yapay zekânın yarattığı eserlerde telif hakları kime ait ?

Summary

In this video, Elif Kenan discusses the complexities of AI and copyright laws, focusing on two main issues: the use of copyrighted works to train AI and the copyright implications of AI-generated content. She explores a key 2011 case involving a selfie taken by a monkey named Naruto, which raised the question of whether non-human creations can have copyright protection. Elif also examines the legal stance in Turkey and contrasting international rulings, particularly in the U.S. and China, on who owns the copyright for AI-generated works. The video encourages viewers to reflect on the future of copyright in the age of AI.

Takeaways

• 😀 The video discusses two main aspects of AI and copyright: 1) the use of copyrighted works to train AI, and 2) copyright issues regarding works created by AI.
• 😀 The main focus is on the second aspect: the copyright concerns surrounding AI-generated works.
• 😀 The first major case addressing non-human generated works' copyright involved a monkey named Naruto, who took a selfie, raising the question of whether animals can hold copyrights for their creations.
• 😀 In the Naruto case, a photographer's camera was used by the monkey to take a selfie, but the photographer's request for copyright compensation was denied as the image was deemed public property.
• 😀 The U.S. Copyright Office has stated that a work must be created by a human to be eligible for copyright protection, highlighting the lack of recognition for animal-created works.
• 😀 In Turkish law, copyright protection requires a work to reflect the creator’s personality, and AI-generated works are not clearly addressed in the current laws.
• 😀 Turkish courts have ruled that AI cannot be the owner of the copyright for works it creates, as AI lacks legal personality, meaning the human providing the commands doesn't hold the full creative ownership either.
• 😀 The video highlights that there is no specific court decision in Turkey regarding AI-generated works, and current interpretations are based on older laws not designed for AI creations.
• 😀 Internationally, court decisions on AI and copyright differ: the U.S. rejects AI-generated works for copyright protection, while China grants copyright to the person who writes the commands for AI.
• 😀 The contrasting rulings in the U.S. and China reflect differing national policies and priorities regarding AI, creativity, and intellectual property rights, with China encouraging AI-driven innovation through copyright, while the U.S. limits it.
• 😀 The video concludes with a question about whether the person who writes commands for AI should be entitled to copyright, inviting viewers to reflect on and share their opinions.

Q & A

What are the two main aspects of copyright discussed in the video regarding artificial intelligence?

The two main aspects are: first, the use of copyrighted works of artists to train artificial intelligence; and second, the copyright issue regarding the works created by AI itself.

What is the significance of the 'Naruto selfie' in the discussion of AI and copyright?

The 'Naruto selfie' is significant because it was the first case where the question of whether non-human entities (like animals or AI) could hold copyright was raised. A photographer's camera was used by a monkey, Naruto, to take a selfie, leading to a legal battle over the ownership of the photo.

How did Wikimedia Commons respond to David Slater's claim over the 'Naruto selfie'?

Wikimedia Commons refused to pay David Slater any copyright fees, arguing that since the photo was taken by an animal, it was a public domain work and not eligible for copyright protection.

What did the U.S. Copyright Office state about the requirement for copyright ownership?

The U.S. Copyright Office stated that for a work to be eligible for copyright, it must be created by a human. This policy was established in response to the Naruto selfie controversy.

What was the outcome of the lawsuit filed by PETA regarding the 'Naruto selfie'?

PETA's lawsuit was rejected by the court, which ruled that the selfie taken by Naruto the monkey did not qualify for copyright protection because it was not created by a human.

How does Turkish law approach the issue of AI-generated works and copyright?

Turkish law, based on previous rulings by the Court of Cassation, does not recognize AI-generated works as eligible for copyright. It states that works must be created by a human, and the contribution of the person giving commands to AI does not reach the level of originality needed for copyright ownership.

What does the Turkish legal system emphasize when determining if a work qualifies for copyright?

The Turkish legal system emphasizes that the work must reflect the 'personal character' or originality of the creator, meaning that it must be a product of significant human creativity and not just the output of a tool or machine.

What major legal decisions have been made regarding AI and copyright in other countries?

In the U.S., a court ruled that AI-generated works cannot be copyrighted because the creator must be human. Conversely, in China, a court ruled that the person who gives commands to the AI is the rightful copyright owner of AI-generated works.

How do the policies in China and the U.S. differ regarding AI-generated works and copyright?

China recognizes the person who gives commands to AI as the rightful copyright owner, encouraging more people to create works using AI. In contrast, the U.S. maintains that only humans can hold copyright, thus discouraging the notion of AI ownership.

What is the broader implication of granting or denying copyright to AI-generated works?

Granting copyright to AI-generated works could encourage more people to use AI creatively, fostering technological innovation and economic gain. Denying copyright might discourage individuals from investing in AI-driven creative processes, limiting its potential for artistic and economic contributions.