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


**