61. From Greek “Techne” to Generative Artificial Intelligence: The Fascinating Evolution of the Concept of Creativity
632. Can a machine be the owner of intellectual property rights?
72. Authors not human but not artificial either: the parallelism with works created by animals
643. The U.S. Copyright Office guidelines
82.1. Most emblematic cases
654. It is always a question of autonomy
92.2. Non-human creations and the clear position of the U.S. Copyright Office
664.1. What rights over works supervised by a human user?
103. Machine-mediated creativity: a historical problem for copyright law
674.2. What rights over unsupervised works?
114. A human-centered copyright
685. The prompt: what is its function and level of copyright protection?
125. The idea of creativity for legal theory
696. The main short circuit: the similarity of outputs
135.1. The idea of creativity in Italian law
707. Towards a “hybrid” protection?
145.2. The concept of creativity for Anglo-American copyright
71Chapter 6 – What do the terms of service of the main platforms say about intellectual property?
156. “It’s not art! It’s just statistics”
721. Introduction
167. It’s all about autonomy
732. Terms of online services: general framework
178. Towards a new form of authorship
742.1. An agreement between the service provider and the user
188.1. Shared authorship and crowdsourced works
752.2. An additional layer of rules
198.2. Hybrid authorship and the concept of meta-author
762.3. The “psychological” aspect
208.3. A new way of creating... and thinking?
773. Licenses of AI software that can be installed on user’s devices
219. Law is late and technology makes the rules
783.1. Copyright licenses in general
2210. The focus on liability
793.2. Open licenses
2311. An ethical issue too (or perhaps mainly)
803.3. Main generative AI systems that can be installed on your devices: Stable Diffusion and Flux
24Chapter 2 – Artificial intelligence and intellectual property: the applicable principles
814. The distinction between provider and deployer in the AI Act
251. Exclusive rights over artificial intelligence systems and their models
825. The OSI Open Source AI Definition
261.1 Model in what sense
836. The TOS of OpenAI
271.2. What kind of work is the model?
846.1. Management of rights on generated content
281.3. Exclusive rights over the software component
856.2. The problem of similarity of outputs
291.4. Exclusive rights over the database?
866.3. A look at the sharing policy and usage policy
301.5. Exclusive rights over the “concept”. The hypothesis of patenting the model
877. The TOS of Midjourney
312. The exclusive rights affected by the AI systems training activity
888. The TOS of Claude.ai
322.1. Primarily, the rights of authors
899. The TOS of Leonardo.ai
332.2. There are also related rights (or neighbouring rights)
9010. The TOS of Deepseek
342.3 But above all, there is the sui generis right
91APPENDIX – Synthetic and schematic analysis of the most interesting judicial cases
352.4. Some reflections on image rights
92A – Thaler vs Perlmutter/USCO (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, USA, 2023)
362.5. Some specific cases: the voices of voice actors and the images of famous people
93A.1 – Points analyzed by the Court
372.6. The (all-Italian) problem related to the reproduction of cultural heritage
94A.2 – Timeline of actions taken by Thaler
38Chapter 3 – The central issue of AI training
95A.3 – Key Court considerations
391. Just another scraping of the internet
96A.4 – The decision of the Court of Appeal
402. The so-called text and data mining
97B – Li vs Liu (Beijing Internet Court, China, 2023)
413. The insidious misunderstanding
98B.1 – Points analyzed by the Court
424. The recurring (and wrong) question: do AIs “plagiarize” works?
99B.2 – Timeline of actions taken by Li
435. Do generative AIs copy artists’ style (and thus infringe copyright for that)?
100C – Zarya of the Dawn (U.S. Copyright Office, USA, 2022)
446. A new market is born: licenses for training AI systems
101C.1 – Aspects analyzed by the Copyright Office
457. Fair use and transformative use: the U.S. approach
102C.2 – Analysis of actions taken by Kris Kashtanova
468. The viewpoint of European law
103C.3 – Additional considerations
478.1. The 2019 CDSM directive and the text and data mining exception
104D – Biancheri vs RAI (Supreme Court of Cassation, Italy, 2023)
488.2. The 2020 Resolution and the AI Act
105D.1 – Timeline of legal proceedings
49Chapter 4 – The most interesting copyright infringement lawsuits in AI training
106D.2 – Key points examined by the Court
501. Introduction
107D.3 – Considerations by the Supreme Court of Cassation
512. Andersen + McKernan + Ortiz vs. Stability AI Ltd. + Midjourney Inc. + DeviantArt, Inc.
108D.4 – Implications for the use of advanced technologies in artistic creation
523. Raw Story Media and AlterNet Media vs. OpenAI
109Sources and readings for further study
534. Robert Kneschke vs. LAION
110Articles, essays and commentaries
545. Getty Images Inc vs. Stability AI Inc.
111Court decisions and other official documents
556. New York Times vs. Open AI
112White papers and project reports
567. Alan Giana vs. Shein
113Other works by the author on this and related topics (all are freely available online, many under Creative Commons licenses)
578. Thomson Reuters vs. ROSS Intelligence
