Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) has been disrupting the world of technology and computing for many years, bringing significant benefits to our daily lives. Ever more sophisticated AI systems do not only supplement the work of humans, but can perform tasks which have been traditionally reserved exclusively for humans. AI can be subdivided into a weak (or narrow) AI and strong AI, according to whether it is designed to tackle single task or can accomplish tasks across multiple domains. AI has been increasingly involved in creative and inventive processes which result in assets qualifying for intellectual property protection, whether by copyright or patent law. However, intellectual property law was designed to protect inventions and creations of a human mind, thus seemingly leaving AI outside of the scope of protection. Currently, the prominence of AI has been set to shake up the foundations of intellectual property law (IP) law. IP law was established in order to recognise the fruits of human ingenuity, creativity, and inventiveness. Indeed, for a long time, mankind assumed that only humans are capable of producing creative works or inventions. But what happens if the human element is taken away from the creative or inventive process? Can IP law accommodate the ingenuity of machines or will legislative changes be required? One of the widely discussed questions has been whether AI can generate inventions or copyright-protected works without human contribution. Suggestions have been provided by academics, governments, policy makers, international institutions (most notably the World Intellectual Property Organisation – WIPO), but legislators have been hesitant to reflect any of them into the existing legal framework. Policy discussions have been revolving around the question whether intellectual property law, especially copyright and patent law, ought to be revised to account for technological developments in AI. For instance, the European Parliament, in its resolution from February 2017 noted that ever more sophisticated AI requires the legislation in virtually every area to consider its legal and ethical implications without stifling innovation. In the UK, both copyright and patent law systems lack specific regulation regarding eligibility of robot generated works or robot inventions. The UK Government set out a goal to change this, by asking the public in Autumn 2021 whether the current rules on copyright and patent are sufficient to accommodate creations and inventions by AI, or whether a new set of rules is needed. A large variety of stakeholders exchanged their views with the UK Government. This may lead to new policy options and potential changes in law, which will be discussed here. This chapter does not aim to provide responses as to whether copyright and patent law is ripe for amendment. Rather, it aims to discuss involvement of AI in the IP value chain – not only with respect to AI as a creator/inventor (i. e. before IP protection arises), but also the role of AI as a user of IP protected assets. Challenges brought by AI are discussed here with respect to two areas of intellectual property – copyright and patents.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
AIPPI – Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property, ‘Copyright and Artificially Generated Works, Resolution of the 2019 AIPPI World Congress – London, 18 September 2019’ <http://114.247.84.87/AIPPI/ztyj/jy/201911/P020191219538152201660.pdf>
——, ‘Inventorship of Inventions Made Using Artificial Intelligence, Resolution of the 2020 AIPPI World Congress’ <https://aippi.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Adopted-Resolution-Q272-Patents-Inventorship-of-inventions-made-using-Artificial-Intelligence.pdf>
Aplin T and Davies J, Intellectual Property Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press)
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works 29
Čerka P, Grigienė J and Sirbikytė G, ‘Liability for Damages Caused by Artificial Intelligence’ (2015) 31 Computer Law & Security Review 376
Drexl J and others, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Law – Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 9 April 2021 on the Current Debate’ (9 April 2021) <https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3822924> accessed 15 December 2022
——, ‘Technical Aspects of Artificial Intelligence: An Understanding from an Intellectual Property Law Perspective’ Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Research Paper Nr. 19 – 13 15
European Parliament, ‘Report with Recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics’ <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0005_EN.html> accessed 6 July 2020
‘Founder’ <https://imagination-engines.com/founder.html> accessed 2 December 2022
Fried I, ‘Exclusive: Adobe Will Sell AI-Made Stock Images’ (Axios, 5 December 2022) <https://www.axios.com/2022/12/05/adobe-ai-made-stock-images> accessed 6 December 2022
Geiger C, Frosio G and Bulayenko O, ‘Text and Data Mining: Articles 3 and 4 of the Directive 2019/790/Eu’ [2019] SSRN Electronic Journal <https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=3470653> accessed 28 December 2021
Guadamuz A, ‘Do Androids Dream of Electric Copyright? Comparative Analysis of Originality in Artificial Intelligence Generated Works’ (2017) 2017 Intellectual Property Quarterly 18
Hartmann C and others, ‘Trends and Developments to Artificial Intelligence: Challenges to the Intellectual Property Rights Framework’ <https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/394345a1-2ecf-11eb-b27b-01aa75ed71a1/language-en>
Harwell D, ‘He Used AI to Win a Fine-Arts Competition. Was It Cheating?’ (Washington Post, 2 September 2022) <https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/09/02/midjourney-artificial-intelligence-state-fair-colorado/> accessed 12 December 2022
Hilty RM, Hoffmann J and Scheuerer S, ‘Intellectual Property Justification for Artificial Intelligence’ 29
Hugenholtz PB, ‘The New Copyright Directive: Text and Data Mining (Articles 3 and 4)’ (Kluwer Copyright Blog, 24 July 2019) <http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/07/24/the-new-copyright-directive-text-and-data-mining-articles-3-and-4/> accessed 27 December 2021
Kelly C, ‘Australian Artists Accuse Popular AI Imaging App of Stealing Content, Call for Stricter Copyright Laws’ The Guardian (11 December 2022) <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/dec/12/australian-artists-accuse-popular-ai-imaging-app-of-stealing-content-call-for-stricter-copyright-laws> accessed 12 December 2022
Kim D, ‘The Paradox of the DABUS Judgment of the German Federal Patent Court’ [2022] GRUR International ikac125
Koempel F, ‘UK Music’s Legal Expert Outlines Issues With Proposed AI Data Mining’ (UK Music, 29 November 2022) <https://www.ukmusic.org/news/uk-musics-legal-expert-outlines-issues-with-proposed-ai-data-mining/> accessed 8 December 2022
Matulionyte R, ‘AI as an Inventor: Has the Federal Court of Australia Erred in DABUS?’ (2022) 13 JIPITEC <http://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-13-2-2022/5538>
McCutcheon C, ‘Curing the Authorless Void: Protecting Computer-Generated Works Following ICE TV and Phone Directories’ (2013) 37 Melbourne University Law Review
McDermott E, ‘DABUS Scores Again with Win on AI Inventorship Question in Australia Court’ (IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law, 2 August 2021) <https://ipwatchdog.com/2021/08/02/dabus-scores-win-ai-inventorship-question-australia-court/id=136304/> accessed 25 November 2022
Metz R, ‘These Artists Found out Their Work Was Used to Train AI. Now They’re Furious | CNN Business’ (CNN, 21 October 2022) <https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/21/tech/artists-ai-images/index.html> accessed 8 December 2022
‘Patents and Applications – The Artificial Inventor Project’ <https://artificialinventor.com/patent-applications/> accessed 15 December 2022
Ramalho A, ‘Will Robots Rule the (Artistic) World? A Proposed Model for the Legal Status of Creations by Artificial Intelligence Systems’ (2017) 21 The Journal of Intenet Law 12
———, Intellectual Property Protection for AI-Generated Creations: Europe, United States, Australia, and Japan (Routledge 2021)
Ricketson S, ‘The 1992 Horace S. Manges Lecture – People or Machines: The Berne Convention and the Changing Concept of Authorship’ 16 Colum-VLA JL & Arts
Senftleben M and Buijtelaar L, ‘Robot Creativity: An Incentive-Based Neighboring Rights Approach’ [2020] SSRN Electronic Journal <https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=3707741> accessed 17 November 2022
Stassen M, ‘Over 1,000 Songs with Human-Mimicking AI Vocals Have Been Released by Tencent Music in China. One of Them Has 100m Streams.’ (Music Business Worldwide, 15 November 2022) <https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/over-1000-songs-human-mimicking-ai-vocals-have-been-released-by-tencent-music-in-china-one-of-them-has-over-100m-streams/> accessed 12 December 2022
The Government of the United Kingdom, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: Copyright and Patents: Government Response to Consultation’ (GOV.UK) <https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/artificial-intelligence-and-ip-copyright-and-patents/outcome/artificial-intelligence-and-intellectual-property-copyright-and-patents-government-response-to-consultation> accessed 8 December 2022
Trapova and Gervassis Ni, ‘UKIPO’s Public Consultation on AI and IP – Computer-Generated Works (Part 1)’ (Kluwer Copyright Blog, 14 March 2022) <http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/03/14/ukipos-public-consultation-on-ai-and-ip-computer-generated-works-part-1/> accessed 15 December 2022
UK Intellectual Property Office, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: Copyright and Patents: Government Response to Consultation’ (GOV.UK) <https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/artificial-intelligence-and-ip-copyright-and-patents/outcome/artificial-intelligence-and-intellectual-property-copyright-and-patents-government-response-to-consultation> accessed 13 December 2022
———, ‘Government Response to Call for Views on Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property’ (GOV.UK) <https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/artificial-intelligence-and-intellectual-property-call-for-views/government-response-to-call-for-views-on-artificial-intelligence-and-intellectual-property> accessed 27 June 2021
van Gompel S, ‘Creativity, Autonomy and Personal Touch: A Critical Appraisal of the CJEU’s Originality Test for Copyright’ in Mireille Eechoud (ed), The Work of Authorship (Amsterdam University Press 2014)
Vanpoucke W, ‘Copyright Challenged by Art Created by Artificial Intelligence’ (2021) 43 European Intellectual Property Review 12
Vincent J, ‘Getty Images Bans AI-Generated Content over Fears of Legal Challenges’ (The Verge, 21 September 2022) <https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/21/23364696/getty-images-ai-ban-generated-artwork-illustration-copyright> accessed 2 December 2022
Wiggers K, ‘GitHub Launches Copilot for Business Plan as Legal Questions Remain Unresolved’ (TechCrunch, 8 December 2022) <https://techcrunch.com/2022/12/08/github-launches-copilot-for-business-plan-as-legal-questions-remain-unresolved/> accessed 12 December 2022
World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), ‘The WIPO Conversation on Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence’ <https://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/artificial_intelligence/conversation.html> accessed 11 December 2022
Commissioner of Patents v Thaler (Australia) [2022] Federal Court of Australia FCAFC 62
Decision on patent application GB18169094 and GB18181610, BL O/741/19 [2019] Intellectual Property Office of the United Kingdom BL O/741/19
Dr Stephen L Thaler v Presidentin des Deutschen Patent- und Markenamts, 1 W (pat) 5/21 (Bundespatentgericht (Germany))
Eva Maria Painer v Standard Verlags GmbH [2011] Court of Justice of the European Union ECLI:EU:C:2011:798
Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagbladens Forening, Case C-5/08, ECLI:EU:C:2009:465 [2009] Court of Justice of the European Union ECLI:EU:C:2009:465
Stephen L Thaler v The Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2020] EWHC 2412 (Pat) [2020]
Thaler v Commissioner of Patents [2021] Federal Court of Australia FCA 879
Thaler v Comptroller General of Patents Trade Marks And Designs [2021] EWCA Civ 1374 (EWCA (Civ))
Thaler v Iancu, et al, No 1:2020cv00903 – Document 33 (ED Va 2021) [2021] United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia 1:2020cv00903
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (United Kingdom) 1988
Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, OJ L 167
Directive 2019/790/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC, OJ L 130/92 2019
H.R.1249 – Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
Patent Act 1990 (Act No. 83) (Australia)
Patentgesetz (Germany) – Patent Act as published on 16 December 1980 (Federal Law Gazette 1981 I p. 1), as last amended by Article 4 of the Act of 8 October 2017 (Federal Law Gazette I p. 3546)
Patents Act 1977 (United Kingdom) 1977
Judgment of the Supreme Court, Thaler (Appellant) v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Respondent) [2023] UKSC 49
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Klobucnik, L. (2024). Intellectual Property Regulation of Artificial Intelligence: A Matter of Time or a Step Too Far?. In: Naim, N. (eds) Developments in Intellectual Property Strategy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42576-9_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42576-9_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-42575-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-42576-9
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)