{
  "docId": "019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5d-06b04d219fea",
  "docSlug": "dd91c78f6570bf29",
  "documentTitle": "2023 Air Street Capital The State of AI Report 2023",
  "authorId": "AirStreetCapital",
  "authorName": "Air Street Capital",
  "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck",
  "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck",
  "sourceTypeSlug": "vc_research",
  "sourceTypeLabel": "VC research",
  "presentationDate": null,
  "orientation": "landscape",
  "aspectRatio": 1.777,
  "pageNumber": 97,
  "pageCount": 163,
  "prevPage": 96,
  "nextPage": 98,
  "slideType": "key_messages",
  "function": "cite_precedent",
  "density": "balanced",
  "nDataPoints": 0,
  "notes": "The slide discusses the Thaler v. Perlmutter case and the Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith case (implied by the Prince portrait reference).",
  "elementsJson": [
    "headline_text",
    "bullet_list",
    "photo"
  ],
  "metadataConfidence": 1,
  "imagePath": null,
  "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5d-06b04d219fea/97",
  "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5d-06b04d219fea",
  "deckJsonHref": "/decks/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5d-06b04d219fea.json",
  "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5d-06b04d219fea#slide-97",
  "components": [
    {
      "bbox": null,
      "kind": "callout",
      "text": "This could well make the scraping of books and artwork for models’ training data legally riskier.",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": null,
      "toolName": "Visual emphasis",
      "toolSlug": "visual-emphasis",
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "019dd952-47c4-7719-a229-80c1b6257f4e",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.25,
        "w": 0.25,
        "x": 0.685,
        "y": 0.495
      },
      "kind": "image",
      "text": "A Recent Entrance to Paradise",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "photo",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "f5776848-dedf-4f0e-b6f6-eb0f1da36b6e",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.6,
        "w": 0.65,
        "x": 0.05,
        "y": 0.28
      },
      "kind": "list",
      "text": "A US District Court has reaffirmed the long-standing principle that human authorship is needed for copyright protection. While appeals are likely, important precedent may now have been set.\nThe US District Fort for the District of Columbia rejected a claim from Stephen Thaler that the 2012 image “A Recent Entrance to Paradise” (on the right) was worthy of copyright protection.\nThe Copyright Office, however, has established an initiative to examine the impact of AI on copyright law and has released new copyright guidance, covering literary, visual, audiovisual, and sound. It stipulates that any artwork needed a human author and that applications needed to specify where AI was used.\nMore challengingly for providers, in May 2023 ruling in a copyright case over a 1981 portrait of Prince, the US Supreme Court applied a new, stricter interpretation of what constitutes as ‘transformative’ under fair use. This could well make the scraping of books and artwork for models’ training data legally riskier.",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "bullet",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "7511ef8e-72f1-4ef9-9d51-57c460593450",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    },
    {
      "bbox": {
        "h": 0.1,
        "w": 0.9,
        "x": 0.05,
        "y": 0.14
      },
      "kind": "title",
      "text": "US Courts set precedent for AI-generated content being unsuitable for copyright protection, but then another on fair use",
      "attrs": null,
      "subkind": "headline",
      "toolName": null,
      "toolSlug": null,
      "confidence": null,
      "componentId": "c0067dd8-0d8a-4fe1-a33b-aeb99a73c755",
      "frameworkName": null,
      "frameworkSlug": null
    }
  ],
  "metrics": [],
  "tools": [],
  "frameworks": [],
  "arcBeats": [
    {
      "to": 120,
      "from": 11,
      "beatId": "019dd95a-0682-776c-8e35-41afd44ef59f",
      "arcName": "The Triple Take",
      "arcSlug": "triple-take",
      "beatName": "The Facts (What)",
      "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-facts-what",
      "evidence": "Research + Industry sections inventory model, compute, funding facts.",
      "position": 1,
      "confidence": 78,
      "parentBeatName": "Setup",
      "parentBeatSlug": "setup"
    },
    {
      "to": 120,
      "from": 11,
      "beatId": "019dd95a-0682-776c-8e35-523bfb7f96e6",
      "arcName": "The Mountain",
      "arcSlug": "mountain",
      "beatName": "Rising Action",
      "beatSlug": "mountain-rising-action",
      "evidence": "Escalating capabilities, compute concentration and capital flows.",
      "position": 2,
      "confidence": 45,
      "parentBeatName": "Development",
      "parentBeatSlug": "development"
    }
  ],
  "loops": [
    {
      "to": 98,
      "from": 95,
      "name": "Precedent",
      "slug": "09-precedent",
      "bestFor": "Risk mitigation, strategy validation, building confidence in new approaches",
      "matchId": "019dd95a-07fe-70ce-8d3e-043a3ffef2fc",
      "evidence": "Shutterstock/Getty, OpenAI-AP licensing, US copyright rulings, then EU/UK lawsuits.",
      "position": 10,
      "objective": "Use copyright cases as precedents to gauge legal exposure",
      "structure": "The Precedent Case -> What Happened -> The Parallel -> Applied Learning",
      "confidence": 78,
      "description": "Use historical or external examples to validate your approach"
    }
  ],
  "imagePathAlt": null,
  "thumbSrc": null,
  "thumbSrcAlt": null,
  "locked": true
}