Open Access Research Article
STRIKING A HARMONIOUS ACCORD BETWEEN ADVANCEMENT AND SAFEGUARDING: THE INFLUENCE OF AI ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS STRUCTURES IN INDIA
Published Paper
Article Details
STRIKING A HARMONIOUS ACCORD
BETWEEN ADVANCEMENT AND SAFEGUARDING: THE INFLUENCE OF AI ON INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS STRUCTURES IN INDIA
AUTHORED BY
- MS. KHUSHI KHANDELWAL
4th Year
BALLB (HONS) Student
CHRIST (Deemed
to be University) Pune, Lavasa Campus.
"Striking a Harmonious Accord between Advancement and Safeguarding: The Influence of AI on Intellectual Property Rights
Structures in India"
Abstract
The rapid expansion and widespread adoption of artificial intelligence
systems are currently experiencing a significant and noteworthy increase in
momentum within our modern, technologically sophisticated society, which is
characterized by its relentless pursuit of innovation and advancement. As we
witness the seamless integration of these highly sophisticated technologies into various sectors,
it becomes increasingly apparent that it is only a
matter of time before these intelligent systems
begin to autonomously generate extraordinary
inventions and creations without the need for any human input or oversight.
This prospective reality prompts a series of critical and complex inquiries
regarding the realm of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), as it not only poses
substantial challenges to the traditional and established understandings of
fundamental concepts such as patents and copyrights but also engenders a host
of regulatory dilemmas and questions concerning the ownership and legitimacy of
such innovative outputs, among various other pertinent issues. The primary
objective of this scholarly paper is to thoroughly elucidate
the expanding scope and framework of IPR laws in relation to the
burgeoning field of artificial intelligence, whilst simultaneously addressing the myriad and inevitable challenges that this phenomenon presents when examined from a comprehensive global
perspective. In addition to this, the paper aspires to proffer insightful
recommendations that extend beyond the limitations of conventional IPR
frameworks and endeavors to confront the intricate
questions regarding criminal liability that
arise from content generated by these advanced
technologies. Thus, it is essential to engage in a robust discourse on these pressing
matters, as they hold significant implications for the future
of innovation and the protection of intellectual property
rights in an era increasingly dominated by artificial intelligence. Ultimately, this
examination seeks to foster a deeper understanding of the intersection between
IPR and artificial intelligence, paving the way for a more informed and equitable approach to
managing the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead in this rapidly
evolving landscape.
Key Words
Artificial Intelligence, Copyright Law, Patent Law, Intellectual Property
Right & AI System
Introduction
Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are currently experiencing an
extraordinary and rapid expansion, characterized by the integration of
increasingly advanced and sophisticated forms of software that enhance
their capabilities and functionalities. These AI-enabled systems
have evolved significantly, moving beyond the mere execution of basic
mathematical calculations to engaging in the creation
of poetry, visual
artwork, and an array of other intricate and complex forms of
creative expression that were once thought to be the exclusive domain of human
intellect and creativity. This remarkable development prompts a critical
examination of whether works produced by these AI systems could be granted any
distinct recognition or special status under the existing framework of
Intellectual Property (IP) laws, much like the protection afforded
to various forms
of work that are generated by identifiable human
creators, which are generally safeguarded by IP legislation. The
exploration of this particular question opens the door to a multitude of other
nuanced and intricate issues that warrant thorough consideration, and through
the course of this scholarly paper, the authors aspire to illuminate these
complexities. [1]The
initial section of the paper delineates the fundamental concept of AI, thereby
laying a foundation for the subsequent discourse on IP, which predominantly
concentrates on the nuances of Copyright Laws in relation to AI. Following this
examination, the paper transitions into a more contemplative discussion
regarding the ongoing debates surrounding copyright in connection with AI-generated solutions, while also emphasizing the interplay between
patent laws and AI systems. Furthermore, the paper culminates in the
presentation of insightful recommendations aimed at addressing the various challenges
and questions that arise from these pressing issues, thus contributing to the
broader discourse on the implications of AI for intellectual property rights.
AI and IPR
The technological domain of Artificial Intelligence, commonly referred to
as AI, was meticulously elucidated by the eminent
mathematician and cognitive scientist John McCarthy in the year of 1955, a pivotal
moment in the evolution of this field, during which he not only defined the concept but also, notably,
coined the now-ubiquitous term “Artificial Intelligence.” McCarthy is widely regarded
as one of the foundational figures, often referred
to as one of the founding fathers, in the realm of AI.
In accordance with his authoritative perspective, AI can be articulated as “The
Science and engineering of making intelligent machines, especially intelligent
computer programs.” In essence, AI can be comprehensively summarized as a
contemporary and sophisticated computer programming tool, endowed with the
remarkable capability to simulate
human intelligence and cognitive behavior,
thereby possessing immense potential for a multitude of
future applications that are likely to significantly influence and enhance the human way of life. Among the various types of AI that are currently prevalent
and widely utilized, one can identify several classifications, including
but not limited to, reactive AI, theory of mind AI, limited memory
AI, and self-awareness AI, among others.
The domain of AI is
intricately associated with numerous facets of human ingenuity and innovation,
encompassing various inventions and novel creations, thus representing a
significant advancement in the technological landscape[2]. Francis
Gurry, the esteemed
Director General of the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO), has articulated the viewpoint that the advent of AI will
yield substantial technical, financial, and communal consequences, thereby
fundamentally transforming the way we construct, distribute, and consume goods and services, as well as influencing the
methodologies we employ in our work and overall existence.
To effectively harness the potential applications of AI across diverse
fields within the Indian context, it is imperative that we undertake a
comprehensive compatibility assessment and thorough examination to ascertain the degree to which the existing interface of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and AI exhibits
mutual similarities, facilitating the effective application and consumption of AI in the
foreseeable future. The following enumerated challenges are those that are
currently encountered within this intricate interface:
I.
The pressing issue regarding the eligibility standards
for sub-matter related
to inventions driven by AI.
II.
The contentious issues surrounding the concept of inventor-ship pertaining to inventions that are generated by AI.
III.
The complex issues
associated with infringements occurring within the AI domain.
IV.
The significant issues
involved in assigning legal status to stakeholders associated with AI. 1.
a)
The Issue
of Sub-Matter Eligibility Standards for AI Lead Inventions: The
contemporary framework governing IPR delineates that the criteria for granting
patent rights necessitate that inventions, innovations, and their utility
must adhere to three distinct benchmarks. A notable limitation
within the existing IPR framework is the exclusion of mathematical methods,
algorithms, or computer programs from patentability in India, as well as in numerous
other jurisdictions. Consequently, the computer code itself is classified
as non-patentable, thereby falling under the copyright act and being
categorized as a “literary work.” Conversely, a novel machine or a unique
combination of hardware and computer codes may indeed qualify for patent
protection. Therefore, the determination of patentability is fundamentally contingent upon the presence
of novelty and the potential
for industrial application. It can be asserted that there exists a
considerable degree of overlap between the realms of IPR and AI, with several intersecting dimensions.
b)
Issues Of Inventor-Ship For
AI-Generated Inventions: A critical and significant challenge that arises is the question of
attributing ‘inventor-ship,’ particularly
in instances where the resultant work is a product of any AI tool or system.
The prevailing legal framework stipulates that patent rights may only be
conferred upon individuals who are recognized as legitimate entities by the
law. Specifically, it mandates that only a person who can be identified as the
inventor of the product is permitted to apply for patent protection. This legal
stipulation engenders a pertinent point of contention regarding the definition of what constitutes a ‘person.’ Given
that AI is not a human entity
and is therefore incapable of engaging
in such legal activities, this issue emerges
as one of the most contentious and debatable topics
within the field
of inventor-ship for inventions generated by AI.
c)
Concerns
Regarding Infringements Within the Domain of Artificial Intelligence: When
considering Artificial Intelligence as an inventor, a pertinent inquiry arises
concerning the party
responsible for the actions undertaken by AI on behalf of the end-user. Should accountability rest with
the developer or with the AI itself?
In instances where a product experiences malfunction, the producer may bear
responsibility for any patent infringement committed by the AI that he has
developed. The European Parliament Resolution may necessitate the establishment
of a mandatory insurance scheme. This resolution opens the possibility of enhancing such an obligatory insurance framework with provisions to ensure that adequate
compensation can be provided for reparations, particularly in the absence of
current insurance coverage. Furthermore, there is the proposition that AI be held accountable for its acts of patent infringement. Nonetheless, this would require a legal framework that recognizes AI as a legal entity. This notion has already
been initiated by the European Parliament Resolution, which designates
complex AI systems as “electronic persons.”
d)
The
Challenge of Conferring Legal
Status Upon AI Stakeholders:
Granting a distinct legal status to AI agents and
delineating the parameters of this status—specifically in relation to
accountability, rights, and potential obligations—provides a minimal degree of
assurance regarding the implications of introducing these novel intelligent
agents into society. This stands
in stark contrast
to the substantial volume of unforeseen challenges that must be addressed and regulated, as these are not solely
linked to ultimate compensation, but also to the safeguarding of personal data and public
security. The prospect
of endowing AI with legal
personality raises significant jurisprudential dilemmas, with experts on both
sides presenting arguments for and against this concept. The recent vision
document released by NITI Aayog in 2018 addresses
one facet of AI development and its promotion, yet it falls short
by not adequately considering the potential legal
ramifications and concrete solutions. Should we neglect to
assess and concentrate on the fundamental legal implications of the AI-Intellectual Property Rights
interface, the future trajectory of AI
in India may encounter obstacles within the renewable energy and information
technology sectors[3].
A.
AI And Copyright
Over the past several decades, copyright law has undergone significant
evolution in response to technological advancements. The scope of copyright law
has progressively expanded from encompassing literary, musical, and dramatic
works to include computer programs as well. Indian copyright law struggles to
keep pace with these rapid technological developments. The last few decades have witnessed substantial amendments to the Copyright Act of 1957. Numerous gaps remain
that require the attention of lawmakers, one of which pertains to the realm of Artificial Intelligence.
Artificial Intelligence operates
based on the foundational principle of deep learning, which allows it to replicate and mimic the behavioral patterns
exhibited by human beings in various contexts and scenarios. In the year 2023,
we find ourselves in a position that prompts us to pose several critical and
thought-provoking inquiries to the domain of Artificial Intelligence, including
but not limited to the following: first, does the work produced or associated
with Artificial Intelligence warrant the protection afforded by copyright laws?
Secondly, if the answer to the aforementioned query is in the affirmative, who
precisely should be regarded as the author or rightful owner of such copyright
privileges? Thirdly, how is the sharing of intellectual property
concerning works related
to Artificial Intelligence systematically managed and regulated?
In numerous jurisdictions across the globe, including the nation of
India, the legal frameworks stipulate that for any literary, artistic,
dramatic, or musical creation to be eligible for copyright protection, it must
possess a certain degree of creativity. This requirement is underscored by the
principle of “Modicum of Creativity,” which was established in the landmark
case of EBC Vs D. B. Modak. Furthermore, the traditional doctrine known as the “Sweat of Brow” has proven to be ineffective in securing copyright protection for various works.
Consequently, regarding the initial inquiry, the prevailing
interpretation under the Indian Copyright Act
suggests that the answer is a definitive no. Moreover, it remains a fact that
financial incentives continue to serve as one of the primary motivating factors
driving the development and creation
of most forms of Intellectual Property. This leads to the pertinent
question concerning the roles of corporations and individuals who are pooling
their resources and assets towards the advancement of Artificial Intelligence technologies.
The World Intellectual Property Organization[4]
(WIPO) has recognized the existence of three distinct categories of Artificial Intelligence systems, which include, but are not limited
to, the following types: firstly,
Expert Systems, which are designed
to emulate the decision-
making capabilities of a human expert; secondly, Perception Systems, which
focus on interpreting and responding to sensory data; and thirdly, Natural
Language Processing Systems, which facilitate the understanding and generation
of human language. It is essential to acknowledge that the Copyright Act delineates a clear distinction
between the roles of the author and the owner.
The owner is endowed with the entirety
of the copyright privileges and, as such, is entitled to all associated
economic rights, while the author is primarily attributed with moral rights
concerning the work they have created. The TRIPS agreement further
elucidates that the owner enjoys an elevated
status within the framework
of copyright law when compared to the creator of the work.
The question then arises as to who is recognized as the rightful
owner in this context. It can
be observed that the corporation that holds the technology possesses ownership rights; the end-users who purchase the technology
are permitted to set its parameters, while artists utilize Artificial Intelligence to produce
new and innovative creations. Notably, the Indian
Copyright Act, specifically section
2(d)(vi) of the 1957 legislation, contains a significant provision that states, "in
relation to any literary, dramatic,
musical or artistic
work which is computer-generated, the person who causes the work to be created" shall be considered the author of that work[5].
This indicates that the individual who is most closely and directly
involved in the "expression" of the work ultimately becomes the party
eligible for copyright protection. Consequently, the individual who has
invested the necessary financial resources and has taken on the associated risks
to produce a work utilizing Artificial
Intelligence is the one who holds the copyright, rather
than the end-user, whose contributions to reproduction and distribution are comparatively
minimal. Moreover, it is important to note that program developers do not fall
under the category of copyright ownership, as they are typically engaged in
commissioned tasks to create such Artificial
Intelligence systems.
It is essential to recognize that copyright subsists
in the expression of ideas
rather than the ideas themselves; specifically, it pertains to the manner
in which language
is employed for the purpose of expressing those
ideas. In instances where copyright infringement occurs, the individual
identified as the owner of the copyright is the party that bears the
responsibility for addressing the infringement and is consequently accountable for any legal
ramifications that may ensue.
B.
Case Studies – Ownership Issues
Case studies serve as a crucial source of understanding regarding the
legal and ethical dilemmas associated with the ownership of intellectual
property generated by artificial intelligence.[6]
Below are several recent cases that illuminate these concerns:
§ The DABUS
case: In the year 2018,
an artificial intelligence system known as DABUS
(Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) devised two
inventions, specifically a food container and a light beacon, which were
subsequently submitted for patent
applications in the United Kingdom,
the United States,
and Europe. The applications faced rejection on the basis that an AI system cannot be recognized as an inventor according to existing patent
legislation. The case is presently under appeal and may
carry significant repercussions for the ownership and recognition of AI-
generated intellectual property.
§ The “Edmond
de Belamy” artwork:
In 2018, a French artistic
collective named Obvious employed an AI system to produce
a portrait entitled “Edmond de Belamy.” The artwork was auctioned for an amount exceeding $400,000,
thereby prompting inquiries regarding the ownership and
attribution of art generated by artificial intelligence. Although the
collective was acknowledged as the creator, the precise role of the AI system
in the artwork's creation remains ambiguous.
§ The OpenAI
GPT-2 language model: In 2019, OpenAI unveiled a language model designated GPT-2,
which possessed the capability to generate remarkably realistic text. The
introduction of this model raised apprehensions regarding the ownership and
attribution of the text produced by the AI
system. Ultimately, OpenAI resolved not to release the complete version of the
model, citing concerns related to the potential misuse of the technology.
These case studies underscore the legal and ethical dilemmas surrounding
the ownership and attribution of intellectual property generated by artificial
intelligence. As the utilization of AI in the creation
of intellectual property
escalates, it is imperative to address these
challenges to ensure that the advantages of AI are harnessed while
simultaneously safeguarding the rights of intellectual property proprietors and
fostering innovation and creativity[7].
C.
Patentability Of AI Inventions
The swift advancement and extensive integration of artificial
intelligence (AI) technology are revolutionizing numerous industries and
generating novel avenues for innovation. Nevertheless, the question of whether inventions produced by AI can be patented represents a complex and evolving facet
of intellectual property law.
On one hand, the provision of patent protection can incentivize
investment in AI research and
development by conferring legal rights to exclude others from utilizing or
commercializing the invention. Conversely, there exist apprehensions that
permitting patents for AI-generated inventions could lead to the obsolescence
of human inventors, restrict access to vital technologies, and engender novel
forms of inequality.
D.
Legal And Ethical
Issues in AI-Generated Inventions
The escalating application of AI
in the creation of new inventions has given rise to a multitude of legal and
ethical challenges concerning the ownership and patentability of AI-generated inventions. In this section,
we shall explore
some of these issues in greater
depth[8].
? Ownership
of AI-generated inventions: A principal concern associated with AI-
generated inventions pertains to ownership rights. In certain scenarios, the
architect of the AI system
responsible for generating the invention may contend that they ought to possess
the rights to the resultant invention. Conversely, in other instances, it may
be asserted that the proprietor of the data utilized to train the AI system
should hold ownership of the invention. This matter is further complicated by
the reality that, in some instances, the AI system may produce an invention
that transcends the comprehension or replication capabilities of any human
being. Consequently, in such instances, it may prove challenging to ascertain
who ought to be regarded as the inventor.
? Patentability of AI-generated inventions: Another significant issue concerning AI- generated inventions is the inquiry
into their patentability. Patent regulations across various nations differ in
their approach to AI-generated inventions. Certain nations, including the
United States, permit the patenting of AI-generated
inventions provided they fulfill the requisite criteria
for patentability, such as being
novel and non-obvious. Conversely, in other
nations, such as Australia and New Zealand, current legislation mandates that an invention must be the product
of human ingenuity in order to qualify for patent protection.
? Ethical
Considerations: In conjunction with these legal dilemmas, there
exists a spectrum of ethical considerations pertinent to the ownership and
patentability of AI- generated inventions. A primary apprehension is the potential ramifications on employment, as AI-generated inventions
may displace human inventors, resulting in job losses. Moreover, there are
apprehensions regarding the societal impact of AI- generated inventions,
including the potential for bias or the emergence of new technologies that
could be exploited for detrimental purposes.
The legal and ethical challenges associated with AI-generated inventions
are intricate and multifaceted. As AI technology perpetually evolves, it will be imperative to cultivate legal
and policy frameworks capable of addressing these challenges in a manner
that fosters innovation and creativity while simultaneously safeguarding the rights of inventors and ensuring equitable distribution of the benefits of
AI throughout society[9].
E.
Case Studies – Patentability Of AI Generated Inventions
To gain a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding the
patentability of AI- generated inventions, let us scrutinize several case
studies of recent patent disputes involving
AI[10].
o
DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of
Unified Sentience): DABUS represents an AI system developed by Dr. Stephen
Thaler, endowed with the capability of generating novel inventions. In 2019, Dr. Thaler submitted patent applications in the
United States, Europe, and various other nations for two inventions conceived
by DABUS: a beverage container and a flashing light. The patent applications
faced rejection on the basis that an AI system cannot be designated as an inventor
on a patent application, as the inventor must be a human entity.
Dr. Thaler has contested this ruling,
asserting that DABUS is the genuine inventor
of the inventions and merits recognition
as such.
o
Qualcomm
v. Apple: In the year 2017, Qualcomm
initiated legal proceedings against Apple, asserting that Apple had violated multiple
patents pertaining to smartphone
technology. One of the patents at issue concerned an AI-driven power management
system designed to enhance the battery longevity of smartphones. Apple
contended that the patent
was rendered invalid
due to its foundation on an AI-generated algorithm, thus
asserting that it lacked human inventiveness. Nevertheless, the court
ultimately rendered a decision in favor of Qualcomm, determining that the
patent was valid and had indeed been infringed upon by Apple. This case
exemplifies the complexities involved in assessing the inventiveness of
inventions generated by artificial intelligence, as well as the potential
ramifications for patent disputes that encompass AI technology.
o
Image Processing Technologies LLC v. Samsung
Electronics Co.: In the year 2016, Image Processing Technologies LLC filed a
lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co. for
allegedly infringing upon a patent
related to image
processing technology. Samsung defended itself by arguing that
the patent was invalid on the grounds that it was predicated on an AI-generated
algorithm, thereby lacking human inventiveness. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Image Processing Technologies LLC, concluding that the
patent was indeed valid and had been infringed by Samsung. This case underscores the critical importance of
safeguarding AI-generated inventions through intellectual property rights,
irrespective of the absence of direct human involvement[11].
F.
Case Studies – AI And IP
I.
Alibaba’s
IP Protection System: In the
year 2018, Alibaba, the esteemed
Chinese e- commerce conglomerate, unveiled its AI-enhanced Intellectual
Property protection system referred to as the “Alibaba Intellectual Property
Protection Platform.” This system employs machine learning algorithms to
scrutinize vast quantities of data in order to detect and eliminate counterfeit
merchandise from its platforms. Reports indicate that this system has enabled Alibaba to decrease the prevalence of
counterfeit products on its platform by 30% while simultaneously augmenting the efficiency of IP
protection requests by 50%.
II.
IBM’s
Patent Analysis Tool: IBM has conceived an AI-driven patent analysis tool
known as “Watson for IP,” which assists enterprises in analyzing patent data
and identifying potential infringements of intellectual property rights. This
tool utilizes natural language processing and machine learning algorithms to
examine patent documents, scientific literature, and various other
informational sources to detect possible infringements of IP rights.
III.
Qualcomm’s
Patent Infringement Detection System: Qualcomm, a prominent technology
enterprise, has developed an AI-powered patent infringement detection system
capable of analyzing substantial volumes of data to identify potential
infringements of its patents. This system employs machine learning algorithms
to evaluate patent documents, legal filings, and other informational sources to
pinpoint potential infringement cases. It has been reported that this system
has significantly enhanced Qualcomm’s efficiency and precision in its intellectual property enforcement endeavors.
These case studies
exemplify the prospective advantages of employing
artificial intelligence in the enforcement of intellectual property,
including enhanced efficiency, accuracy, and rapidity in the identification and prevention of IP infringements. However, they concurrently emphasize the necessity for meticulous consideration of the legal
and ethical ramifications associated with the
application of AI in this domain.
G.
Impact Of AI On Traditional IP Practices and Jurisprudence
The advent of artificial intelligence has profoundly influenced a
multitude of domains, including intellectual property. Artificial intelligence
has fundamentally transformed the methodologies by which intellectual property
assets are conceived, administered, and enforced, resulting in novel
opportunities and challenges. This segment of the research document intends to
scrutinize the ramifications of artificial intelligence on conventional
intellectual property practices and jurisprudence. The conventional practices
and jurisprudence of intellectual property have been molded by human
interpretation and the application of statutory laws and regulations. However,
with the escalating utilization of artificial
intelligence in the realm of intellectual property, there exists a necessity to reassess
these traditional practices
and jurisprudence in order to ascertain their continued relevance
and efficacy. This section will elaborate on the implications of artificial
intelligence on diverse facets of intellectual property, encompassing patent, copyright, and trademark law, as well as its influence on the
interpretation and application of such laws.
Artificial intelligence has altered traditional intellectual property practices
in myriad ways. For
example, AI-driven tools and software
have facilitated the creation and management of intellectual property assets, including
patents, trademarks, and copyrights. These technological advancements can
execute functions such as prior art searches, patent drafting, and trademark monitoring with greater efficiency and precision than their human counterparts. Consequently, the time
and financial resources expended in the creation and management of intellectual
property assets have diminished considerably[12].
Furthermore, artificial intelligence has also affected the interpretation
and application of intellectual property laws. Given the increasing reliance on
artificial intelligence in the creation and management of intellectual property
assets, there is a pressing
need to reassess how intellectual property
laws are construed
and enforced. For instance, the question of the
patentability of inventions generated by artificial intelligence has elicited
numerous legal and ethical inquiries that conventional intellectual property
laws may not adequately address. Likewise, the employment of AI-generated content
has challenged the boundaries
of copyright protection as well as the rights of both creators
and users of such content.
The influence of artificial intelligence on traditional intellectual property practices
is extensive and far-reaching. As artificial intelligence continues to progress, it is anticipated to reshape the
methodologies by which intellectual property assets are created, managed, and
enforced, necessitating a reassessment of traditional practices and jurisprudence in the field of intellectual property.
H.
Case Studies – AI And Impact On IP
a.
Utilization Of Artificial
Intelligence in Patent Drafting and Prosecution: The legal firm, Baker Hostetler, adopted
an AI-driven tool known as ROSS Intelligence to aid lawyers in
patent drafting and prosecution. The tool employs natural language processing
to evaluate patent applications, furnish insights, and propose potential
amendments. The implementation of this tool enabled the firm to considerably
reduce the time and costs associated with patent drafting and prosecution,
while also enhancing the quality of the patents produced.
b.
Consequences Of Artificial Intelligence on Copyright Law: The application of artificial intelligence in the creation and generation of content has called into question the extent of copyright protection and the rights of
creators and users of such content. For example, in the case of Naruto v.
Slater, an animal rights organization initiated legal action against a
photographer concerning a selfie captured by a monkey utilizing the photographer’s
camera. The organization contended that the monkey held the copyright for the
image, while the photographer asserted his ownership of the copyright on the
basis that he possessed the camera.
I.
Comparative Analysis
An integral component of comprehending the policy and legal frameworks
pertaining to Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Intellectual Property (IP) lies
in the juxtaposition of the methodologies adopted by various jurisdictions. A comparative analysis
can yield valuable insights into the merits
and demerits of diverse methodologies and assist in discerning areas necessitating enhancement. For
instance, the European Union (EU) has embraced a proactive stance concerning
the regulation of AI and IP, exemplified by the European Commission's dissemination
of a White Paper on AI in the year 2020. This document articulates a framework aimed
at fostering an ecosystem of trust in AI, which
encompasses a proposal for a regulatory framework to oversee the
development and application of AI.
Conversely, the United States has adopted a more laissez-faire approach,
emphasizing the stimulation of innovation and the alleviation of obstacles to the development and utilization of AI. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
(USPTO) has promulgated guidelines for the examination of AI-related patent applications; however, there exist no explicit
regulations governing the employment of AI within the context
of IP. Other jurisdictions have likewise
adopted varying approaches. For example, China has issued guidelines regarding
the advancement of AI, which incorporate stipulations concerning IP protection, while Japan has constituted a task force to
investigate the legal and policy matters associated with AI and IP. A comparative analysis of policy and legal frameworks
can facilitate the identification of best practices and areas for enhancement in addressing the challenges and opportunities presented by AI and IP.
I.
Status Of Artificial Intelligence Under the Current
Legal
Framework In India
Indian judicial authorities have yet to explicitly determine the legal
status of Artificial Intelligence. However, a definitive adjudication has been
made regarding the necessity to resolve the ambiguities and discussions surrounding the legal applicability of AI operations.
The advancement and evolution of AI
systems play a significant role in enhancing India's technological landscape[13]. As the recognition of AI has been acknowledged as pivotal for
the nation’s overall development, the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India
has established a task force to investigate the potential for implementing AI
to promote comprehensive growth across various sectors. Initiated in 2017, this task force comprises 18 members, including scientists,
industry experts, industrialists, governmental representatives, academicians, and personnel from other governmental departments, and is designated as the “Task Force on AI
for India’s Economic Transformation,” chaired by Professor V. Kamakoti (IIT
Madras) and Hon’ble Justice B. N. Srikrishna.
The salient points and recommendations are as follows: Salient Points: 1.
Ten specific sectors have been delineated based on the applications of AI algorithms, including health,
manufacturing, finance, agriculture, education, environment, public utility
services, technology for individuals with disabilities, national security, and
customer relationship management. 2. The task force has identified several specific challenges encountered while
implementing AI algorithms on a
large scale in the following areas:
o
How can massive
data sets and AI-driven analyses
be adequately protected?
o
How can data security, privacy, and ethical standards
be upheld through appropriate technological and regulatory frameworks?
o
How does the application of AI across different sectors influence employment dynamics and potential job losses?
o
How might the digitization facilitated by AI within
the Internet of Things (IoT) framework be susceptible to cyber threats?
K. Recommendations
i.
To establish an “Inter-Ministerial National Artificial Intelligence Mission” to
initiate actions over a five-year period, requiring funding of approximately
1200 crores in Indian Rupees. This initiative will function as a Nodal Agency
(NA) to oversee and coordinate all technical activities related to AI utilization in India.
ii.
To gather all academicians and manufacturing
stakeholders to consolidate AI-related
research efforts and provide adequate support to enhance AI studies at the
National Level, thereby increasing awareness and the societal utility of AI.
iii.
To foster
collaboration among various ministries to facilitate the growing integration of
AI systems within India.
iv.
To establish centers of excellence aimed at advancing
research capabilities, creating standardized evaluation processes for AI performance, and financing the
development of an independent AI system to furnish relevant information to the
public, thereby enhancing their understanding.
v.
In order to ensure the safeguarding of data protection
policies and to provide appropriate recommendations for data equality, the task
force has sanctioned the following measures:
o
To establish a digital data repository for the
acquisition of cross-industry intelligence.
o
To create a data ombudsman under the auspices of the
Ministry of Commerce and Industry for addressing matters related to data in the
context of artificial intelligence.
o
The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) is to solicit proposals for the implementation of norms and standards that are globally
deliberated within the realm of AI systems.
o
Two policies are to be formulated:
a. A policy
addressing information management.
b.
Tax incentives pertaining to profits generated from
the deployment of AI technologies.
vi.
To devise a strategy aimed at augmenting the workforce
sufficiently to accommodate the increasing demand for the management of AI
algorithms. 5. Inter-departmental coordination is to be established to
facilitate India’s participation in the International Discussion Forum on AI Applications. AI and Data Protection in India: The
growing involvement of AI applications, such as data analytics, IoT (Internet
of Things) domains, healthcare, employment, and transportation sectors, will enable
AI to gain seamless access to Personally Identifiable Information. This will
assist industrial entities in formulating a framework regarding the preferences
of potential clients. The
utilization of AI for data analysis across various objectives proves beneficial
for individuals. However, such unobstructed access to personal data by AI raises significant
concerns regarding privacy issues.
Therefore, a comprehensive framework and effective policy must be
established to address privacy vulnerabilities associated with the utilization
and applications of AI. This issue has gained prominence in light of recent
judgments by the Supreme Court of India, which has affirmed that privacy
constitutes a fundamental constitutional right. In that groundbreaking ruling,
the Supreme Court also highlighted the necessity of providing a
technology-agnostic framework capable of encompassing critical
privacy-related issues pertinent to the deployment of AI in India. The current
Data Protection legislation and policy are inadequate to provide effective
safeguards for the privacy of personal data. Consequently, the Supreme Court,
in its verdict, has underscored the necessity for the formulation of more extensive legal mechanisms for
data protection.
L. Application Of AI And Its Liability
Liability constitutes a crucial aspect in attributing legal personhood to
AI. The routine operation of AI
cannot be deemed accountable for inflicting any harm in its own capacity, as AI scarcely qualifies
to possess legal personhood. Generally, robots cannot be subjected
to legal action for causing
injury or harm.
Nonetheless, the emergence of AI has prompted
stakeholders to reconsider this conventional notion that machines cannot
possess legal personality. In this context, the notion of liability encompasses
inquiries regarding the nature of the legal relationship between AI and its actual developer. Jurisprudence dictates that unlawful actions resulting in damages must be compensated
through liabilities. Such liabilities are categorized into two types: 1. Civil
Liabilities and 2. Criminal Liabilities.
·
Civil Liabilities: Damage
is regarded as one of the principal components of civil
liability. The occurrence of damage must be substantiated initially to
obtain redress. Artificial Intelligence (AI) exhibits superintelligence and
should possess awareness regarding its actions. It is presumed
that AI possesses
rights and obligations that are typically
attributed to both human legal entities as well as artificial entities,
such as the right to seek compensation. The question arises as to whether AI
can be ascribed personhood.[14] The
response is negative; however, it is certain that jurisprudence will ultimately
evolve to provide a satisfactory resolution. In the event of an incident
involving self-driving vehicles operated by AI, there exists
ongoing debate within legal circles regarding whether civil liabilities should
be imposed upon AI or its developers
for the injuries incurred[15].
·
Criminal
Liabilities: Artificial Intelligence poses potential hazards to human
life. Scholarly articles, including Stephen Hawking's research conducted in
2015, emphasize that catastrophic events could occur as a result of AI warfare.
AI has the potential to inflict
harm, necessitating examination of how such scenarios can be mitigated through
legal frameworks or ethical considerations. The
challenge lies in the fact that AI
entities are not recognized as subjects under the law. The perpetration of a
crime is deemed to have been executed by the corporation. Hallevy has
delineated three criteria for subjecting AI to Criminal Liabilities[16].
1. AI has not
been granted human-like attribution. AI is not regarded as possessing a
criminal mindset. It has been observed that the actual perpetrator is either
the end consumer or the programmer responsible for the AI software's operation.
2. The end
consumer or the developer of the AI algorithms bears criminal liability despite
lacking a criminal intent. This liability is attributed to them based on their
negligent mindset.
3. The
conceptualization of AI has fundamentally altered the acceptance of criminal
liability. This model of AI may be held criminally accountable alongside the
end consumer or the programmer. Liability is evaluated within the specific
context of the circumstances.
Conclusion
Individuals and entities are increasingly reliant on Artificial
Intelligence. This reliance on AI by individuals or entities is expected to grow rapidly
over time. This trend is evidenced by the
anticipated contribution of AI, projected to enhance economic
growth by approximately 1.7% across various industries by the year 2035. The regulations effectively mandate that end-users or programmers of AI algorithms
adhere strictly to ethical standards during the programming of AI systems. In
India, due to the absence of robust legal frameworks to reconcile privacy
concerns with the essential utilization of AI technology, it is nearly
foreseeable that, in the near future, appropriate, inclusive, and
enforceable legislation, rules, and policies will be established. This will
ensure that during the increased adoption of AI applications, technological
advancement reaches its utmost potential without compromising data privacy safeguards[17].
[1] Ahuja, V. K. Artificial Intelligence
and Copyright: Issues and Challenges. ILI Law Review, 2020, Winter Issue, 270-285.
[2]
Hristov K, ‘Artificial Intelligence
and the Copyright
Survey’ (SSRN, 11 December 2019)
accessed 30 October 2024
[3] Kasap A, ‘Copyright and Creative
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Systems: A Twenty-First Century Approach to Authorship
of Ai-Generated Works in the United States’
(SSRN, 5 June 2020)
accessed 30 October 2024
[4] Naqvi Z, ‘Artificial Intelligence,
Copyright, and Copyright Infringement’ (Marquette Law Scholarly Commons)
[5]
Palace VM, ‘What If
Artificial Intelligence Wrote This? Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Law’
(UF Law Scholarship Repository)
[6] Purvi Pokhariyal AKK and ABP, ‘Artificial
Intelligence: Law and Policy Implications’ (EBC Webstore) www.ebcwebstore.com/product/artificial-intelligence-law-and-policy-implications-by-purvi-pokhariyal-
amit-k-kashyap-and-arun-b-prasad?products_id=99097334> accessed 30 October
2024
[7]
Yanisky-Ravid S, ‘Generating
Rembrandt: Artificial Intelligence, Copyright, and Accountability in the 3A Era-the
Human-like Authors Are Already Here- a New Model’ (FLASH: The Fordham Law
Archive of Scholarship and History)
[8]
((PDF) the role of Automated
Technology in the creation of copyright works: The Challenges of Artificial Intelligence)
www.researchgate.net/publication/313898379_The_role_of_automated_technology_in_the_creation_of
_copyright_works_the_challenges_of_artificial_intelligence>
accessed 30 October 2024
[9] ‘Moiz Bukhari, S. A., “Exploring
the World of Artificial Intelligence” (Futurism, 1 January 2023) Accessed 1 May
2023.’
[10]
‘View of Artificial
Intelligence: A Creative Player in the Game of Copyright: European Journal of
Law and Technology’ (View of Artificial Intelligence: A Creative Player in the
Game of Copyright | European Journal of Law and Technology)
accessed 30
October 2024
[11]
‘EU Internet Law in the
Digital Single Market’ (SpringerLink) accessed 30 October 2024
[12]
((PDF) impact of artificial
intelligence on intellectual property rights: Challenges and opportunities)
[13]
‘Communication Artificial
Intelligence for Europe’ (Shaping Europe’s digital future)
accessed 30 October 2024
[14]
((PDF) impact of artificial
intelligence on intellectual property rights: Challenges and opportunities)
[15] (Artificial Intelligence and
intellectual property law)
accessed 30 October 2024
[16]
‘Ai and Intellectual
Property Rights: Navigating the Digital Frontier’ (AI and Intellectual Property
Rights: Navigating the Digital Frontier | IPLINK ASIA) s://www.iplink-asia.com/article-detail.php?id=1105>
accessed 30 October 2024
[17] SpicyIP, About The Author SpicyIP
and Kaushal T, ‘Artificial Intelligence and IP: A Literature Review’ (SpicyIP, 22
July 2023) https://spicyip.com/2023/07/artificial-intelligence-and-ip-a-literature-review.html
accessed 30 October 2024
Article Information
STRIKING A HARMONIOUS ACCORD BETWEEN ADVANCEMENT AND SAFEGUARDING: THE INFLUENCE OF AI ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS STRUCTURES IN INDIA
Authors: MS. KHUSHI KHANDELWAL
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2025/03/19
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.