated using neural networks, although any person working with AI understood that at the moment it is impossible to create a video with intra-frame drama using neural networks - for example, as in this case, when "Keanu Reeves" enters and leaves the room. Therefore, and also because they used someone else's video without permission, this case became a reality."
Director of NP SPAS ivory coast whatsapp number database (Community of Users of Copyright and Related Rights) Anatoly Semenov considers the decision "legal and justified". However, the lawyers interviewed by Forbes are generally not so categorical on the issue of who owns the copyright to a product created with the help of AI: the user, the AI developer, or is not subject to protection at all. Although the case is very indicative, it nevertheless has a "rather indirect relation" to the general discussion, says Alexandra Orekhovich, a teacher at the educational platform Moscow Digital School. In this particular case, the court, she says, recognizes the right of authorship for the creators, since, in addition to using deepfake technologies, "other actions were performed" that are recognized as a creative contribution to the creation: "The decision is rather cautious in its wording, which is understandable, given the circumstances of the case."
Orekhovich points out that disputes over the copyright of AI-generated works are gaining momentum around the world. "For example, on November 29, the Internet Court of China issued a ruling recognizing the copyright of the AI-generated product as belonging to the user," she points out.
At the same time, the decision in the case of Reface Technologies versus Business Analytics was made in a simplified procedure, that is, without calling the parties to present their positions, says Spartak Khulkhachiev, leading legal adviser of the intellectual property practice at the EBR law firm: “It seems that today, for such an important socio-economic phenomenon as AI, it is impossible to do without oral expression of positions and judicial debates.”
Filmway Production producer Alexander Zarshchikov calls the case "an interesting precedent," but in his opinion, it's not so much about deepfakes as it is about ignorance of the law: in this case, deepfake became a gimmick, but not the essence of the dispute, and the same fate would befall anyone who wanted to use someone else's video for their own interests. "The defendant, who decided to use the video for his own advertising, seemed to be sure that the video was created entirely by a neural network, and it turned out to be a filmed video and had quite clear copyright holders (including the director, actor, editor, etc.), who, in turn, transferred the rights to the production company. And the court is absolutely right that deepfake is just an additional tool for processing video materials, which in no way cancels the validity of the rights," Zarshchikov believes. "But the defendant was more let down by ignorance of the material: there were enough messages on the Internet that the video was generated using neural networks, although any person working with AI understood that at the moment it is impossible to create a video with intra-frame drama using neural networks - for example, as in this case, when "Keanu Reeves" enters and leaves the room. Therefore, and also because they used someone else's video without permission, this case became a reality."