What are some of the jurisdictional differences in ownership rights?

- Would you like me to speak a bit about, again, the difference in jurisdiction when it comes to - Yeah, please - ownership rights. - Yeah, absolutely. - So I'll let Jen talk in a moment about the US which I think is much more of a typical situation around the world, but the UK is very interesting because along with a handful of other countries and I think that's Ireland, South Africa, India, and Hong Kong, it actually has expressed protection for computer generated works as copyright. So where you've had a computer generate something in circumstances where in the eyes of the law there's no human author, it's still a copyright work and it's owned by the person who made the arrangements. And what we need to do there, whether you're a small business or a large business, is have some certainty about who that person who made the arrangements is. And because the law's not very clear on that what you really want is an agreement beforehand to say who's actually going to own any rights in the outputs. But what you have is a right you can enforce within a country and I should say, there's some doubts about whether the law still works in the UK, by the way. It's not plain sailing. But what you don't have is an international right. And so I think Jen can explain the US position which is, I think, more representative of the rest of the world. - Yeah, I think that's right. So we have a human authorship requirement which practically means if you have an AI system or that generates some kind of creative work, say, let's take Midjourney because we have some examples of that. Midjourney outputting an image in response to a prompt. We have a couple of decisions from the US Copyright Office saying the outputs from Midjourney are not protected under a copyright law because there's no human author at the helm of those images. By contrast, if you augment those images in some way. You know there are open questions as to what aspects you can protect, from your manipulation and augmentation of those works. But machine generated works, just as a pure issue, will fall outside of our copyright laws into the public domain. - As long as it can be proven that it is a machine generated work I would assume. - Yes, the US Copyright Office this year, there are roles of duty and candor and there are rules saying if you know that your registered work was created using AI, you need to note as such on your application and failure to make such disclosures could have very adverse consequences down the road should you ever try to enforce that registration. But, Gar, you're correct. Any work out there maybe you're not registering it at the Copyright Office you don't need to in order to have a copyright. - Uh huh. - Yeah, no. - I think what's needed is for sort of grownup discussion about when you should use generative AI. If you're acting on the basis that you won't get any copyright in it. And there are lots of applications where it's still, in terms of business, makes perfect sense. So we advise various media companies and they are being asked to use generative AI by clients. And that's often to make sure that they reduce costs and they achieve turnaround and they can ideate much faster and the like. And if they're doing it for ephemeral social media posts does it really matter if there's no copyright.