Who’s the Author?. Does Intent equals Authorship?

Does Intent equals Authorship?

Way back in 1884, the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decided that humans, and not the camera, were creators of the photographic work (Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony).

Bring this forward today concerning generative AI, and the Federal Register says this-

When an AI technology determines the expressive elements of its output, the generated material is not the product of human authorship. As a result, that material is not protected by copyright and must be disclaimed in a registration application.

And yet, according to the AP, a Mr. Steve Kramer, back in May 2024, faces a $6 million dollar fine plus jail time for using generative AI to create a fake Biden voice telling people not to vote in the NH primaries.

It’s odd that someone is being held criminally accountable for something they didn’t author, as per the Copyright Office.

Of course, we could argue about distribution, but the actual recording isn’t his.

He claims he got it from a magician.

Then back in February of 2024, because of the investigation of this case, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), outlawed AI generated robocalls per the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

All this criminal activity protection proves my point that the machine of AI is just like a camera that takes photos. The human sets up the shot and takes the photo. With AI, the human prompts it, and the machine generates it.

Thus, I argue if generative AI can be used for criminal intent, then humans are the authors when the intent is not criminal.