Respect for Creators Urged Amid Concerns Over AI-Generated Content and Copyright

In 1959, a childhood lesson about the difference between 'snitching' and stealing left a lasting impression on one writer, who later encountered similar ethical dilemmas in academia. The author recalls being mortified after her mother made her return stolen candy and apologize to the store owner, reinforcing the principle that taking what is not yours—whether physical or intellectual property—is wrong.

Decades later, as a university instructor at the University of Toronto, the author observed a comparable disregard for intellectual property among students who plagiarized despite clear warnings. In one notable case, a student failed a course after multiple instances of cheating, prompting an angry response from her mother, who seemed unaware of the broader implications of her daughter's actions.

The author notes that, while she learned the value of respecting others' property at a young age, many people today remain oblivious to the seriousness of intellectual property theft. The ease of accessing online content has fostered a culture where some believe creative works should be freely available, leading to rationalizations for pirating music, videos, and other forms of art. This attitude, the author argues, overlooks the reality that many creators, including writers, musicians, and painters, often struggle financially and rely on the respect and compensation their work deserves.

The issue recently resurfaced for the author, an underpaid writer, when she discovered her name referenced in a university guidebook. The guide, titled 'Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Students' and published by Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, British Columbia, suggests that students may use AI-generated output—such as poems in the style of living writers or images in the style of contemporary artists—if permitted by their professors for critical discussion.

The guide states: 'You may use AI-generated output if your professor permitted you to use it to discuss it critically. For example, if you are permitted to prompt ChatGPT to write a poem in the style of Susan Glickman or prompt DALL-E to create an image in the style of Dorothy Knowles, and include the output in your work to discuss its style, etc.'

The author criticizes this advice, arguing that it encourages the unauthorized use of her work and that of others. She points out that prompting AI tools to mimic a specific creator's style requires those tools to scrape the internet for examples of their work, often without permission or compensation. This practice, she notes, is something The Writers Union of Canada and similar organizations worldwide have been actively working to prevent.

The guide attempts to address potential copyright concerns by advising students to acknowledge their use of AI tools and check for copyright restrictions: 'You should still include an acknowledgement of how you used the AI tool and a citation for the output (see the Citing AI page). If you are using generated images, audio files, and/or codes, check if your AI tool mentions any use or copyright restrictions on the works it creates.'

However, the author argues that this approach is inadequate, likening it to 'asking the fox to guard the henhouse.' She notes that the university's own citation guidance concedes that using generative AI may constitute copyright infringement, as these tools generate output by drawing from existing copyrighted works.

Under Canadian law, any content in a fixed form is automatically protected by copyright. The guide acknowledges that prompting AI to create works in the style of established artists or writers may infringe on these rights, as the AI's output is derivative of the original works.

The author expresses concern that such university guidance leaves students confused about when and how it is permissible to use AI-generated content, potentially fostering further disregard for intellectual property rights.

Reflecting on the broader issue, the author questions whether it is unreasonable to expect those who do not create intellectual property to respect the work of those who do. She recounts friends suggesting she should feel flattered by the imitation, but insists that respect and recognition—not unauthorized use—are the true rewards for creators.