The Arts · Grade 12

Active learning ideas

Copyright in the Age of AI

Copyright in the Age of AI is a complex topic where legal interpretations are still evolving. Active learning strategies like debate and case study analysis allow students to grapple with these ambiguities directly, fostering critical thinking about evolving legal landscapes.

• Ontario Curriculum Expectations
• VA:Cn11.1.HSIII
• VA:Re9.1.HSIII

• 45–75 min
• Small Groups
• 3 activities

Activity 01

• Formal Debate
• 60 min · Small Groups

Formal Debate: AI Authorship and Ownership

Divide students into groups to debate whether AI-generated art should be copyrightable and, if so, who should hold the copyright. Assign roles such as 'AI developer,' 'human artist,' and 'legal scholar' to encourage diverse perspectives.

Explain the challenges of applying existing copyright law to AI-generated content.

Facilitation Tip

During the Debate: AI Authorship and Ownership, ensure students are using arguments grounded in copyright principles and not just personal opinions about AI's capabilities.

• Analyze
• Evaluate
• Create
• Self-Management
• Decision-Making

Activity 02

• Case Study Analysis
• 45 min · Small Groups

Case Study Analysis: AI Training Data

Present students with a hypothetical scenario involving an AI trained on copyrighted images without explicit permission. Students will analyze the potential legal ramifications for the AI developer and the original artists.

Design a policy framework that addresses authorship and ownership for AI-assisted creations.

Facilitation Tip

During the Case Study Analysis: AI Training Data, guide students to identify the specific legal questions raised by the scenario and the trade-offs involved in potential solutions.

• Analyze
• Evaluate
• Create
• Decision-Making
• Self-Management

Activity 03

• Case Study Analysis
• 75 min · Small Groups

Policy Drafting Workshop: AI Creation Guidelines

In small groups, students will draft a set of guidelines or a policy framework for attributing authorship and ownership of AI-assisted creative works. They should consider different levels of AI involvement.

Assess the implications of AI training on copyrighted datasets for artists and creators.

Facilitation Tip

During the Policy Drafting Workshop: AI Creation Guidelines, prompt groups to consider how their proposed guidelines address both human and AI contributions to creative works.

• Analyze
• Evaluate
• Create
• Decision-Making
• Self-Management

A few notes on teaching this unit

Teaching copyright and AI requires moving beyond declarative statements of law, as much of it is unsettled. Instead, focus on the process of legal reasoning by presenting students with conflicting viewpoints and encouraging them to construct their own informed positions. Emphasize the 'why' behind legal doctrines, like the purpose of copyright, to help students analyze AI's impact.

Students will demonstrate an understanding of the challenges AI poses to traditional copyright by articulating arguments about authorship, ownership, and fair use. Successful learning is evident when students can apply legal concepts to novel AI-related scenarios and discuss the ethical implications.

---

Watch Out for These Misconceptions

• During the Debate: AI Authorship and Ownership, students might assume AI-generated art is automatically public domain because there is no human author.

  When students make this claim during the debate, redirect them to the arguments presented in their research, highlighting that legal experts are proposing various frameworks for AI authorship and ownership, and the public domain is only one possibility.

• During the Case Study Analysis: AI Training Data, students might conclude that training AI on copyrighted material is always fair use.

  If students in the Case Study Analysis: AI Training Data suggest the AI training is definitively fair use, prompt them to identify which prongs of the fair use test are most contested in this specific scenario and what counterarguments exist.

---

Methods used in this brief

• Formal Debate
• Case Study Analysis