Skip to content
As the world continues to develop and understand Artificial Intelligence (AI), copyright disputes regarding AI are increasingly becoming more commonplace, with the big question being, what is the best way to deal with this influx of new cases?
What is mediation, and why is it important?
Mediation is a service that offers a faster, less adversarial route to resolution compared to regular court litigation, which is often slow and expensive. It is a crucial method commonly available to help when dealing with disputes. It will be beneficial with AI involvement, given the rapidly changing nature of generative AI and IP law. The use of mediation makes cases that could be lengthy and costly far more flexible and far cheaper, with rulings done on a case-by-case basis.
AI copyright disputes: What has been done so far?
Mediation is an excellent and adaptable framework to dissolve these conflicts, and the European Union Intellectual Property Office, otherwise known as EUIPO, has considered implementing this method in cases involving AI. Traditionally, the EUIPO is tasked with mediating disputes over trademarks, designs and copyright. Suppose the EUIPO ultimately decides to expand its mediation services to cover new emerging copyright disputes involving AI. In that case, it will help tackle how the EU can approach complex questions of authorship and ownership of Intellectual Property (IP).
Involving mediation in AI copyright would give copyright owners and creators more agency and control in defending their rights, without resorting to full litigation, which can be lengthy and costly. However, those who are using the AI and generative AI have expressed that this may be useful in dealing with copyright infringement; however, they highlight that there needs to be clear and transparent rulings across the board, which are consistent and not always case by case.
EU copyright law does not define the legal status of AI-generated content or works, leaving a level of ambiguity when it comes to disputes between creators, developers, and the courts. There have been attempts to form guidance or case law covering this issue; however, they always lack consistent outcomes. This is why the EUPIO is considering mediation, as it allows them to take cases on a case-by-case basis, avoiding blanket statements that could hinder the industry’s growth, which is outpacing the law’s ability to keep pace.
Currently, the EUIPO is testing and reaching out to legal professionals and those involved in the industries in question, AI developers, content creators, and copyright authorities and aims to release a formal announcement on their decision by the end of 2025. If the decision is to go ahead with involving mediation in copyright disputes involving AI generative content, the EUPIO would become the first in the world to do so.
Conclusion
The inclusion of mediation in copyright disputes involving AI is an attempt to challenge traditional litigation to stay responsive, responsible and up to date with the developing AI market. We are yet to see the outcome and mediation in this situation being used; however, the most common elements raised by parties from both for and against mediation in this environment are that if it is implemented, it must be clear and transparent.
