For a detailed legal analysis, please see the publications listed under "Publications". For individual legal advice please contact a law firm. We do not accept any liability for the correctness and actuality of the information provided. For questions from students of the h_da, the author as data protection officer is responsible for data protection issues and the respective lecturers for questions of use in examinations.

1. Who has a copyright over the videos generated by SORA & Co?

According to German law (§ 2 UrhG), only a HUMAN creation is protected by copyright, so that neither the operators of SORA nor the user as the person who had the video created by a so-called "prompt" is the author of the videos. Nevertheless, the operator of SORA, as the party offering the service, can determine to a certain extent the purposes for which the videos are to be used.

2. Can one hold a copyright to a prompt on which a video is based?

Prompts are only utility texts and do not have their own quality as a spoken or written work, so that even longer prompts are generally not eligible for protection. The relationship between the prompt and the work - in this case the video - is also not eligible for protection, as the AI does not necessarily provide a repeatable result. The situation may be different if, exceptionally, the AI is used by artists as a tool with very specific individual specifications (which go beyond prompts, i.e. programming or interventions in the database) or in the artist's own style known to the AI.

3. Can videos created with AI infringe the rights of third parties? What about the depiction of existing streets or works of art?

Even if the AI is instructed to imitate an existing street view and an image is then created that closely resembles the original, this is generally permissible under the "freedom of panorama". This applies even if the view depicts works by third parties, such as sculptures or façade paintings. According to Section 59 UrhG (works in public places), it is permissible to "reproduce, distribute and publicly reproduce works that are permanently located on public paths, streets or squares by means of painting or graphics, by photograph or by film". In the case of buildings, these authorizations only extend to the external view.

Therefore, works that are only temporarily erected may not be reproduced in the video and no interior views of buildings / courtyards etc. may be reproduced "behind" the street view.

In addition, the personal rights of third parties may be infringed if images of natural persons are to be created (Sections 22, 23 KUG), although exceptions apply to persons of contemporary history.

Furthermore, fake videos that falsify real circumstances may be punishable or illegal, depending on their content. This applies in particular to the fabrication of false circumstances in a personal context. In these cases, there is also no exception for famous people (unless the video is recognizably fake and does not show any punishable content). Operators of an AI system that generates or manipulates image, sound or video content that is a deepfake must disclose that the content has been artificially generated or manipulated in accordance with Article 50 (4) of the AI Act.

However, if third-party databases / streetviews are taken over or systematically read without consent, OpenAI could be in breach of database rights under Sections 87a and 87b UrhG. However, no data is currently available on this.

4. May I use the videos generated by SORA in my job to save time?

No. Such use should always be disclosed to the employer or client. If you are paid for the creation of videos, concealing the use of SORA could, in the worst case, constitute fraud against the person who paid for the personal creation of a video. Furthermore, employers or contractors could suffer disadvantages if the video content cannot be legally protected or even infringes the rights of third parties.