Sirens Gallery is a gallery of NFT images generated using a unique AI-based technology. The goal of the project is to raise funds to help victims of war and resolve the humanitarian disaster in Ukraine.
This project was created with the assistance of the Ministry of Digital Transformation, launched by the Ukrainian startup ZibraAI, and all the money collected from it is promised to go to the Ukrainian charitable funds Dobro.ua and Unchain.fund.
WHAT EXACT NFT DOES ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE CREATE?
The NFT works in the Sirens Gallery collection are neural network-generated paintings depicting the main events of Russia’s war against Ukraine in chronological order.
The development team created technology based on artificial intelligence: collected and described 150 of the most important events of the war, and a neural network generated digital images based on textual descriptions. The gallery includes scenes of the fight for the Gostomelsky airport, the attack of the “Russian warship” on the Snake Island and many other key events of this war.
In total, the gallery features 1,991 images of the most iconic events that will be available for purchase as NFT tokens. The minimum starting price for one NFT is equivalent to 100 USD. The most expensive NFT will cost $10,000. The sale of NFT images will be organized in three stages.
WHAT ABOUT THE RIGHTS TO SUCH CREATED NFT?
We have already talked in the article “Artificial intelligence copyright” about the main nuances of the emergence and disposition of copyright thanks to artificial intelligence – who has copyright and whether it arises at all.
Using this example, we want to answer 2 questions once and for all:
- Do artificial intelligence have intellectual property rights (including copyright);
- Does the developer of artificial intelligence have intellectual property rights to objects created by such artificial intelligence?
To answer these 2 questions, let’s turn to international practice regarding the determination of authorship of such created works, namely:
- objects are created by humans (humans create artificial intelligence or other objects)
- objects are created by artificial intelligence independently (humans create artificial intelligence, and artificial intelligence creates other objects)
If everything is clear with the first example – a person created artificial intelligence, he is the author of such a software code, a computer program. Or a person wrote a poem, wrote a song, came up with a new recipe, etc. – then the person will be the author of such created objects of copyright.
Regarding the second example: the result of the intellectual and creative activity of the developer of artificial intelligence will be such artificial intelligence in the form of a computer program or code. This is the end of the creative activity of the developer. The works generated by the program mostly do not contain any influence of the developer, because it creates them by executing a certain algorithm.
Thus, recognition of the developer as the author of works generated by artificial intelligence does not comply with the current legislation. Pointing to the user of artificial intelligence, since he created artificial intelligence, then he is the author of everything that artificial intelligence will create is also not appropriate, because such a vision violates the concept of copyright and intellectual property rights in general.
Typically, all user actions related to the process of creating works by artificial intelligence consist of launching the corresponding computer program and loading it with information, materials or setting the settings necessary to create the final result. Such actions are difficult to qualify as creative or intellectual activity.
Despite these arguments, the legislation of countries such as the United Kingdom of Great Britain, India, and New Zealand provides that the authors of works generated by artificial intelligence are natural persons with the help of which the corresponding program created the work. That is, the author of the poem written by the computer program will be the person who provided the prerequisites for the program’s activity (developed it or set the settings).
WHAT IS THE COURT PRACTICE FOR SUCH CASES?
The global position on non-recognition of works created by artificial intelligence as an object of intellectual property rights remains unchanged. In particular, this is confirmed by the courts’ approaches to the interpretation of authorship. Judicial practice mainly distinguishes two categories of works:
- is created by artificial intelligence independently
- is created by humans with the help of artificial intelligence
Unlike the first category, works created by a person using artificial intelligence, provided they are original, are objects of intellectual property, and a person (the author) has intellectual property rights over them. Such works are endowed with legal protection. Works that were created only by artificial intelligence belong to objects that are not subject to legal protection.
Neither in Ukraine, nor in other countries, works created by artificial intelligence are objects of intellectual property rights. They can be used without restrictions. However, we all have to watch how national and international legislation will develop in the future.
