On march 28 1999, futurama, created by Matt Groeing aired, introducing a show that was set in the year 3000, and a cast of characters that were loved by many. One such character was “bender bending rodriguez” a highly advanced AI robot made specifically for bending. The unique character had a list of attributes from his cigars to his robot-scumbag personality, and he was an instant hit with watchers. People loved his dynamics with the other characters in the show, and his ability to never get caught stealing (even though he did it so blatantly) was amazing. However, an AI as advanced as that is a whole-lot more complicated than the show makes it seem, especially because not even judges in today's courtrooms know how to deal with AI. In the article, Generative AI is a nightmare for copyright law , by Kate Crawford and Jason Shultz, the authors argue that generative AI is not fair to artists and creators. They note that “For many artists and designers, AI feels like an existential threat. As Their work is being used to train AI systems, which can then create images and texts that replicate their artistic style.” Furthermore, they also remind readers that “Typical copyright lawsuits focus on a single work and a single unauthorized copy, or “output,” to determine if infringement has occurred. When it comes to the capture of online data to train AI systems, the sheer scale and scope of these datasets overwhelms traditional analysis.”. And while Jason and kates article is a little confusing, the strength of this article lies in their ability to know these laws well enough to show people both sides of the coin as they explain “Anglo-American law Perry pg2 presumes that work has an “author” somewhere. To encourage human creativity, some authors need the economic incentive of a time-limited monopoly on making, selling, and showing their work. But algorithms don’t need incentives. So according to the US Copyright Office they aren’t entitled to copyright.” However no matter what they think, Generative artificial intelligence IS creating a major crisis in copyright law. Last year, over a dozen AI-related copyright cases were filed in the US, a significant increase from previous years. Each case had to be looked at individually, If AI trains on copyrighted works without permission it could lead to a copyright infringement claim. This depends on how closely the AI output resembles the original work. Determining how much human input is included in an AI generated work can be complex. Even if an AI generated work isn’t copyrightable, using it to create work with a lot of human assistance, it could still be protected by copyright laws. In early 2023, the US Copyright Office began a comprehensive review of the copyright system, focusing on generative AI. This technology is challenging the fundamental concepts of copyright law, which has been in place since the 1710 British statute. Traditional copyright cases usually involve a single work and an unauthorized copy, but AI training involves massive datasets, making traditional analysis difficult. And like I said, Shultz explained that US courts may consider AI training on copyrighted works to be fair use, which, in turn, allows limited use without permission. That made everyone a little confused. The article left everyone who read it online wondering how Generative AI doesn't supposedly have an author, when it gets its responses from algorithms that pull things off of the internet, gets trained through, as the article says “people’s copyrighted works” and lastly, pulls ideas from other peoples, books (i'll talk more about books later), articles, websites (etc). Through that thought process, no one really bought what the article was saying and instead, everyone was left with the same question. “Who is the Perry pg3 author of AI?”. I believe that this next article can be used to help answer that question. Scott M Douglass and Dominic in their article “The Fast-Moving Race Between Gen-AI and Copyright Law.” wrote, “content creators (including Sarah Silverman, Getty Images, and The New York Times) are suing developers of generative AI systems, most prominently but not exclusively OpenAI, for using their copyrighted works to train AI systems without licensed permission.” Putting that all together we see that generative AI can be copyrighted because it uses people's copyrighted basis ideas and works to function, while it cannot be copyrighted because it's an AI system with no author. So again, everyone is left confused, debating on what side of the AI coin is more fair. Further in Douglass and Rotas article they state “Direct Infringement by Reproduction. One of the three major claims plaintiffs raise is direct copyright infringement through the reproduction, or copying, of copyrighted works to train generative AI systems. To establish a prima facie claim of infringement, the plaintiff must show ownership of a valid copyright and copying of the original elements of the work that are protected by copyright. A few claims of infringement against AI companies have already progressed past the motion-to-dismiss stage, but the courts' rulings shed little light on the ultimate resolution of these claims.” While yes, that is a big step in the right direction, it can only help prove that there is an author of that single AI and they are the people who can actually find direct “word for word” pieces of their copyrighted work in a generated response. However, there are many authors for one AI, and it can’t help people like Sarah Silverman, who want to sue because an AI was trained, like I said, without licensed permission. (copying their works and ideas without expressly using the same words in the same order or infringing). In a very short article called: “Sarah Silverman Lawsuit Against OpenAI Suffers Setback As Judge Trims Case” by Winston Cho, it is stated that judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín dismissed silvermans case because, in her words “the law “expressly preempts Perry pg4 state law claims” relating to works “within the subject matter of copyright.” The authors argued that the unfair business practice at issue was using their works to train ChatGPT without permission. But since the allegedly infringed materials are copyrighted books and plays, they cannot bring a state law claim, which the court concluded should be under the purview of copyright law.” Basically saying that because it's a book or written work (script, book, play, song etc). it's for other people to enjoy and directly benefit from, so it's not protected by that particular copyright law. In Artists Score Major Win in Copyright Case Against AI Art Generators. By again, winston cho, he said: “Artists suing generative artificial intelligence art generators have cleared a major hurdle in a first-of-its-kind lawsuit over the uncompensated and unauthorized use of billions of images downloaded from the internet to train AI systems, with a federal judge allowing key claims to move forward. U.S. District Judge William Orrick on Monday advanced all copyright infringement and trademark claims in a pivotal win for artists. He found that Stable Diffusion, Stability’s AI tool that can create hyper realistic images in response to a prompt of just a few words, may have been “built to a significant extent on copyrighted works” and created with the intent to “facilitate” infringement. The order could entangle in the litigation any AI company that incorporated the model into its products.” This was a breakthrough, as this was the first time that a person successfully sued an AI without finding “word for word” or “picture for picture” evidence. Karla Ortiz, a woman credited for creating the marvel on screen look for “Dr. Strange” had successfully sued generative AI, so what was different from all the other failed attempts at winning against open AI or generative AI in court, and what was successful about this one? Well to answer that we need to look at another passage from Mr. cho “Siding with artists, Orrick concluded that they sufficiently alleged that Stable Diffusion is built off of copyrighted material and that the “way the product operates necessarily invokes copies or protected elements of those works.” In a finding that could spell trouble for AI companies that used the model, he said Perry Pg5 that Stability and Runway could’ve promoted copyright infringement and that Stable Diffusion was “created to facilitate that infringement by design.” saying that the photos taken from the database and dispersed through different AIs could heavily influence the generative outcome. The specific difference between this and Sarah SIlverman's case is that, yes the AI grew off of both of the peoples in questions works, but in Ortiz’s case the photos taken by the AI could (and were) literally just being tweaked ever so slightly so that the outcome was a copyrighted picture dressed to look like your prompt; while silvermans works weren't necessarily being copied at all. It was more of a “format” or a “way of speaking” that was being copied. None of her actual copyrighted works were being used. So what does this tell us about the author of AI? Well it shows us that 1. There can be many “authors” to one system, especially open AI with all of its branches, 2. It shows us that there can be “direct authors” like Ortiz and contributing authors like Silverman. And lastly, putting all of this together, we can see that, to answer my research question, there isn't one “Author of IA”. Instead, there are many authors in every single one of the MANY AI systems out there, whether they've contributed very little, or a whole ton. And in the end it's up to people like Judge Orrik and Judge Martínez-Olguín to do justice by the copyright infringement law, and the people that stand behind it.