Diving into the intricate world of intellectual property law, we’re thrilled to speak with Desiree Sainthrope, a legal expert with a wealth of experience in drafting and analyzing trade agreements. With her deep knowledge of global compliance and a keen interest in the intersection of technology and law, Desiree offers unparalleled insights into how artificial intelligence is reshaping copyright issues for media and content creators worldwide. In this conversation, we explore the challenges AI poses to creative industries, the diverse approaches countries are taking to regulate AI and IP rights, the legal uncertainties stemming from these differences, and the impact on cross-border projects. Desiree also shares practical strategies for navigating this fragmented legal landscape.
How do you see the rapid growth of AI reshaping the creative industries, particularly when it comes to intellectual property rights?
The growth of AI is fundamentally transforming the creative industries, from music and film to visual arts. It’s enabling unprecedented levels of innovation, like generating scripts or artwork in minutes, but it’s also disrupting traditional notions of authorship and ownership. Intellectual property rights, which were built around human creativity, are being challenged by questions of who—or what—owns AI-generated content. For media and entertainment companies, this means rethinking how they protect their assets. I’ve seen a surge in disputes over whether AI contributions can be copyrighted at all, and content creators are often caught in a gray area, unsure if their work will hold up legally. It’s a double-edged sword—AI offers incredible tools, but it’s also creating a minefield of IP risks.
What specific hurdles have you observed for media companies due to these AI advancements?
One major hurdle is the lack of clarity around ownership of AI-generated content. Media companies are investing heavily in AI tools for things like special effects or scriptwriting, but if the output isn’t copyrightable in certain jurisdictions, they risk losing control over valuable assets. Another issue is the potential for infringement—AI systems trained on vast datasets can inadvertently replicate copyrighted material, exposing companies to lawsuits. I’ve also noticed an uptick in concerns over deepfakes and unauthorized use of likenesses, which can damage reputations and lead to costly legal battles. These challenges are forcing companies to reassess their workflows and legal strategies.
Can you walk us through how different countries are approaching AI and copyright laws, and what stands out to you?
Absolutely. The global landscape is incredibly fragmented. Denmark, for instance, is pushing forward with innovative legislation to protect digital identities, focusing on curbing AI-generated deepfakes by granting individuals rights over their likenesses. On the other hand, Japan and Singapore have taken a more permissive stance, creating exceptions in their copyright laws to allow AI data training without prior consent, which encourages tech development. Meanwhile, Mexico’s Supreme Court has ruled that purely AI-generated works can’t be copyrighted, though hybrid works with human input remain a gray area. China’s recent court decision denying copyright for some AI-generated images suggests a possible alignment with stricter U.S. standards. What stands out is how these approaches reflect cultural and economic priorities—some prioritize innovation, others protection of individual rights.
How do you interpret the impact of Denmark’s proposed laws on digital identity protection in the context of global media production?
Denmark’s proposed laws are a game-changer, especially for global media production. By offering copyright-like protection for faces, voices, and likenesses, they’re addressing the very real threat of deepfakes and unauthorized digital replicas. For filmmakers or advertisers working with talent, this could mean stronger safeguards against misuse of an actor’s image, but it also adds complexity. If you’re shooting a film with a Danish cast member, you’ll need to ensure compliance with these protections, which might not exist elsewhere. It’s a forward-thinking move, but it could create friction in international projects where legal standards differ.
What are your thoughts on Mexico’s ruling that purely AI-generated works aren’t copyrightable, and how does this affect hybrid creations?
Mexico’s ruling is significant because it draws a hard line: if a work is entirely AI-generated, it’s not eligible for copyright protection. This reflects a broader debate about whether machines can be creators in a legal sense. For hybrid works—where humans and AI collaborate—the ruling leaves a lot unanswered. It’s unclear how much human input is needed to qualify for protection, which creates uncertainty for creators using AI as a tool. I think this could discourage full reliance on AI in content creation in Mexico, pushing artists to ensure they have a clear human footprint in their work to secure IP rights.
How do conflicting international approaches to AI and copyright create legal uncertainties for content creators?
The conflicting approaches create a patchwork of rules that can be incredibly hard to navigate. A TV production team might use AI-generated assets that are perfectly legal in Japan, where data training exceptions are broad, but face issues in Mexico, where such works might not be copyrightable. Similarly, in the EU, strict data privacy laws could limit how AI tools are used compared to more lenient jurisdictions. This inconsistency means creators have to tailor their processes to multiple legal frameworks, which is costly and time-consuming. It also opens the door to disputes over who owns what, especially when content crosses borders.
What challenges do filmmakers face with likeness rights when collaborating with talent from countries with differing laws?
Likeness rights are a huge challenge in international filmmaking. Take a project involving actors from Denmark, China, and the U.S.—each country has a different approach. Denmark’s proposed laws offer strong digital identity protection, while China’s recent rulings might not recognize certain AI-generated content as protectable, and the U.S. has a mix of state-level right-of-publicity laws. A filmmaker might secure consent for an actor’s likeness in one country, only to find it’s insufficient in another. This can lead to legal risks, like lawsuits over unauthorized use, and it often requires filmmakers to draft complex contracts to cover all bases.
How are cross-border media projects being affected by these fragmented copyright laws?
Cross-border projects are hit hard by this fragmentation. When content is developed, licensed, or distributed globally, companies face a maze of conflicting laws. For instance, securing distribution rights for a film with AI-generated elements might be straightforward in Singapore but problematic in Mexico. Ownership disputes are also common—different jurisdictions might recognize different parties as the rightful owner of the same content. I’ve seen companies struggle to even launch projects because legal teams can’t agree on how to mitigate risks across borders. It’s slowing down collaboration and increasing costs.
What strategies have you found effective for companies to secure ownership and distribution rights in this complex global environment?
One effective strategy is proactive legal planning. Companies should work with counsel familiar with international IP law to map out the jurisdictions involved in a project and tailor contracts accordingly. Using clear licensing agreements that specify how AI-generated content will be treated in different regions is crucial. I’ve also seen success with hybrid approaches—ensuring there’s documented human input in AI-assisted works to strengthen copyright claims. Building relationships with local partners who understand regional laws can also help navigate distribution challenges. It’s about staying flexible and anticipating discrepancies before they become problems.
What advice would you give to media and entertainment stakeholders trying to navigate this evolving legal landscape?
My advice is to stay vigilant and informed. Monitor both domestic and international legal developments around AI and copyright, because a change in one country can ripple across your operations. Invest in legal expertise that understands global compliance—don’t assume one-size-fits-all solutions will work. Also, document every step of your creative process, especially when AI is involved, to prove human contribution if needed. Finally, advocate for clearer standards through industry groups. The more stakeholders push for harmonized laws, the easier it will be to operate globally. It’s a challenging space, but with the right preparation, you can turn uncertainty into opportunity.
