Artificial intelligence and intellectual property law.

0
251
Villaggio Turistico Golden Beach a Paestum in Cilento, bandiera blu, prenota la tua vacanza al mare

Prof. Said Gulyamov

PhD Anna Ubaydullaeva

Abstract.

Today, the intensive development of artificial intelligence is of deep interest in the modern scientific world, and, as a consequence, the legal consequences of its wider application in life, which in turn demonstrates the urgent need to expand the boundaries of the sphere of legal regulation.

In this regard, it is relevant to study the concept of artificial intelligence, its appearance as an independent scientific direction, as well as the legal risks of using artificial intelligence and ways to overcome them.

The social and practical significance of the study lies in the search for optimal legal regulation, it is concluded that the development of artificial intelligence requires a change in the legal landscape, which, in turn, will facilitate the introduction of the latest technologies.

Keywords:

Law, artificial intelligence, intellectual property, intellectual property law, patenting issues advanced artificial intelligence technologies.

Introduction

Artificial intelligence and intellectual property law.

Artificial intelligence (AI) more often acts as a stimulus for progress in technology and business and represents one of the most important technologies of the current era [1].  It is widely used in a wide variety of industries and has an impact on almost all aspects of creativity. The development of AI is facilitated by the availability of large amounts of data for training and an increase in the available computing power. AI has a mass of points of contact with intellectual property (IP)[2].

Before our very eyes, AI is radically changing all aspects of life and work. For the widest possible dissemination of its advantages, it is very important, after studying the facts, to form a common understanding of what AI is[3].

Intellectual property (IP) systems are designed to motivate people to be inventive and creative. Until recently, it was the ability to innovate and be creative that was the defining characteristic of a person.

The sequential development of AI as a universal technology that has found wide application in the economy and society, poses a number of fundamental issues affecting the foundations of existing IP systems. Do innovative and creative AI developments need the incentives offered by the IP system? How to find the golden mean between the value of inventions and works created by man and AI? Will the emergence of AI require changes in existing IC regulations?

Today, in the modern world, there is a trend towards AI, the introduction of a larger intelligent machine, device, household appliances, cars and software.

We have witnessed the incredible achievement that the algorithms of a problem can be shocking and speed that a person could ever accurately do. Modern AI systems are trained to perform a human task in an intelligent, computerized way.

An example of where algorithms can detect forms of cancer in medical images in the same way that radiologists can. These algorithms are superhuman because they work reliably, repeatedly, and around the clock.[4]

AI increasingly acts as an incentive for progress in technology and business. It is widely used in a wide variety of industries, be it telecommunications or driverless cars.

In banking, AI really helps to improve the quality of customer service by generating relevant offers for them at the right time and using the right communication channel[5].

Theory and Practice of the Application and Use of AI.

The growth of big data and the advances in affordable computing power are encouraging AI to flourish. AI has a major impact on the creation, production and distribution of economic and cultural products and services. In light of the fact that one of the main goals of the IP system is to support innovation and creativity in the economy and culture, AI influences the IP system in many ways.[6]

New technologies such as AI, sophisticated robotics and quantum computing are shaping the future of innovation. Since the 1950s, when the concept of AI was just born, about 340 thousand were submitted. patent applications for AI-based technologies and about 1.6 million scientific publications on this topic have been published. AI-powered innovation and creativity must benefit all countries, regardless of whether they are at the forefront of AI technology[7].

Published in October 2016. Within the European economic system, a system in which intelligent computer programs are actively used, the European computer computer computer program accounting for more than 42% of software tools is 42% running. Union[8].

As AI and computing are helping to facilitate trans-regional and transnational exchange, the importance of multistakeholder and inclusive policies will grow. The existing problems associated with AI fall at the very heart of the current IC system and provoke a number of interrelated issues that require a horizontal approach, affecting the entire IC system, and not specific types of IC rights.

According to Mascimo Maggiore, the fundamental principles of IC law in general and copyright in particular are constantly challenged by the latest technologies[9].

Technology develops and evolves better when there is enough data and time for analysis and trial and error[10]. But, at the same time, the law has already hopelessly lagged behind development and intelligence.

Today, there is a new space between copyright and the emerging realm of AI, in connection with the rapid adoption of AI. Inaction in this cloud can make creative initiatives vulnerable in terms of works, without offering sufficient initiatives to develop such platforms in the near future[11].

As noted by Jane Ginsburg in her work, first of all, it is necessary to clarify whether the results of AI work need an incentive through the attribution of exclusive rights, or instead there are already other incentives, such as copyright protection, legal protection for software, as well as patent protection of industrial design[12].

Considering that one of the main goals of the decree on IC is to support creation, which at the moment has a strong impact on the economy, then, if the works created by AI do not fall under the protection of IC rights, what kind of motivation will the creators of the units and their mathematical support and software, with the help of which these works were created?

AI works are unprotected and not subject to intellectual property laws. Programmers will have no incentive to generate software algorithms capable of creating works of art, unless these programmers have exclusive rights to their work, just like a writer or music composer[13].

According to I.V. Ponkin and A.I. Redkina, AI is capable create (with or without human participation), among others, the following unique results of intellectual activity:

  • scientific discovery;
  • patent-based invention;
  • original musical (audio) work or original performance of a musical work;
  • a work (static) of fine or sculptural (when using a 3D printer) art;
  • original video or photo work;
  • virtual, including augmented reality;
  • result of intellectual translation of any significant text (from language to language);
  • text work (fiction, analytical scientific text, rewrite text of news, etc.);
  • architectural project;
  • topology of an integrated microcircuit;
  • shell software for electronic computing machines;
  • complex (multi-level, multi-stage, multi-vector, multi-scenario) strategic plan.

The list, of course, is not exhaustive, but it makes you seriously think about it, given the almost complete lack of legislation in this area.[14]

             Research Results

As Ben Hattenbach and Joshua Gluckoft point out, the intellectual property law system in the United States, in particular and in the world in general, suffers from new challenges in the digital age, since its fundamental principles and norms were developed at a time when the most advanced technologies were steam machines and typewriters[15].

And, as Raquel Akosta notes, sophisticated computer programs will increasingly cast doubt on some of the fundamental concepts of intellectual property (IP) law, creating offline works that, if created by a person, would be uniquely viewed as those to which intellectual property rights apply[16].

According to Annmarie Bridi, AI authorship will challenge all fundamental concepts of intellectual property law regarding creative content in copyright.[17]. Another issue with artificial intelligence works is the legal period of protection for such works. Many states around the world tend to provide specific periods of time during which the work and the rights arising from it are protected by law. These periods of time are usually determined in relation to the life span of the author of the work and, in exceptional cases, in relation to the first publication or transmission of the work. Artificial intelligence is potentially immortal[18]

All this requires a rethinking of these concepts, taking into account also the following:

The protection of creative works with the help of copyright is primarily in the interests of society, and the temporary granting of a monopoly on them will serve as an economic incentive for authors[19].

In cases where there is no identifiable user, legislation should ensure a balance between incentives for the programmer or creator of the AI ​​unit and the benefits that the public can derive from the ability to freely use the end product of the corresponding creative activity. If the granting of IS developers with copyright to the works created by their systems will lead to the stimulation of creative activity, then this should be reflected at the legislative level. And vice versa, if the protection of the rights of a machine is an incentive in itself, then the works created by it should pass into the public domain[20].

Scientific understanding of the problems of protecting the rights of AI (or people associated with them) to the results of their intellectual activity is impossible without proper consideration of the goals of intellectual property law, as well as without taking into account the potential negative and positive consequences of recognizing and ensuring the protection of such rights.

Discussion.

First of all, it is necessary to take into account that the right of intellectual property is aimed at ensuring the protection of the results of intellectual activity of the human mind.[21]

According to Andrea Moriggi, the granting of intellectual rights to works created by AI, by AI itself, leads to a challenge to the very foundations of intellectual property rights. At the same time, at the present time it is impossible to say unequivocally whether all this is a threat to intellectual property rights or, on the contrary, an effective incentive for its modernization.[22]

The alternatives to endowing AI with the rights to the results of their intellectual activity are, firstly, the transfer of all rights to a human subject, somehow taking part in this AI activity, or immediately transferring such works and inventions into the public domain.

However, the penetration of works created by AI into the public domain can lead to a limitation of the development of innovations in this area, since it will not allow those companies that invest in AI tools to receive corresponding economic benefits from this.[23]

Adequate and specific legal protections would indeed be necessary to properly incentivize inventors and investors in the development of AI technologies, as well as to exploit the economic potential of these new technologies while balancing all interests in this area.[24]

Problems may also arise regarding copyright infringement of third parties when an AI learns itself using data it receives, including from the Internet, and then unauthorizedly uses this data in any form in the process of creating new works.

Consequently, any future legislation, in the opinion of the author of the article, which coincides with the opinion of Jani Ihalainen, regarding AI and copyright, should distinguish between works created by AI and works created with the help of AI, in order to protect the interests of active authors who create their works using computer[25].

The question of authorship in the area under consideration is extremely complex, and there is no single answer to it. Our legal framework is not designed to address the challenges posed by the rapid development of AI. The problem is that our legal system does not have answers to such simple questions as: “Who is the author of a picture created by an AI machine? The development of high-performance AI systems requires significant investment. Thus, there is an urgent need to develop IC-related laws that can protect AI developments and compensate innovators by granting copyright or granting a patent.

But, as a rule, patents and copyrights are granted to inventors or artists on the basis of such criteria as novelty, creativity, non-obviousness, inventive step, etc. In the UK, the author of a work is defined by the Copyright, Designs and Patents, Act 1988 (CDPA) as a person, who “created” it.

 Conclusions.

At the moment, AI systems are not considered as individuals, and there is no single law that would determine who will own the rights of the IC for any content that they create. Therefore, in this area of ​​law there are many opportunities for improvement. It is necessary to change the paradigm in the current legal system of IP so that the AI ​​system can participate in the creation of relevant content, and to develop specific mechanisms for the implementation of a special legal regime for the use of AI technologies[26].

As AI becomes more difficult to distinguish from human actions, issues of law pertaining to property will inevitably become more complex and inevitable in the years to come.

Perhaps more logically, the law should move from an author-centered approach to one that specifically protects specific works, like trademarks, as evidenced by a possible Japanese approach. This would not only allow for greater flexibility in terms of the level of protection, but would also reduce the massive creation of works solely for the sake of securing rights to previously unknown works to profit from the conclusion of licensing agreements.

 

 

 

References.

  1. Resolution of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan PP-4996 “On measures to create conditions for the accelerated introduction of Artificial Intelligence technologies” dated 02.17.2021.
  2. Voinikanits E.A., Tsemenova E.V., Tyulyaev G.S. Artificial intelligence and law: challenges and capabilities of self-learning algorithms // Civil law. Civil process. 2018. No. 4.
  3. V. Ponkin, A. I. Redkina Artificial intelligence and the right of intellectual property // Intellectual property. Authorship and related rights. — 2018. — № 2
  4. Acosta R. Artificial Intelligence and Authorship Rights / Ed. by A. Lewin // Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Digest. — 17.02.2018.
  5. Bridy A. Coding Creativity: Copyright and the Artificially Intelligent Author // Stanford Technology Law Review. — 2012.
  6. Gürkaynak G., Yılmaz I., Doygun T., İnce E. Questions of Intellectual Property in the Artificial Intelligence Realm // Robotics Law Journal. —2017, September-October.
  7. Hattenbach B., Glucof J. Patents in an Era of Infinite Monkeys and Artificial Intelligence // Stanford Technology Law Review. — 2015
  8. Ihalainen J. Computer creativity: artificial intelligence and copyright // Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. — 06.03.2018.
  9. Ruipérez C., Gutiérrez E., Puente C., Olivas J.A. New Challenges of Copyright Authorship in AI // Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence. — Las Vegas, 2017
  10. Moriggi A. The role of intellectual property in the intelligence explosion / 4iP Council Research Award Winner 2017 (Second Place).
  11. Yu R. The machine author: what level of copyright protection is appropriate for fully independent computer-generated works? // University of Pennsylvania Law Review. — 2017.
  12. Artificial Intelligence Collides with Patent Law: White Paper / Center for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. — Geneva (Switzerland): World Economic Forum, 2018. — 23 p. — P. 4.
  13. Report of the General Director of the WOIS Daren Tang “Trends in technology development” 2019
  14. Intellectual property rights intensive industries and economic performance in the European Union. Industry-Level Analysis Report. Octobre, 2016. Second Edition. A joint project between the European Patent Office and the European Union Intellectual Property Office. — Munich (Germany) — Alicante (Spain): EPO; EUIPO, 2016. — 154 p. — P. 6. <https://euipo.europa.eu/tunnelweb/secure/webdav/guest/document_library/observatory/documents/IPContributionStudy/performance_in_the_European_Union/performance_ in_the_European _Union_full.pdf>.
  15. https://www.wipo.int/about-wipo/ru/dg_tang/news/2020/news_0014.html.
  16. https://www.wipo.int/tech_trends/ru/artificial_intelligence.

[1] Artificial Intelligence Collides with Patent Law: White Paper / Center for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. — Geneva (Switzerland): World Economic Forum, 2018. — 23 p. — P. 4.

<http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_48540_WP_End_of_Innovation_Protecting_Patent_Law.pdf>.

[2] https://www.wipo.int/about-wipo/ru/dg_tang/news/2020/news_0014.html

[3] https://www.wipo.int/tech_trends/ru/artificial_intelligence/

[4] Voinikanits E.A., Tsemenova E.V., Tyulyaev G.S. Artistic intelligence and law: challenges and capabilities of self-learning algorithms // Civil law. Civil process. 2018. No. 4.

[5] Pierre Montagnier Director of Consumer Marketing, Analytics and Modeling Bank of Montreal

[6] https://www.wipo.int/about-wipo/ru/dg_tang/news/2020/news_0014.html

[7] Report of the General Director of the WOIS Daren Tang “Trends in technology development” 2019

[8] Intellectual property rights intensive industries and economic performance in the European Union Industry-Level Analysis Report. Octobre, 2016. Second Edition. A joint project between the European Patent Office and the European Union Intellectual Property Office. — Munich (Germany) — Alicante (Spain): EPO; EUIPO, 2016. — 154 p. — P. 6.https://euipo.europa.eu/tunnelweb/secure/webdav/guest/document_library/observatory/documents/IPContributionStudy/performance_in_the_European_Union/performance_ in_the_European _Union_full.pdf>.

[9] Maggiore M. Artificial intelligence, computer generated works and dispersed authorship: spectres that are haunting copyright // <http://www.mmlex.it/artificial-intelligence-computer-generated-works-and-dispersed-authorship-spectres-that-are-haunting-copyright/>.

[10] Gürkaynak G., Yılmaz I., Doygun T., İnce E. Questions of Intellectual Property in the Artificial Intelligence Realm // Robotics Law Journal. —

2017, September-October. — P. 9—11. — P. 11. <http://www. gurkaynak.av.tr/docs/8b791-rlj-september-october-2017-.pdf>.

[11] Ihalainen J. Computer creativity: artificial intelligence and copyright //Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. — 06.03.2018. — P. 5.<https://academic.oup.com/jiplp/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jiplp/jpy031/ 4922708?redirectedFrom=fulltext>.

[12] Ginsburg J.C. People Not Machines: Authorship and What It Means in the Berne // IIC; international review of industrial property and copyright law. — 2018. — № 2 (49). — P. 131—135. — P. 134.

[13] Ruipérez C., Gutiérrez E., Puente C., Olivas J.A. New Challenges of Copyright Authorship in // Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence. — Las Vegas, 2017. —

  1. 291—296. — P. 294—295.

[14] c. — P. 35—44. — P. 37.

[15] Hattenbach B., Glucof J. Patents in an Era of Infinite Monkeys and Artificial Intelligence // Stanford Technology Law Review. — 2015. — Vol. 19. —№ 1. — P. 32—51. — P. 50. <https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/patents-in-an-era-of-infinite-monkeys-and-artificial-intelligence.pdf>.

[16] Acosta R. Artificial Intelligence and Authorship Rights / Ed. by A. Lewin // Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Digest. — 17.02.2018. <https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/artificialintelligence-and-authorship-rights>.

 

[17] Bridy A. Coding Creativity: Copyright and the Artificially Intelligent Author // Stanford Technology Law Review. — 2012. — Vol.5. — P. 1—28. — P. 27. <https://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/ files/microsites/kernochan/09.materials-Bridy.pdf>.

[18]  Morkhat P. “Legal personality of artificial intelligence units. Civil law research “(Moscow: uniti-dana, 2018.)

[19] Yu R. The machine author: what level of copyright protection is appropriate for fully independent computer-generated works? // University of Pennsylvania Law Review. — 2017. — Vol. 165. — P. 1241—1270. — P. 1263. <http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9582&context=penn_law_review>.

[20] Acosta R. Artificial Intelligence and Authorship Rights / Ed. by A. Lewin // Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Digest. — 17.02.2018. <https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/ artificial-intelligence-and-authorship-rights>.

[21] I. V. Ponkin, A. I. Redkina Artificial intelligence and the right of intellectual property // Intellectual property. Authorship and related rights. — 2018. — № 2. — C. 35—44. — C. 43

[22] Moriggi A. The role of intellectual property in the intelligence explosion / 4iP Council Research Award Winner 2017 (Second

Place) // <http://www.4ipcouncil.com/application/files/9615/1638/1031/ The_Role_of_Intellectual_Property_in_the_Intelligence_Explosion.pdf>. — 13 p. —P. 12.

[23] Moriggi A. The role of intellectual property in the intelligence explosion / 4iP Council Research Award Winner 2017 (Second Place) // <http://www.4ipcouncil.com/application/files/9615/1638/1031/The_Role_of_Intellectual_Property_in_the_Intelligence_Explosion.pdf>. —13 p. — P. 9.

[24] Moriggi A. The role of intellectual property in the intelligence explosion / 4iP Council Research Award Winner 2017 (Second Place) // <http://www.4ipcouncil.com/application/files/9615/1638/1031/The_Role_of_Intellectual_Property_in_the_Intelligence_Explosion.pdf>. — 13 p. —P. 12.

[25] Ihalainen J. Computer creativity: artificial intelligence and copyright // Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. — 06.03.2018. —

  1. 2—3. <https://academic.oup.com/jiplp/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ jiplp/jpy0 31/4922708?redirectedFrom=fulltext>.

[26] Resolution of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan PP-4996 “On measures to create conditions for the accelerated introduction of Artificial Intelligence technologies” dated 02.17.2021

compra mi piace facebook, follower instagram, follower tik tok, ed  aumenta la tua visibilità del 300% in soli 2 giorni

LASCIA UN COMMENTO

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here