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:
docs.google.com/document/d/1oEspwKpwMcjlN5BkId…
**