The U.S. Copyright Office states "copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity. Most fundamentally, the term “author,” which is used in both the Constitution and the Copyright Act, excludes non-humans." While rulings on the ability to copyright AI-generated content may vary, this statement may be interpreted as confirming that purely-AI-generated content is unable to be copyrighted as it contains no human authorship. There have been some cases where a work containing AI-generated content was copyrightable as a whole because it also contained extensive human-authored elements (such as a book with human-generated text and AI-generated images). In these cases, the material within the work that is AI-generated is not copyrightable by itself.
"If a work's traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it. For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the 'traditional elements of authorship' are determined and executed by the technology—not the human user."
"In other cases, however, a work containing AI-generated material will also contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim. For example, a human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that 'the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.'"
Information cited from "Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence"
AI Large Language Models, like ChatGPT, rely on their access to available information to "train" the models to be able to generate response. There are differing opinions on whether the use of copyrighted content in training AI models should be considered Fair Use or not. While many argue that these models are subject to copyright law and cannot use the content without the author's permission, others, such as representatives at Creative Commons, argue that copyright doesn't apply to AI training. This is similar to arguments about the lawfulness of text- and data-mining of copyrighted materials. Much of the distinction of opinions lies within the difference between the input of copyrighted material to the model and the output of generated content -- some find that the input does not violate copyright but if the output is too similar to the original material, copyright may be violated.
AI can carry ethical complications that should be considered. In addition to copyright and data privacy concerns, users should also be aware of the environmental impact of AI use and data centers and be aware of concerns over maintaining academic integrity when AI is used for research and used in the classroom.
Those wishing to use AI to assist in researching and/or writing material that they intend to publish need to make sure they have familiarized themselves with publishers' authorship policies for AI use, especially regarding restrictions.
"Generative AI tools and technologies, such as ChatGPT, may not be listed as authors of an ACM published Work. The use of generative AI tools and technologies to create content is permitted but must be fully disclosed in the Work."
“Authors are allowed to use generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process before submission, but only to improve the language and readability of their paper and with the appropriate disclosure, as per our instructions in Elsevier’s Guide for Authors(opens in new tab/window).”
"Firstly, because these tools cannot take accountability for such work, AI tools/large language models cannot be credited with authorship of any Emerald publication. Secondly, any use of AI tools within the development of an Emerald publication must be flagged by the author(s) within the paper, chapter or case study."
“The use of content generated by artificial intelligence (AI) in a paper (including but not limited to text, figures, images, and code) shall be disclosed in the acknowledgments section of any paper submitted to an IEEE publication.”
“Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, do not currently satisfy our authorship criteria. Notably an attribution of authorship carries with it accountability for the work, which cannot be effectively applied to LLMs. Use of an LLM should be properly documented in the Methods section (and if a Methods section is not available, in a suitable alternative part) of the manuscript.”
"Natural language processing tools driven by artificial intelligence (AI) do not qualify as authors, and the Journal will screen for them in author lists. The use of AI (for example, to help generate content, write code, or process data) should be disclosed both in cover letters to editors and in the Methods or Acknowledgements section of manuscripts."
"Contributions by artificial intelligence (AI) tools and technologies to a study or to an article’s contents must be clearly reported in a dedicated section of the Methods, or in the Acknowledgements section for article types lacking a Methods section."
"The currently available language models are not fully objective or factual. Authors using generative AI to write their research must make every effort to ensure that the output is factually correct, and the references provided reflect the claims made."
"Authors must be aware that using AI-based tools and technologies for article content generation, e.g. large language models (LLMs), generative AI, and chatbots (e.g. ChatGPT), is not in line with our authorship criteria. Where AI tools are used in content generation, they must be acknowledged and documented appropriately in the authored work."
"The final decision about whether use of an AIGC tool is appropriate or permissible in the circumstances of a submitted manuscript or a published article lies with the journal’s editor or other party responsible for the publication’s editorial policy."
