GPT3 & AI Business Law Issues: Copyright and Coding

It goes without saying that GPT3 (and its various artificial intelligence offshoots and variations) has created a tremendous business opportunity for established companies and startups that plan to use it in their businesses. While the application is in its infancy, the law that relates to it is not. If a business is going to utilize the GPT platform, it must take into account the legal landmines buried in the future landscape. The following is a list of five questions that a business should consider when using this technology.

Who owns the copyright for text and images when using GPT AI generation?

No doubt the ability of GPT3 to create everything from love sonnets to painted works in a matter of seconds is incredible; however, the challenge that presents itself is who owns the final product. While in previous iterations of search engine technology, the content would be harvested from an existing website, blog, or other posting, GPT AI-generated content appears to be created in a customized way that might not involve overt plagiarism. On that basis, (a) who owns the final product and (b) can it be legally utilized by the person who requested it?

When using AI and GPT to create the code for your application, who is legally entitled to the app’s royalty and other revenue and profit streams?

There are three basic ways of monetizing an app:

(1) selling the right to market the app;

(2) collecting the fees for downloading the app; or

(3) licensing the intellectual property utilized by the app, e.g.. videogame characters, music, artwork, etc.

Is the GPT3 user who asks the application to supply that user with the code to build the app entitled to its monetization? The corollary question is whether the user is legally allowed to register the app with a platform that will monetize it; in other words, how does one list themselves as an owner of digital property that has not been registered in a way that is legally recognized? Notwithstanding the fact that there is no human creator of the intellectual property who might challenge the assertion that the user registering it actually owns it, there are nevertheless, a number of scenarios in which such registration would be challenged by others. Examples would be competitors or others who come up with arguably infringing works.

How do you sue for damage caused by a GPT3 developed app?

One of the unusual advantages of the GPT application is that it can use artificial intelligence to prepare legal documents, financial analyses, architectural plans, and so forth that appear to be based upon thoughtful, expert opinion. But there is no such expert involved, and the application is actually using artificial intelligence to make it seem as if there is. While the cost-saving may be an advantage (since it is presently free), who is responsible for the inaccuracies that may arise in those products when there is no responsible person verifying their accuracy? What are the legal rights of someone who is damaged by a document that was not drafted under prevailing standards of professional care? The issue is compounded by the fact that the person using those products may not even be told they were drafted by AI, rather than by an actual person.

How can you rely on an AI algorithm that is known for lying at least some of the time?

One of the more interesting drawbacks of GPT3 is that it sometimes answers a natural-language question with an answer that is untrue. If the user relies on the answer to their detriment, who do they sue? In other words, if one knows that GPT3 is capable of lying, how can a business owner rely on any answer it provides? In addition, is the business owner liable for relying on a result that is obviously and notoriously unreliable?

Who is legally liable for the mental distress that GPT3-generated content might cause a user?

It appears that one of the more compelling reasons that the dissemination of GPT3 as a practical search engine has been held up relates, in part, to the fact that the AI might produce answers to questions that contain inappropriate language or references that are otherwise offensive. Simply put, there does not appear to be a filter to prevent bias and hate speech. To the extent that a user alleges that they suffered emotional distress as a result, who do they sue?

The Nissenbaum Law Group welcomes potential clients who are seeking legal advice in utilizing GPT3-generated content for their businesses.

The Nissenbaum Law Group has a focus on digital law that includes representing businesses that seek to take advantage of cutting-edge technology, such as artificial intelligence enhanced platforms, including adjuncts to, or variations of, the nascent Google platform LaMDA or Microsoft’s ChatGPT powered Bing. The firm encourages any businesses with questions or concerns about the legal issues engendered by using artificial intelligence platforms—including the copyright and other intellectual property protections that may be necessary— to contact Mr. Nissenbaum at gdn@gdnlaw.com.