Generative AI has transformed the advertising industry, transforming content production, consumer interaction, and backend operations. Advertisers may utilise generative AI systems to automate the creation of creative content such as text, graphics, articles, and marketing materials. However, despite the benefits of generative AI in terms of efficiency, cost savings, and productivity, the early stage of AI research comes with specific inherent legal issues and impediments that advertisers must consider.
According to research by law firm Khaitan & Co and the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), legal repercussions such as copyright infringement are more crucial than ever in these changing times. Concerns about the ownership of AI-generated material, data security, potential AI bias, and other issues have also been raised.
Infringement against intellectual property rights
When it comes to intellectual property infringement, generative AI may be challenging. For example, a song including the AI-generated and cloned vocals of 'The Weekend' and 'Drake' was uploaded and streamed over 15 million times before being removed. In another case, after announcing that his winning image was made using AI, photographer Boris Eldagsen renounced a Sony World Photography Award. This finding has ignited a debate regarding the role of artificial intelligence in photography.
The status of AI-generated content is still being determined under the Copyright Act
The Copyright Act of 1957 protects original works in India and defines the 'author' as the creator. Because AI is not recognised as a legal entity, copyright protection for AI-generated material must be clarified, creating questions about ownership and infringement. Advertisers and marketing firms may face difficulties asserting legal ownership of AI-generated works.
To avoid copyright infringement, generative AI models rely on two types of data: training data and user input. Because of the ambiguous status of AI in copyright law, considerable study is required to assure compliance and protection.
Why advertising must be mindful and cautious
According to the research, AI is not acknowledged as a legal entity in India, making AI-generated works without human input ineligible for copyright protection. As a result, advertisers may need legal ownership of AI-generated content with minimal remedies if third-party infringement occurs. Furthermore, marketing firms must be regarded as lawful owners to transfer ownership of AI-created content to their customers adequately.
How marketers may reduce their liability risks
According to the research, a significant focus is on adequately evaluating AI platform agreements, obtaining necessary authorizations for copyrighted information, and avoiding forbidden input as much as possible. Implementing effective content review processes, establishing rules, and integrating AI disclaimers all play essential roles in reducing potential risks.
Protecting private data by enforcing non-disclosure agreements and implementing effective security measures is also critical. Human work is proposed to be upskilled to preserve human control, ensure responsible AI use, and successfully reduce legal and ethical hazards.
Prospects for the Future
According to the Khaitan-ASCI white paper, stakeholder participation is critical in negotiating AI complexity and engaging developers, policymakers, experts, users, and the general public. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India (MEITY) and NITI Aayog efforts and the planned Digital India Act with AI rules demonstrate the government's understanding of AI in India.
Focusing on justice, responsibility, transparency, and ethics guides responsible AI development. The EU AI Act, for example, harmonises regulatory norms by learning from global viewpoints. Effective rules balance innovation and rights, privacy, and worker effect. A collaborative approach promotes trust, ethical AI practises, and social advantages.