당신은 AI 프롬프트 작가인가요 [크리틱]

In recent times, the American publishing industry witnessed a fierce competition among 14 major publishers for the rights to a debut novel. The winning company paid a staggering $2 million, which, while not the highest offer, was still substantial. If there had been no subsequent controversy, this contract would have remained within the industry's confines.

However, the publisher's side sent a mail to the writer's agency, asking them not to proceed with the contract. The reason given was that they could not verify the entire process of the novel's creation, leading to the conclusion that it was produced by AI. The agency then severed all ties with the writer and affirmed that the work was not AI-generated, as the writer claimed they only asked the AI about "dealing with the corpse."

Despite this clarification, the agency remained unconvinced. In May, Polish Nobel laureate Olga Tokarczuk sparked a major storm by stating she was collaborating with AI on her latest novel, later retracting that statement. This controversy is a stark reminder that literature and art must be fundamentally human creations. AI's influence is making people increasingly aware of their own sense of self.

In 2025, the US Copyright Office stated that merely submitting a prompt to AI is insufficient for copyright recognition. The specific expression or arrangement of the result must show human decision-making. The question arises: "Didn't human ideas already exist in the prompt?" The problem lies in the fact that ideas in one's mind are not protected by copyright.

The key point is 'expression.' For the expression to reflect sufficient human creativity, it is not easy for music companies or publishers to produce AI-generated works and claim copyright. This could lead to serious legal issues if a false creator is attached to pure AI-generated works, and such a right cannot be sold without causing significant legal problems.

The contract cancellation incident was likely a moral decision, but companies may fear potential lawsuits down the line. Companies are actively pursuing ways to monetize AI, even suing for royalties on the works used for its learning. The concentration of copyright ownership in corporations means that writers who have already handed over their copyrights to corporations may find it impossible to sue AI companies.

Ironically, the companies that heavily invest in AI appear to represent humanity's struggle for profit, not a machine invented solution.