(L-R)Mary S. Mathew and Aleksandra Sitnick of Dentons. Courtesy photos Legal Implications of Use of AI-Generated Art in Intellectual Property
The rise of AI-generated art raises various legal challenges regarding intellectual property, particularly about copyright in such works, while carrying trademark implications, according to Dentons' Mary S. Mathew and Aleksandra Sitnick.
June 30, 2023 at 01:33 PM
6 minute read
Artificial intelligence has revolutionized various industries and fields, including the creation of artwork and its implications in the intellectual property field. As AI technology has become more accessible and reliable, many individuals and businesses are turning to AI-based resources to create logos and branding designs. The rise of AI-generated art raises various legal challenges regarding intellectual property, particularly about copyright in such works, while carrying trademark implications.
AI-generated artwork raises questions of copyright ownership, including in artistic creations such as drawings, paintings and sculptures. Under U.S. copyright law, the creator of the artwork generally owns the copyright unless the artwork is a work made for hire. When an AI algorithm creates an artwork, questions arise as to who is the actual creator of the work, and thus, who owns the copyright in the work. Is it the party that owns the underlying algorithm or the party that rendered the final artwork, or both?
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Husch Blackwell Hires Former Adobe Counsel to Oversee AI Advisory Offering
3 minute read
Legal Tech's Predictions for Artificial Intelligence in 2025
Anthropic Agrees to 'Guardrails' for Its AI Training to Protect Copyrighted Lyrics Pending Fight Over Fair Use
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1AI Disclosures Under the Spotlight: SEC Expectations for Year-End Filings
- 2Attorney Sanctioned $9K for Revealing Nude Photos, Other Info in Court Filing
- 3Shifting Battlegrounds in Administrative Law, From Biden to Trump II
- 4Bar Report - Jan. 13
- 5Newsmakers: Robert Collins, Barron Wallace Elected to Bracewell’s Management Committee
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
