German Podcast Episode #215: Rahuls Schlüsselerfolge als Senior IT Counsel seit 2010

Neha: Rahul, today it's about AI contracts – specifically these tricky questions: Who owns AI-generated content, and who's liable for IP infringements? The Thaler v. Perlmutter case (2023) showed that AI works without human authors aren't copyrightable, right?  Rahul: Exactly, Neha. The court clarified: No human, no copyright. That's the core problem with AI outputs. With Thaler's AI image, no one could claim rights.  Neha: So you create artificial legal certainty through contracts?  Rahul: Correct. In my contracts, I stipulate: Either all possible rights go to the client, or we explicitly define usage rights. Otherwise, everything hangs in limbo – like in the "Monkey Selfie" case Naruto v. Slater.  Neha: What about liability risks? The Getty Images v. Stability AI dispute is still ongoing...  Rahul: Absolutely relevant! Getty accuses Stability of infringing copyrights by training on licensed images – especially when outputs copy watermarks. That's precisely why you need...  Neha: ...indemnification clauses! So liability protection for IP infringements in AI outputs?  Rahul: Precisely. Microsoft leads here: Their OpenAI agreement offers users defense against IP claims. I negotiate similar clauses so my company doesn't get sued overnight if an AI generates something illegal.  Neha: Do you have a practical example where these clauses took effect?  Rahul: Yes! A marketing firm – my client – used an AI tool for promotional materials. My contract: 1) All outputs belong to the firm, 2) The provider indemnifies them against IP lawsuits.  Neha: And then what happened...?  Rahul: The AI produced a slogan resembling a competitor's trademarked phrase. They sued my client.  Neha: But thanks to your clauses...?  Rahul: ...the AI vendor immediately took over defense and costs! Additionally, thanks to the ownership clause, my client could enforce their usage rights – even if the output, like in Thaler, wasn't copyrightable.  Neha: That's double protection: Clarifying ownership + transferring risk! Which legal areas are central here?  Rahul: Mainly copyright law: US/EU law requires human authorship (Thaler confirms this for AI). Patent law: AI can't be an inventor (EPO/USPTO). Trademark law: Risk of infringement through AI outputs.  Neha: And regarding indemnification?  Rahul: Currently purely contractual. But the proposed EU AI Liability Directive (not yet in force) will place stronger obligations on providers. Until then, our clauses protect against regulatory risks – like when EU DSAs under the AI Act check whether IP risks were minimized.  Neha: Conclusion: Your contracts create clarity where laws lag behind! Next episode we'll dive deeper into cloud contracts. ***Read German text here:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oEspwKpwMcjlN5BkId5-KTNIs7pywqDbp8g1lYnU2fg/edit?tab=t.0**