Today we’re joined again by Greenleaf’s legal counsel, Guy Muller, to discuss the ramifications of recent legal decisions about AI-produced work. The rising popularity and accessibility of AI-generation tools has made them unavoidable. In episode 76, we discussed the benefits and drawbacks of using tools like ChatGPT to help you write a book, but today we’re digging into the legal considerations.

Guy will explain the most recent developments related to copyrighting books produced with AI in the US, and address everything authors need to know about protecting themselves and their work.

This transcript has been automatically generated.

Tanya

All right, Guy, welcome back to Published!

Guy 1:20

Thank you. I'm happy to be back. Thanks for inviting me back after the last time.

Tanya 1:25

Absolutely. You're a fan favorite. You've been on the podcast before, but for those who maybe missed that awesome episode, tell us a little bit about yourself and what you do.

Guy 1:37

I'm General Counsel over here at Greenleaf Book Group. For people that don't know what that means, I “generally counsel” Greenleaf on all things legal. Everything in the legal department, contracts, intellectual property, all the fun stuff that nobody else wants to handle.

Tanya 1:54

Yes, indeed. And you do it very well, by the way. So one of the things that we like to talk about a lot at Greenleaf and lately, given certain developments in technology have warranted the frequent discussions, ai, ai generated content, especially, of course, in the last few years, there's just been a surge of AI content, and it has its own implications, certainly from a legal perspective, particularly around copyright. So can you bring us up to speed on the latest developments regarding copyright? And AI generated content? Yeah, for

Guy 2:25

Sure. It's all it's all been real fascinating in stuff that I've just, I've loved seeing where it's going. It's, it's really neat. That it just to give a little preface, I'm not going to sit here and cite case law, I think that's super boring. Even for me as a lawyer, I don't like to hear it. And I know most people don't want to hear it. So I'm just gonna talk to everybody like, like, you know, I'm talking to my sister or my brother, you know, something like that. So, and if you got any questions about this stuff along the way, let me know. I'm gonna try to keep it chill and non legalese.

But the main thing that we've seen the last couple years, especially here really recently, with ChatGPT, Midjourney, those types of generative AI is whether or not they outputs the stuff that people use those tools to in create whether or not under copyright law, that's considered human authorship. Of course, there's a lot of things that go into copyright law, but the nuts and bolts and the main thing that I'm going to talk about today is whether or not that's human authorship.

You know, traditionally speaking, copyright covers original works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression. There's so many different elements in that and different legal principles that go in there and tons of case law analyzing just that, that one little phrase, but really, what we're looking at here is what is at work of authorship.

And what would constitute that, over the years, in a way, even before generative AI was out the copyright office, and the courts have decided that in order to have actual authorship of a word that would qualify for a copyright, it must be created by a human, it must be human authorship.

There's cases in the past of things like you know, monkeys, taking photographs with a camera, whether or not they can be considered an author and get copyright. There's even been cases of people that's somehow, you know, claimed to have spoken to a non human spiritual being like God, or something and actually saying and going and filing a copyright application for these works, and that it's actually authored by this non human spiritual being. And the courts have always rejected things like that. It said, hey, you know, it doesn't work like that. We get it, we appreciate it. But you know, this has to be authored by human.

So it's those elements. It's that case, all that precedent that has has really decided at least right now how the Copyright Office is handling works that are being applied in trying to get get copyright protection that have been created with generative AI such as mid year again are chat GPT. So what they've done is they said, hey, you know what we get it. There's a human that might sit down and put inputs into these tools. Tanya, if you're like, Hey, I'm gonna write a new book a follow up to my book, like, hey, ChatGPT give me an idea, write this book for me. And that thing spits it out. A lot of people are like, Well, hell, you just said human authorship man. That means me as a human, I sat down, and I just use this tool, and it came up with it. So I'm the author, right?

But the copyright office in case law said, No, it doesn't work like that. And really, the distinction is in how these tools actually operate, how they're designed, for instance, mid journey, user sits down, they put in the request this prompt and then mid journey then takes it in, it doesn't necessarily analyze it, it doesn't listen to us like a human would write, it doesn't understand what we're saying. It just takes it and it's these data points. And then it somehow takes that and it calculates it and it converts it into the sub data points that via its algorithm, it then tries to match it and then just spits out something that that it thinks is going to match, right, the copyright office, they look at that stuff. And they're like, hey, that's cool. This is how it works.

But the thing is, is there's not enough what they consider creative control to be human authorship, they acknowledge, they say, Yes, you might be able to put in this information, and you might be able to influence these outputs by these machines. But at the end of the day, that's not enough greater control under the wall to actually rise the level, something that that will be qualified for copyright.

A lot of people will look at that and thinl, Well, what the hell is the difference then between this tool that I'm using, and something like a camera, or recording equipment, something like that, because those are tools to write, like, like that stuff is like I'm using it, and it's I'm actually not making that photograph. It's the camera, right? Like, what, what's the difference here.

The difference in those and a copyright office says in the case law says that, once again, it's in that creative control with these machines, Midjourney, ChatGPT, you cannot actually dictate the outcome of the input that you put into it, you'd have no idea, you put it in there, and it's just going to create whatever the hell it wants, and you really have no idea.

Whereas with the camera, you know, it's completely different. Because that tool right there, you know, I could go in, you know, say I'm at the beach, you know, the beautiful Texas beaches, the most pristine beaches in the world. And I'm sitting there with the camera, and I'm like, I really want to take a photograph of this, and there's a palm tree over there, and there's like a fishing boat in the background. I can sit there and I can look at it. And I'm like, alright, well hold the camera up, I can look through it. And I can see I can angle it and I can zoom in, I can choose to blur certain things, adjust the light settings, and completely dictate how that's going to end up. And whenever I hit that button, boom, it snaps it exactly as I designed it, right.

That's a big time difference between what we get with ChatGPT and Midjourney. And I think anybody that's used, it knows that. So that's really where it lies is the creative control behind the actual user. And the fact that whatever you put into them, you really don't know what's going to come up with regardless of how many times you put it and you can influence it over and over and over again. But as a copyright office and make clear, that's a mere mechanical process, and it doesn't have sufficient amount of human authorship to qualify for copyright.

Tanya 8:26

I mean, that's fascinating. And I think a lot of authors would probably wonder, okay, that's one use, to ask it, like you said, Tanya wants a new book, versus generating the ideas that you then may use as a basis for something else. So how does, let's say, idea generation play into all of this? And are there any concerns there in terms of copyright-ability, if that's a word?

Guy 8:52

In general, ideas alone are not copyrightable. Anyway, let's say if I'm like, Hey, Tanya, you should you should write this new book, or it should be about this, this and this and whatever. And if you go out and you actually write that book, and you do it yourself, I don't get the copyright that idea, I don't own that I did not copyright it, you actually created it.

So it's kind of the same with these machines. It's like asking your friend or something that you know, has this infinite knowledge, you know, give me an idea for a book. And if it spits out an idea, and then you go in and you actually put your own human authorship on top of that, then that's a okay. It doesn't have to just be idea generation, it can be a lot more than that. It can be plot developments, character, you have storylines, of course, you can use it for research for all kinds of stuff, too. For your book, you can use these tools.

The main thing is whatever you use whatever outputs it generates, you can't just take that output and expect to get a copyright on it because again, not human authorship. It's simple in theory, but it gets really complex when you apply this stuff, because you're like, Alright, cool, I can't get it. But if I go in and put my human stuff on top of it, how much human stuff don't need print on top of it, what would make that human authorship does a 180 and goes back to the original analysis of what is a copyright and what qualifies for it. And you go to the original works of authorship again, and you're like, alright, well, you know, what's original, how creative does it have to be?

So then you can take this element, the copyright office, and copyright law lets you take these things that are otherwise not eligible for copyright protection, and you can put your own creativity on top of it. And you can you can mix it, you can match it, you can take whatever you want. And you can develop it further put your own human touch on it your own creative spark, and that stuff that you put on, on top of that, that actually could be copyrighted.

Because you know, even though it's based on this idea, based on something that wasn't initially it will be protected. But you know, anything else on top of it, it could be it's important for authors and know that these types of tools, they can be used to generate ideas that can be used as some kind of tool to help them to further create, they cannot just take it in and use it and go and publish it and and get a copyright for it. Of course you could if you wanted but wouldn't be able to get copyrighted.

Tanya 11:13

So when an author submits for their copyright registration, are they prompted to disclose that certain sections were "authored" by AI? And then if that is the case, and they don't disclose it, what could happen?

Guy 11:32

That's a great question. So you, you are required to disclaim portions that's not created by human or anything that would not be copyrightable. So yes, you are supposed to do that. And so if you did do it, so the Copyright Office kind of funky and how it works, they're like, Hey, we got all these rules. But it's this huge honor system, for the most part up front, they generally they will not fact check you, they will take everything that you put into your your application as facts, you know, just hope so. But they hope that you're actually being honest and ethical about that.

But if they did find out and there's cases of this where people have applied for copyrights, like one specific cases, is like a graphic novel, or comic book type of thing, where they did not disclose that the images in this comic book were created by AI by mid journey, the text was was all human, it was all authored by human, all original, but they didn't, they didn't put any of that stuff in the application. And then, of course, copper it off is like, Alright, cool, hey, that's awesome. And we're going to take your information or take all this as fact, and you know, we're going to trust you. And they granted a copyright.

Subsequently, I don't know how exactly this worked, or how they found out. But the author had posted online that I guess, in promoting this comic book, that the images were created by AI that they use mid journey for this, I don't know if if the Copyright Office has has people out there that go and monitor this stuff online, or if somebody tipped them off, but they somehow got wind of this.

And they actually went back to this author, and they said, Hey, we just became aware of this stuff via the statement, it's on social media, that the images were created by AI was not authored by human. However, we saw that in your application, you did not disclaim that, and you did not tell us that. So what we're going to do is unless within 30 days or so that you can actually give us information and show that you created these, that there was the sufficient level of human authorship, or at least a creative component on top of these machine generated images, they said we're going to do is we're not going to say the whole thing is not copyrighted, we're going to cancel your copyright. And we're going to issue another one that says, you get a copyright for the text only and all the creative stuff, but it's going to specifically disclaim it's going to be on public record that it does not include these AI images.

And it's something that's, that's also, you know, one of these complex things that kind of goes on top of this, they said, however, you can also get a copyright for your arrangement, your selection, your coordination of all these things, these AI images, you know, since you put it in, you arranged it all in a creative way, within this book, you can get a copyright that covers that, but you will not say that you actually have a copyright on the actual images themselves. So then, of course, you know, in that case, they the author got an opportunity to respond and they did and then they ended up canceling the old copyright and issued another one disclaiming all the AI generated material.

Tanya 14:34

So to be clear, though, let's say you used Midjourney and created some fantastical monster and that was in your graphic novel, and now we understand that the person who generated that cannot copyright it, but is that image subject to any other? Like, is it copyright of this software company that developed Midjourney or are they at risk of any kind of violation, because it actually belongs to someone else who could potentially make a claim for those outputs?

Guy 15:05

in general, based on what I've seen, they would not belong to say Midjourney or Open AI, the company that created ChatGPT. The reason is, even though that there, the author technically would have authored it, even if it wasn't human authorship, their Terms of Use, usually say, hey, whatever you put in with the outputs that are generated based on your inputs, we are assigning all right, and title and interest of that over to you. So there is a distinction between copyright just because you don't you're not eligible for copyright doesn't mean you don't own it. So you would still own that image, but it's just not copyrighted, and it's something that you will not be able to force a copyright on.

This is one of the things I'm gonna have to put the disclaimers out, I'm not your lawyer, you have any questions about this stuff, please, we're loving God, do yourself a favor, don't shoot yourself in the foot go talk to somebody that is legally bound and ethically bound to represent your interests and will do so to the best abilities.

In general, I just I don't think that the outputs constitute copyright infringement. In order to enforce a copyright a there's got to be valid copyright. And then there's got to be substantial copying, there's got to be actual copying of that copyrighted material. These tools, generative AI chat, GPT, mid journey, I have not seen anything where they're actually copying anything. They are masters at imitating and emulating other works like there, they take this data set that they have, and they can emulate all kinds of things based on your input.

Like, you know, if you wanted to write a follow up to your book and said, Hey, write this book, my follow up in the voice of Ernest Hemingway, and or Kurt Vonnegut turbine is my favorite author. So I always like using his example. So you know, they got very distinct styles, right? And if it's also in somebody, if it generates this material, and it's like, Oh, my God, like the pros, and like, just the word choices, the structure, the flow, if everything if it's like, you know, it kind of does, you know, seem like Vonnegut wrote it, or if he is it, Hemingway, you know, I think that's emulation. And I don't think that that is copying it.

I think that it's very similar to what if you asked me to do it, if you asked me, he said, Hey, I want you to write this, write my next book for me, be my ghost rider. And I want you to write it how you think Ernest Hemingway or Kurt Vonnegut might have written it, or, you know, any of these books, the authors of these books behind me, moderating, so me in, you know, my infinite wisdom, you know, I've taken all this stuff that I have, and all the books that I've read in the past, if I didn't use that, and I imitate, and I write that material based on the invitation. I don't think that that's actual copy.

Now, I don't want to discourage anybody if they think that they might have a claim, or I don't want anybody thinking that they're completely in the clear, it's still possible, because just like, you know, almost everything on a wall to case by case basis. Just because I haven't seen it actually copy anything doesn't mean that that hasn't happened before. And it doesn't mean that it's not possible that however its data works or something, that it actually generates something that could look substantially similar to a copyrighted work.

So if you have a question about that, I say, Please, yeah, go talk to a copyright lawyer and see, because it is possible, I'm not gonna say it's impossible, it is possible that it could infringe on somebody's copyright, and that you could enforce a claim against somebody for your original works of authorship. Or on the flip side, even worse, somebody might come out and try and force that against us.

Tanya 18:42

Another concern that comes up from authors is the potential that these tools themselves are plagiarizing from other sources, authors, especially who do have a copyright on that work. So I guess that's a double barreled question coming up. How, even if that piece can't be copyrighted, that you generate an AI and you don't own it, yet, you can't copyright it, you you might be having some false comfort and thinking that there's no potential claim out there. When if that is the case, that maybe open AI has in its in its efforts to educate this big beast. And given all of this information to work from that it's ingested the work of other authors and then is regurgitating that work, which, you know, I guess it could be plagiarism if it came out verbatim.

So the first question is, how would you check against that, I suppose, and then my second piece if you're an author, how do you protect yourself against your work suddenly being spit out as an answer in ChatGPT?

Guy 19:50

Yeah, I think it's kind of your second one. It could be kind of cool. Like I would love to have a workout there where it's like, oh my god, like, like it said the right and the boy said, Guy Moeller and it has a weird, you know, twang to it somehow or like, you know, monkey words voice. I think it'd be cool.

Tanya 20:06

I think I've told you I've asked it to rewrite something in my voice and I was borderline offended.

Guy 20:12

Yeah, but just so everybody knows now, like, you know, I use I use ChatGPT a lot. And I don't know if you remember this. I'm sure you do. But there's a time I was writing something for you. And I was like, I drafted the email, or this this draft exactly how I would have written it. And then I actually had chat DBT I plugged it in, and I said, Write this like Tonya Hall. If you were not amused. You're like, no, it does not. That does not sound like me. That was hilarious. And then I remember you actually then went with mine. And I was like, dang, I'll be chatting GPT Yeah, I do remember this. Yeah. And I was like, I guess also in a weird way. It's like, I beat Tonya Hall coordinate. So that was cool.

I'll go back to the first question, the plagiarism thing. The first and foremost, plagiarism is not against the law. It's a if there's a difference between plagiarism and copyright. Plagiarism itself is not actually against the law, even though it could be an ethical thing.

In general, plagiarism is taking somebody else's ideas without directly crediting that person, whereas copyright is actually copying or, you know, doing something that somebody's original work of authorship without permission. And that's a very, very basic nutshell. You know, comparison there, there is no claim for plagiarism here. So there's nothing to look out for with that.

As far as copyright goes, you know, it's like I mentioned before, it is possible, even though I don't think it's probable, at least right now with how all these tools work that you have to look out for, but with the your second question about how an author could possibly protecting their works from being fed into this big data set that these machines are trained on, I don't know exactly. If there is a foolproof way of ensuring your work is not, I feel like if it's somewhere available on the internet, then these companies feel like they're going to somehow get their hands on it. And they're going to try to use it. And I don't know how you would ever know whether or not it was used.

But something that I've seen, actually from the Authors' Guild, which you've heard me recommend the Authors Guild in a variety of situations, I think it's a great resource for authors, everybody needs to check it out, the author's deal with actually has his recommendation that I agree with. And if you are concerned about it, then on your copyright page, if you don't want your book to be used as part of this dataset without permission, then you can put kind of like a disclaimer on there. And you could say something along the lines of not for AI, you certain, you know, you can elaborate on the contents of your book is not to be used for any sort of data set training for any generative AI, or any similar tools and things like that.

Now, whether or not that's going to stop a lot of this the these tools in these companies from actually going out and scraping that data somehow and taking it. Yeah, I don't think that that's enough. I don't know exactly how these tools work. But I don't think that there's any mechanism in place that's analyzing that on any of these books, or God forbid, they got some poor intern sitting in their office, it's like, looking at it and going, Oh, my God, no, this one book right here, as is this claimer, we better take it out of our data set. I don't think that's there.

But I do think it gives you legs to stand on and arguments to be had in decent claims to be made against these companies. If it turns out that your book and your material, if you're able to find out with certainty that it actually was included in the data set. And you did have that disclaimer on your copyright page, then I think you could say, Hey, you go to Open AI, you know, hypothetically, say, look, I had this disclaimer, man, what the hell y'all doing? I said, no, like, if you want to use it, then you've got to go out and get a license from me, whatever. And then, I think if you press them enough, they might take it out.

Maybe it's one of those things once that bell is rung, can't be unrung. They might be in that data set forever. But I do think it's at least something that you should consider it and maybe do to at least give yourself some some kind of arguments to be had in the future.

Tanya 24:22

Yeah, that's interesting. And I don't think I have that in my book. So I'll add it in the next reprint. So okay, we've talked about the book itself, and or an author who's working on a book and sort of these, these general guidelines and lines, you shouldn't cross when tinkering with AI. But what about using it in other capacities as you're going about promoting your book, for instance, I know people who use AI tools, there are some actually really good ones that are designed for developing content, and they use them to turn out social media posts. For instance, are there any concerns about using AI in that way?

Guy 25:02

Are you talking about concerns that are related to the book's copyright, by any chance?

Tanya 25:09

And just getting into any kind of trouble. I mean, imagine, I think there's an there's an ethics argument, and then there's probably the legal argument, right? I feel like you would probably want to disclose that. But then it also undercuts your credibility as a writer a bit. So just curious, your thoughts?

Guy 25:27

Yeah, it's a conundrum. I think it's a, I think it's okay, there's, there's no requirement as far as the copyright goes, let's say if your work actually was, you know, if you got a copyright on it, because it was created by human or if, even if it wasn't, if, if you had enough human elements in it to actually get copyright protection for those human elements, even if the copyright didn't protect everything, you know, subsequently going out and promoting the book and using AI as a tool to help boost sales and get awareness out there. No problems, there's, I don't think the Copyright Office is gonna be like, you can't ever use AI related this day, now you're gonna lose it, I got, I just don't think it doesn't work like that. So that's okay. As far as the other considerations go, the ethical stuff and any other requirements, I think it really might come down to the individual platform that you're posting this content on, let's say, one of these days, I'm not aware of any of this right now. But let's say someday, it becomes rampant. And it's a problem. There's so much AI and AI generated content all over the place that that Facebook, Instagram, Tik Tok, all this stuff has to put these rules in place and say, Hey, we need to post stop on this, we're no longer going to allow any AI created content or materials posted on our websites, on our platforms. In that case, yeah, you probably need to look out you got to watch out for it. And then or you need to at least disclose it. Because I'd imagine, before it gets to that there probably be a disclosure requirement just to protect consumers or, you know, give them knowledge or something like that. As far as I know, there's nothing like that right now. You know, I know that there is something with Amazon, if an author does submit an AI generated book, they do have to disclose it, because I think the last I saw it was like, you're limited to posting like, or uploading, like three books a day that are AI generated. And I get this kind of laugh because I'm like, I'm like, That's hilarious. Like, can you imagine someone just cranking out books like that, just posting them what they on Amazon, and Amazon has been flooded with all this. And so I'm like, Alright, that makes sense. Like, you know, so you do need to disclaim it in certain situations. But that is a platform specific thing to consider. Or even you know, your own, you know, you as the author, you might want to disclose that your publisher might require it in certain situations. As far as the law goes, right now, there's nothing that I've seen that that would actually require you to do that.

Tanya 27:57

Yeah. Like, you talked about this, the potential for a proliferation of AI generated books, especially since we talked about books on this particular podcast. So I mean, do you if you can take out your crystal ball? Do you have some thoughts on, you know, what this might look like in the future as far as AI generated content and the implications on real human authors in the future?

Guy 28:22

Because I love nothing more than to speculate about the future. It's one of my favorite things to do. So my how much time we got is only like four or five hours. I'm not too concerned about I know there's so many people that are very concerned about the publishing industry as a whole that are concerned about people not wanting to create any more about this stuff, ruining it, and I just, I don't see that. I don't think that's gonna happen at all. The way that I can see it, see how this stuff turns out, is that we get a new genre book, AI generated books, AI, author books, and even AI, there might even be companies like AI, publishing companies and distribution companies, that it's all AI and there's just some, you know, random teenager in the background, you know, given out these prompts, that's able to run this whole thing. Like it's huge, massive enterprise. I think at some point, we'll have a disclosure requirement and that will create a new genre you where you go into Barnes and Noble you go down to Half Price Books anywhere else, you go to Amazon, and you're you start searching, you're like, you know what, these AI books are fascinating that the you know, the stuff that it's able to generate is, is really creative, or I just really liked the style of it. And people can choose to read that stuff, I think is kind of cool. I've probably read a couple but at the end of the day, I don't think it's going to fully get rid of actual real life people real humans writing books in the demand from real humans wanting books written by real humans. I think that AI is not able to come anywhere close to replicating the actual human experience. Again, it's imitating it based on data. It's like, Hey, this is what we think he likes. Maybe it gets really good at it sometime in the future, I just don't think that it can actually truly replicate human empathy, emotion, compassion, that human connection, the human experience, right. So even if it does, even if it can, and let's say, let's say if we have requirements where at least AI generated content, it must be disclosed. And then that way, you always know if it's written by, I think that us as a human, we always will, like, at least on some level, to read something that we know is written by another human because I feel like the words didn't have more meaning. Let's say if you got two books side by side, same content, same structure, and you're like this was written by an AI machine, and it's like, Oh, my God, it's tugging at the heartstrings. It's a tear jerker over here, it's got a lot of relatable experiences. You know, that can be that can be fine and dandy, that can be great. But if you read another book, knowing that a human wrote that, and it's got, you know, same similar even, let's say, it's not even as good of a writing as the heat that AI generated one, I think there's something special about reading that knowing that another human wrote that, I feel like there's a different connection to that, it's important to keep fostering that and keep encouraging people to write books, despite the fact that an AI machine can write a whole, you know, 800 page novel, in, you know, three seconds, I don't think you should discourage anybody and be like, I'm never gonna write again, people always gonna want to express themselves. Even if it's not going to be commercialized the same, you know, not all art is intended to be commercialized like that. So I think I don't think it's ever going to ruin that that creative spirit in humans. But I do think that, that at some point, I'm gonna ship kind of back over to the wall. Now, I think that we do need to update our walls to account for this. It's inevitable, it's gonna happen at some point. The thing that that really stinks, though, is that technology, especially right now, it's advancing faster than we've ever seen it. And the law seems like is actually developing and advancing slower than we've ever seen. And so, in historically, I mean, the law always has to catch up to the time, right? It always has to. So we need people that actually, that can advocate for new laws and changes to these these rules and systems to account for how people are using these tools, to have walls that are relevant to how people are using them and consuming them. And then, you know, to protect consumers from certain stuff, misrepresentation. And I think it's important for all of us creatives to be a part of that, I don't think it should just be the folks that like open AI or MIT journey, I don't think it should be them going over ones that are by giving all the input to the lawmakers about this, because God knows, you know, our lawmakers probably don't know, half of how any of this stuff is working. I mean, most people don't I'm not that's not a jab any any politician or anything. But there's got to be hard to understand, especially how fast it's advancing. So naturally, you would think, all right, well, they're going to ask the developers of this, how does it work? And then they're going to tell them, but I think it's important for us authors, creators, musicians, people go out and have voices in this and be like, No, this is how we use it. And this is how we would like it to be used. And then I think that's the that'd be, that'd be very, very instrumental to the future of how all this works, where it will head, and then how it's going to be used by creators that that are on this planet far afterward gone. So it's, it's really, really exciting, but also still a little scary.

Tanya

That’s it for our episode today with Guy. We hope you enjoyed learning about copyright and AI. For notes and resources from today’s show, go to greenleafbookgroup.com/episode83.

---

Guy Muller is responsible for Greenleaf's legal functions, including contract negotiation, risk mitigation, dispute resolution, strategic analysis, compliance advisory, intellectual property, and human resources. Guy has years of transactional and litigation experience in entertainment, intellectual property, SaaS, and tort law.