To Err is Human, To Rescind-Declined

Under the Copyright Act of 1976, copyright protection “subsists in any original work of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now know or later developed, from which they can be perceived or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.”^ The Act goes on to state that works that may receive copyright protection are not limited to script or printed material but may include “any physical rendering of the fruits of creative intellectual or aesthetic labor.”^

Throughout its history, and despite the Act’s somewhat archaic language, copyright law has proven to be adaptable enough to cover all manner of works created with new and emerging technologies. However, the traditional understanding of copyright law is being challenged by the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) and its ability to produce new creations.

The US District Court for the District of Columbia. recently ruled that works created autonomously by AI are not susceptible of copyright protection. In Thaler v. Perlmutter, Stephen Thaler appealed an administrative decision by the United States Copyright office denying his application to register the copyright for an image generated by an AI program he developed. The court’s decision examined the meaning of what it means to be an “author,” as defined by the Copyright Act and held that only works of human authorship are susceptible of copyright protection under U.S. law.*

The court compared the issue to a case from 1884 that examined whether copyright protection could extend to the then-cutting edge field of photography. In Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, it was argued that a photograph should not qualify as a protected work because it was created by a camera. The US Supreme Court disagreed and held that while a camera may generate a “mechanical reproduction” of a scene, it does so only after the photographer develops a “mental conception” of the photograph^^. The court reasoned that the technology used to create the work was immaterial so long as there was human involvement in and creative control over the work.

In a later case, the US Ninth Circuit examined a case in which a crested macaque monkey took a photograph of himself, and various parties attempted to file suit on the monkey’s behalf to confirm copyright protection for the monkey’s photograph.** While the case was decided on standing grounds, the court considered whom the Copyright Act was designed to protect and concluded that the act was designed solely to protect humans.

The Thaler court identified no authority supporting copyright protection in any work originating from a non-human.* However, the issue presented in Thaler was limited to copyright protections for a work created solely by an AI, absent any human input. Therefore, it remains to be seen how courts will address issues related to copyright protection for images that blend human and AI origins.

We stand in a new frontier in both technology and copyright law. As artists and developers increasingly use AI as a tool, the increased distance between human creativity and the final product will present challenging questions regarding how much human input is necessary to afford these creations protection under copyright law.*

References:

^17 U.S.C § 102(a)

* Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 22-CV-01564-BAH, R. Doc. 24 (Filed 08/18/23).

^^ Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 59 (1884).

** Naruto v. Slater, 888 F.3d 418 (9^th Cir. 2018).

In Reynolds v. Bordelon, 2014-2362 (La. 6/30/15), — So.3d—, 2015 WL 3972370, the Louisiana Supreme Court definitively ruled that Louisiana law does not recognize a cause of action for negligent spoliation of evidence. This resolved a disputed issue of Louisiana law.

The Reynolds plaintiff was involved in a multi-car accident in which his airbag failed to deploy. His insurance company paid what was owed for the totaled vehicle under its policy and, in the normal course of business, disposed of the vehicle by auctioning it to a salvage yard. Plaintiff’s petition included a claim against the auto manufacturer for the airbag failure. It also included a claim against his insurance company and the salvage yard for failure to preserve the vehicle as evidence likely to be used in litigation.

The Supreme Court classified the insurer and salvage yard as "third parties" to the lawsuit and categorized the plaintiff's claims against them as a negligent spoliation theory. In rejecting these third-party claims, the Court declared a claim for negligent spoliation to be against Louisiana public policy.

First, the tort would not deter future conduct, but would instead penalize a party unaware of potential wrongdoing. Second, liability for such a tort would be based upon great speculation regarding the value of the evidence at issue. Lastly, it would create unnecessary litigation and place a substantial burden upon society as a whole because third parties not even aware of litigation would be required to adopt cumbersome retention policies to reduce exposure to liability.

To prevent spoliation of evidence by third parties, a plaintiff who anticipates litigation should instead enter into an agreement with the third party or obtain a court order to preserve the evidence. By doing so, the plaintiff preserves a potential breach of contract claim regarding the evidence or can seek remedies for violation of the court order in the event the evidence is lost or destroyed.

Under Reynolds, the plaintiff cannot assert a claim for negligent spoliation of evidence. However, the Court confirmed that discovery sanctions and criminal sanctions remain viable against “first parties” who intentionally destroy evidence, Further, third parties may still be liable if a plaintiff can demonstrate a breach of a contract to preserve the evidence.

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently issued a ruling on the application of the "open and obvious" doctrine in slip and fall cases. The facts of Broussard v. State of Louisiana, 2012-1238 (La. 4/5/13), presented problems for both sides. A UPS driver tripped and fell over an offset between the floor and an elevator. The elevator in a State building had problems for years. One problem was that the elevator would not align properly between floors causing an offset between the floor and the elevator. However, the UPS driver delivered products to this particular State building daily and was well aware of the problem. At the time of the incident, he noticed that the elevator was not properly aligned but nevertheless attempted to pull a dolly with approximately 300 pounds of computer paper over the offset. The inertia created caused the plaintiff to lose control. Plaintiff sued the State, the owner of the building, for injury to his back.

To recover damages from an owner of a building for a slip and fall, a plaintiff must prove: 1) ownership of the building; 2) owner's knowledge of the defect; 3) that damage could have been prevented by reasonable care; 4) that the owner failed to exercise reasonable care; 5) causation of damages; and 6) that the defect in the building created an unreasonable risk of harm. La. C.C. art. 2322; Entrevia v. Hood, 427 So. 2d 1146 (La. 1983). It was the "unreasonable risk of harm" element that was at issue before the Broussard Court.

Louisiana jurisprudence has created a risk-utility balancing test to determine if a defect in a building poses an unreasonable risk of harm. The risk-utility balance test consists of four factors: 1) the utility of the complained-of condition; (2) the likelihood and magnitude of harm, including the obviousness and apparentness of the condition; (3) the cost of preventing the harm; and (4) the nature of the plaintiff's activities in terms of its social utility or whether it is dangerous by nature. Dauzet v. Curnest Guillot Logging, Inc., 08-0528 (La. 12/2/08), 995 So. 2d 1184.

In applying this balancing test, the jury found the State 62% liable and Plaintiff 38% liable for Plaintiff's damage. The court of appeal reversed that decision. It found that, where the Plaintiff knew of the defect, the defect was "open and obvious" such that the State had no duty to protect against the condition.

The Louisiana Supreme Court disagreed. Under the specific facts of the case, the Court found that Plaintiff's knowledge of the defect was insufficient to meet the open and obvious test. According to the Court, for a defect to be considered open and obvious it must be open and obvious to all. "Thus, in order to be open and obvious, the risk of harm should be apparent to all who encounter the dangerous condition." Broussard, p. 17.

The Supreme Court reasoned that the open and obvious question is not based upon the plaintiff's particular state of mind. Such an analysis is akin to assumption of the risk - a theory of law that was omitted when Louisiana enacted its comparative fault regime. Instead, the open and obvious to all standard is, according to Broussard, "sensible . . . and does not undermine the comparative fault regime by allowing a plaintiff's negligence to operate as a bar to recovery in a case where the defendant's conduct poses a risk of harm to the hypothetical blameless plaintiff." Id. p. 18.

The true impact of the Broussard decision remains to be seen. Under one reading, the opinion's impact should be limited to its specific facts. Under any interpretation, Broussard preserves the rule that an allegedly defective condition which is obvious to all will bar recovery to the plaintiff.