AI CREATION NEEDS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTYRIGHT

Authors:

INTRODUCTION

While Artificial Intelligence (AI) was once confined to the realm of science fiction, it has rapidly become a ubiquitous part of our daily lives. From voice assistants and predictive purchasing to fraud detection and chatbots, we regularly engage with AI-driven systems. These applications encompass a variety of techniques that are central to the concept of AI. With the advancement of technology so are the loops in law. A Modern Approach, presents eight different definitions of Al organized into four categories: thinking humanly, acting humanly, thinking rationally, and acting rationally. In the digital age, where innovation is paramount and technological advancements continue to reshape various industries, the creation of artificial intelligence (AI) stands out as one of the most groundbreaking developments. The word intellectual property refers to the human brain’s ability to be creative and produce new things. Inventing or creating anything new requires a variety of efforts in terms of personnel, time, energy, talent, money, and so on. The final concept that led to the innovation or creation is an intangible property of the individual who worked hard to make it happen. Artificial intelligence technology generates creative material, raising concerns about ownership and infringement in copyright law.


INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

One of the fundamental questions surrounding AI-generated creations is: who owns the intellectual property rights? Unlike human creators, AI systems lack legal personhood, raising doubts about their ability to hold property rights. In many jurisdictions, copyright laws stipulate that only human authors are entitled to copyright protection. Consequently, works generated by AI may fall into a legal gray area, leaving the question of ownership unanswered. The individual who develops AI assumes responsibility for it, notably since an AI’s algorithms are crafted by a programmer. It is argued that prevailing copyright laws safeguard the description of these algorithms as software. International agreements extend copyright protection to software akin to literary works. Currently, narrow AI, the predominant form of AI, falls within this protected realm.² Despite AI’s ongoing self-learning capabilities, predicting its outcomes remains elusive, yet this doesn’t preclude delineating its tasks or objectives. Put differently, the consequences of AI differ from its intended function. A software engineer constructs an AI framework to process inputs into desired outputs. This foundational structure remains unchanged as AI learns. Consequently, narrow AI qualifies as a computer program under EU legislation and is thus shielded by copyright. Narrow AI, the prevalent form at present, lacks legal personhood.³

Furthermore, the involvement of human programmers and developers in the creation and training of AI systems adds another layer of complexity. While humans provide the algorithms, data sets, and parameters that enable AI to generate content, the extent of their contribution and the degree of creative autonomy possessed by the AI itself remain contentious issues. As a result, establishing clear lines of ownership becomes challenging, especially in cases where AI systems produce works that exceed the scope of their initial programming.⁴

Copyright protects an author’s original work against unauthorized use, making it a crucial part of intellectual property rights. The bulk of copyright restrictions in India are governed by the Copyright Act of 1957, which grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights for their lifetime and 60 years. In India, copyright protection requires original work in a tangible medium under the Copyright Act, 1957. The idea of uniqueness is interpreted from court rulings, which incorporate the use of adequate judgment, skill, and labor.

ISSUES WITH GIVING AI THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
  1. As of now there are no laws, which holds Al system accountable for violating a copyright. Generally, a person will be liable for infringing the copyrighted work. If a person who created Al will be accountable for nay copyright violations. If that person doesn’t have any intention do so; then it will be difficult to establish human accountability.
  2. Granting AI intellectual property rights has the potential to displace labour across several sectors. The use of aluminium and other cutting-edge technology raises ethical concerns in the legal profession and may impede some workers’ ability to earn a living. Furthermore, Al technology is already altering the nature of parenting and family interactions, and its prolonged usage may undermine societal structure and value.
  3. Consider using artificial intelligence to register patents generated by humans. Consider a terrifying scenario when the Al develops patent and trademark registrable devices independently. Both conditions pose challenges to global rules. Creating intellectual property requires innovation, which is now limited to humans.
  4. The machine autonomously learning from various inputs can potentially cultivate artificial intelligence, leading to the creation of original designs or inventions, and conceivably, patentable processes. Additionally, it might generate content eligible for copyright protection, such as textual works, diagrams, source codes, images, and even music. There’s also a possibility of the AI devising unique trademarks through intricate algorithms. However, the challenge lies in the fact that the AI’s behaviour for artificial intelligence operates autonomously, devoid of human intervention or decision-making.
  5. Perhaps artificial intelligence could create music not to cater to human preferences, but rather to fulfil the needs of other AI entities. Typically, an AI system emulates human tasks. For instance, Microsoft’s Inner Eye project employs AI to assist oncologists in expediting cancer treatment targeting. By utilizing machine-learning techniques to analyse MRI scans, the system can identify tumours and differentiate them from healthy tissue and bone, a task previously performed manually by oncologists outlining contours on 3D images. However, if a patent application were submitted for this machine-performed task, it would likely be rejected because it fails to meet one of the fundamental requirements of patentability: disclosing how the invention operates.
Conclusions

Generative AI has forever changed the landscape of creativity, innovation, and intellectual property. In India, like in many other countries, the existing IPR system, notably in copyright and trademarks, is facing new complications and problems that need quick attention and modification. While safeguarding artists’ and innovators’ rights is critical, it is also necessary to establish an atmosphere conducive to AI-driven innovation. As artificial intelligence continues to revolutionize the way we create, consume, and interact with content, the need to address intellectual property rights in this domain becomes increasingly urgent. By navigating the complexities of AI-generated creations with a combination of legal, ethical, and technological tools, we can foster a more inclusive and equitable innovation landscape. Whether through legislative reforms, industry standards, or collaborative initiatives, it is essential to strike a balance between fostering creativity and protecting the rights of all stakeholders in the AI ecosystem. Only by embracing this multifaceted approach can we harness the full potential of AI while upholding the principles of fairness, transparency, and accountability in the digital age.

What do you think?