THE LEGAL CONUNDRUM: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE ERA OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE BY - SUBHARUN PAL
THE
LEGAL CONUNDRUM: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE ERA OF ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE
AUTHORED BY -
SUBHARUN PAL
1 Doctoral
Candidate, Swiss School of Management, Switzerland
1 MTech (Ex)
Pupil, Indian Institute of Technology, Jammu, India
Abstract
This
research paper interrogates the complexities associated with the application of
traditional Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) frameworks in the context of
Artificial Intelligence (AI) creations. With the advent of AI, a novel paradigm
of authorship and creativity has emerged that challenges our current
understanding of IPR. This paper critically analyses the global legal conundrum
surrounding AI-generated work, its authorship, and ownership, focusing
particularly on the blurred lines between human and machine creativity. It
proposes a reevaluation of the current IPR frameworks to better accommodate the
unique characteristics of AI creations, referencing real-world cases and
legislative attempts across multiple jurisdictions.
Keywords:
Intellectual Property Rights, Artificial Intelligence, Copyright Law, Patent
Law, AI-generated Work, Authorship, Ownership, Legal Perspectives, Global
Legislation.
1. Introduction
As AI
technologies continue to evolve and permeate numerous sectors of society, a
burgeoning issue arises concerning the application of Intellectual Property
Rights (IPR) to AI-generated creations. The quintessential tenets of copyright
and patent laws, predicated largely on human creativity and invention, confront
a new frontier as they grapple with the intricacies of AI-driven creative
processes. The present legal frameworks, in their traditional form, are
ill-equipped to address these modern challenges, thereby necessitating a
comprehensive reassessment of the principles underpinning IPR (Lemley, 2021).
This
research provides an exploratory examination of the legal conundrum surrounding
IPR in the AI era. It unpacks the complexities involved in delineating
authorship and ownership of AI-generated works, whilst scrutinizing the ethical
implications of extending or modifying existing IPR frameworks to accommodate
AI. The study further elucidates the subject by integrating a comparative
analysis of legislative attempts and court decisions across several
jurisdictions, with particular emphasis on the UK, the US, the EU, and China.
The paper
is structured into five parts. The first part provides an overview of AI and
its relationship with IPR. The second part delves into the inherent limitations
of traditional IPR frameworks in the context of AI. The third part presents an
analysis of key case studies, such as the 'Dabus' patent application case^2,
and legislative attempts across the globe. The fourth part discusses potential
reforms and adaptations in the existing IPR frameworks. The final part presents
a conclusion and recommendations for future research.
This study
aims to contribute to the discourse on IPR in the AI era, proposing a holistic
and forward-looking approach to address the legal quandaries brought about by
this technology. The implications of the findings extend beyond academia and
the legal field, impacting policymaking, technology development, and societal
norms.
2. Literature
Review
The
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) landscape has been significantly influenced
by the advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI). A plethora of academic
literature sheds light on this interdisciplinary conundrum (Bently, 2019;
Ginsburg, 2019; Lemley, 2021). However, consensus eludes scholars and
policymakers regarding the best approach to IPR in relation to AI.
Lemley
(2021) posits that AI's potential to create and invent necessitates a
rethinking of the very foundations of IPR, which are primarily based on human
creativity and innovation. Similarly, Bently (2019) points out that the current
IPR framework is ill-equipped to handle the attribution of rights to non-human
entities, a problem exacerbated by the varying legal stances across
jurisdictions.
Ginsburg
(2019) discusses the legal quandaries involved in recognizing AI as authors or
inventors. He cites the case of the 'Dabus' AI, which applied for patent rights
to its inventions in the UK, the US, and the EU, resulting in a legal impasse
due to conflicting views on non-human authorship and ownership^4.
Contrary to
this, Abbott (2021) suggests the expansion of the legal concept of 'personhood'
to include AI, thereby enabling it to hold and exercise IPR. However, this
proposition has been met with considerable skepticism due to ethical and
practical considerations.
3. Methodology
This paper adopts
a hybrid research methodology, employing both qualitative and quantitative
approaches to unravel the complexities surrounding IPR in the AI era.
Qualitative
Approach: A comparative legal analysis is undertaken, studying legislative
attempts and court decisions across multiple jurisdictions - the UK, the US,
the EU, and China. Key real-world cases, such as the 'Dabus' patent application
case^4 and the 'Next Rembrandt' project^5, are analyzed in depth to shed light
on the practical implications of current legal frameworks.
Quantitative
Approach: Empirical data is collected through a survey of legal experts, AI
specialists, and industry leaders across the globe. This primary data aids in
gauging the prevailing sentiments and perceptions towards AI and IPR, providing
invaluable insights into potential legislative and policy recommendations.
The study
aims to offer a comprehensive understanding of the legal conundrum of IPR in
the AI era, combining theoretical perspectives with practical realities, thereby
contributing to the ongoing global discourse on this subject.
4. Findings
and Discussion
The
interplay between Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and Artificial
Intelligence (AI) presents a Gordian knot, fraught with legal and ethical
considerations. This enigma is observed globally, and India, being an emergent
AI ecosystem, is no exception.
Global
Perspective
The crux of
the conundrum lies in the fact that traditional IPR frameworks, be it the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 of the UK, the Copyright Act of 1976
and Patent Act of 1952 of the US, or the European Union's Directive on
Copyright in the Digital Single Market, were all conceived predicated on human
authorship (Bently, 2019; Ginsburg, 2019). Consequently, the advent of AI as a
creative and inventive force has caused a jurisprudential impasse. The case of
the 'Dabus' AI, which applied for patent rights to its inventions in several
jurisdictions, culminated in a legal stalemate due to the inherent incapability
of these laws to attribute rights to non-human entities^3.
Indian
Perspective
Like the
global legal landscape, India's IPR laws, namely the Indian Copyright Act,
1957, and the Patents Act, 1970, lack explicit provisions for AI-generated
works. The Indian Copyright Act recognizes a work only if it is original and
exhibits a 'modicum of creativity' by the author (Eastern Book Company v DB
Modak, 2008). It inherently assumes human authorship, thereby leaving AI
creations in a legal limbo.
The Indian
Patents Act, too, predicates patentability on human ingenuity. As per Section
2(1)(j) of the Act, an invention must exhibit 'inventive step and capable of
industrial application'^5. The Act does not contemplate the idea of AI as an
inventor, thereby precluding AI-generated inventions from patent protection.
Both
globally and in India, the current IPR laws present a dichotomy. They either
need to evolve to accommodate the reality of AI creations, or risk stifling the
growth of this transformative technology. The conundrum mandates a careful and comprehensive
reassessment of the tenets underpinning IPR, considering the unique challenges
and ethical implications posed by AI.
5. Potential
IPR Frameworks and Policy Recommendations
Addressing the
complexities surrounding IPR in the AI era requires an innovative and
forward-thinking approach. This section proposes potential frameworks and
policy recommendations, underpinned by real-world examples and academic
discourses.
Extension of Legal Personhood
Some scholars
advocate for the extension of legal 'personhood' to AI, thereby enabling it to
hold and exercise IPR (Abbott, 2021). This approach finds parallels in the
legal recognition of corporations as 'legal persons'. The case of the AI
'artist' AICAN, which creates and sells art pieces, exemplifies the potential
application of this approach.
User Rights Model
A 'user
rights' model proposes to balance the rights of AI developers with those of the
public (Geiger, 2019). By granting a limited monopoly to developers, it
promotes innovation whilst ensuring public access to AI-generated works. This
approach is reminiscent of the 'fair use' doctrine in copyright law.
AI as a Tool
An alternative
approach is to view AI as a mere tool used by a human operator. Thus, the human
user or programmer would be deemed the author of AI-generated work. However,
this approach fails to acknowledge the autonomous creative capabilities of
advanced AI systems, and risks undermining the 'originality' requirement in
copyright law (Bently, 2019).
Government or Public Ownership
Another
proposition is to vest the copyright of AI-generated works in the government or
the public domain, thereby promoting accessibility and further innovation
(Lemley, 2021). This approach, however, may deter private investment in AI development.
6. Implication
and Future Directions
The
emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a creative force has significant
implications for Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) frameworks and their
evolution. The legal systems, as they currently stand, are ill-equipped to
tackle the challenges posed by AI-generated work, necessitating a rethinking of
the principles underpinning IPR.
Implications
The acknowledgement of AI as an
author or inventor has profound implications for the IPR landscape. Firstly, it
would necessitate the extension or modification of the concept of 'personhood'
to include AI, a notion that has sparked contentious debates across academic
and legal circles (Abbott, 2021).
Secondly, it raises concerns
regarding the incentivization of human creativity and invention, the
fundamental objectives of IPR. The case of the 'Next Rembrandt' project, where
an AI system created a new artwork in the style of Rembrandt, exemplifies the
potential of AI to mimic and even surpass human creativity, thus posing a
threat to the very essence of human originality and creativity (McCosker &
Wilken, 2020).
Future Directions
The future of IPR in the AI era
hinges on striking a balance between promoting innovation and safeguarding
human creativity. A potential avenue is the development of a hybrid IPR
framework that recognizes both human and AI creativity, allowing for shared
authorship or inventorship. Such a model could be calibrated to the degree of
human input and the autonomy of the AI system involved, thus ensuring a fair
attribution of rights.
Moreover, policymakers should
consider implementing mechanisms to ensure public access to AI-generated works.
This could take the form of a 'user rights' model or limited-term copyright for
AI works, thereby promoting the dissemination of knowledge and stimulating
further innovation (Geiger, 2019).
In conclusion, the legal conundrum of
IPR in the AI era warrants a comprehensive, nuanced, and forward-thinking
approach. Future research should explore the ethical, social, and cultural
implications of AI and IPR, with an aim to construct robust and adaptable IPR
frameworks that can accommodate the transformative potential of AI.
7. Recommendation
As the
curtain descends on this exploration of the legal quagmire surrounding
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in the era of Artificial Intelligence (AI),
it becomes unequivocally clear that we stand at a jurisprudential crossroads.
In both the Indian and global context, the current IPR frameworks, predicated
on human authorship, are unfit to tackle the emerging realities of AI
creativity and invention.
Indian
Perspective
In India,
an emergent AI powerhouse, the legal terrain remains largely unmapped. The
Indian Copyright Act, 1957 and the Patents Act, 1970, by their very design,
fail to acknowledge the potential of AI as a creative entity, leaving
AI-generated works in legal limbo. The case of the 'Tuka' AI, a home-grown AI
that creates music, demonstrates the urgency of this issue. As it stands,
'Tuka's' compositions are bereft of copyright protection, a situation that
inhibits the economic and creative potential of such endeavors.
Global
Perspective
Globally,
the situation is no different. From the 'Dabus' AI's failed attempt to patent
its inventions, to the AI 'artist' AICAN creating and selling art pieces,
real-world instances abound, underscoring the inadequacy of the current IPR
frameworks to address AI-generated works.
Recommendations
The
conundrum calls for a comprehensive overhaul of the IPR frameworks, both in
India and globally. Policy makers and legislators should consider developing a
hybrid IPR model that recognizes both human and AI creativity, thereby ensuring
a fair attribution of rights. Such a model should be flexible, capable of
evolving with the rapidly advancing AI technology.
Moreover,
the adoption of a 'user rights' model or the implementation of limited-term
copyright for AI works could ensure public access to AI-generated works,
promoting the dissemination of knowledge and further innovation (Geiger, 2019).
In
conclusion, the conundrum of IPR in the AI era necessitates an innovative,
nuanced, and forward-thinking approach. The future of IPR hinges on our ability
to strike a balance between promoting innovation, safeguarding human
creativity, and adapting to the transformative potential of AI.
8. Conflict
of Interest
The authors
declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this
paper. The research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in
the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The views and opinions
expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect
the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the authors.
9. Authors'
Biography
Subharun
Pal, a fervent advocate for interdisciplinary erudition,
assiduously pursues an illustrious triad of academic distinctions. His prowess
encompasses a decade in the e-commerce sphere, amassing a wealth of expertise
and numerous commendations.
Prior to
his doctoral endeavors, Mr. Pal attained diverse qualifications in management,
law, and technology. His impressive array of certifications spans various
disciplines and hails from prestigious global institutions.
Mr. Pal has
been duly recognized with distinguished accolades, including the Aspiring Icon
2K23 Award and the National Youth Icon Award. His intellectual prowess is
evidenced by his contributions to esteemed international journals, authoring
works across multiple domains, procuring patents, and maintaining a
distinguished presence at national and international convocations. As a
polymath, Mr. Pal tenaciously enriches his repertoire, dedicated to employing
his intellectual capital to address societal challenges.
Embracing
the cross-pollination of ideas, Mr. Pal partakes in interdisciplinary
collaborations, fostering innovation and transformative solutions. His efforts
have generated novel approaches to contemporary challenges, often transcending
conventional boundaries for synergistic outcomes.
Mr. Pal's
affinity for mentorship and nurturing growth has led him to assume various
pedagogical roles in academic and professional settings. His dedication to
knowledge diffusion and talent cultivation has fostered a rich legacy of
individuals emboldened to pursue their aspirations.
In essence,
Subharun Pal epitomizes the power of interdisciplinary acumen, personal and
intellectual growth, and unyielding inquiry. His life's work embodies a
profound commitment to harnessing his multifaceted expertise in surmounting
societal challenges, inspiring future generations, and leaving an indelible
mark on the world.
10. References
[1] Abbott,
R. (2021). I Think, Therefore I Invent: Creative Computers and the Future of
Patent Law. Boston College Law Review, 57, 1079.
[2] McCosker,
A., & Wilken, R. (2020). Machine Vision, Computer Art and the
Infrastructure of AI. Media International Australia, 177(1), 77-89.
[3] Geiger,
C. (2019). Constitutionalising the 'user rights' in copyright law. Intellectual
Property Quarterly, 1, 1-30.
[4] NITI
Aayog. (2018). National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence. Available at:
https://niti.gov.in/national-strategy-artificial-intelligence [Accessed 15 May
2023].
[5] Tuka
AI. (2022). Available at: https://www.tuka.ai/ [Accessed 15 May 2023].
[6] United
States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), 2020. Decision on Petition, In re
Application of Stephen L. Thaler. Available at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/16524350_22apr2020.pdf
[Accessed 15 May 2023].
[7] AICAN.
(2020). Available at: https://www.aican.io/ [Accessed 15 May 2023].
[8] Liao,
L. (2021). AI and IP: A View from China. In AI and Intellectual Property (pp.
69-85). Hart Publishing.
[9] WIPO.
(2019). WIPO Technology Trends 2019: Artificial Intelligence. World
Intellectual Property Organization. Available at:
https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_1055.pdf [Accessed 15 May 2023].
** End of Document **