Open Access Research Article
AI AND IPR: NAVIGATING THE NEW CHANGING LANDSCAPE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
Published Paper
Article Details
AI AND IPR: NAVIGATING THE NEW
CHANGING LANDSCAPE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
AUTHORED BY - SANYA THAREJA[1]
ABSTRACT
Artificial Intelligence, which seemed
to be a far fetched dream a few centuries ago has now emerged as one of the
most transformative technologies of the 21st century. At the base of
AI lies creation and innovation which is being utilized for the development of
each and every sector under the sun and Intellectual Property Rights too will
not remain an exception to the same. There are two methods through which AI
will have an impact on the IPR sector, on the one hand, Artificial Intelligence
can undoubtedly bring significant benefits to areas such as patent innovation,
efficient sorting of inventions, and providing insights into existing patents
similar to new ideas, on the other hand, it also poses a potential risk to the
core essence of Intellectual Property Rights- Innovation and creativity. AI has
the capacity to both enhance and challenge the fundamental principles of Intellectual
Property, leading to a complex and nuanced relationship between AI and
Innovation.
The research paper will provide an
extensive analysis of how Artificial Intelligence (AI) affects Intellectual
Property Rights (IPR). Additionally, the paper will explore the prospects of AI
in Intellectual Property Rights, discussing potential developments and
opportunities in this field.
Keywords: Artificial Intelligence,
Intellectual Property Rights, Copyright Law, Patent Law, Machine Learning
I.
INTRODUCTION
(A) MEANING
In today's world, artificial
intelligence (AI) is not merely a fictional concept depicted in movies but a
rapidly evolving reality. Over the years, people have become accustomed to the
idea of computers playing a significant role in the workforce. However, the
recent advancements in technology have introduced a groundbreaking
transformation in the form of AI. The term was first propounded by John
McCarthy in 1956 when he conducted the first academic conference on the
subject. He exactly defined AI as “making a machine
behave in ways that would be called intelligent if a human were so
behaving.” It includes machine learning, deep learning, neural pathways, BOTs, cognitive computing, and natural language
processing[2]. In layman
terms, the computer which we use to store files, process large amounts of data,
perform mathematical calculations, make a statistical analysis, will have a mind of its own to automatically
learn from its past behaviors which the humans have taught and be able to perform its functions in a faster and
smarter way. The functioning of AI involves reasoning, information, planning, learning, communication, perception, and the ability to move and manipulate
objects. In the present scenario, AI
disruption is still in an incentive stage where new boundaries of potential are created every day with its
quality of data that is being processed.[3]
The Oxford Dictionary defines the
same as, “The theory and development of computer systems able to perform tasks
normally requiring human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech
recognition, decision-making, and translation between languages.”[4] In
simple terms, the term encompasses a range of elements and classifications,
with one significant classification being the distinction between "Strong
AI" (which closely imitates human functions and performs multiple tasks)
and "Weak AI" (which is limited to specific, narrow tasks).[5]
(B)
ORIGIN
The
origins of AI can be traced back to the 1950s, when the first operational AI
programs were developed for the Ferranti Mark, I machine at the University of
Manchester.[6]
In 1955, Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon created the first AI program that
proved mathematical theorems and discovered new proofs.[7]
Following this, engineers made significant advancements in AI, leading to
increased interest from the private sector and government.
The
government recognized the potential of AI in fields such as language
transcription, translation, and high throughput data processing [8].
The advantages of AI in these sectors were evident in terms of time efficiency,
flexibility, lack of exhaustion, and continuous operational capability.
Consequently, companies and factories began incorporating AI-assisted robots
into their workforce, particularly in production and manufacturing units. This
diversification of technological investments resulted in improved profitability
for companies.
With the
success witnessed in these sectors, the idea of integrating AI into all
industries emerged, aiming to bring ease and efficiency to various sectors.
Tech giants like Google and Microsoft were at the forefront of this initiative.
However, as AI's involvement expanded, concerns and criticisms began to
surface. The loss of human employment was a well-known disadvantage, but other
issues, including arbitration problems, started to become apparent as well.
As the
world becomes increasingly surrounded by AI, there are societal implications to
consider. While the benefits of AI are evident, such as increased productivity
and efficiency, there are potential downsides that need to be addressed. One of
these concerns is the impact on human employment, as AI may lead to job
displacement. Additionally, issues related to arbitration, such as
decision-making processes and fairness, require careful consideration in an
AI-driven society.
Overall,
while AI has brought significant advancements and benefits, it is essential to
carefully evaluate its impact on society and address any potential
disadvantages to ensure a balanced and equitable integration of AI technology.
II.
IP LAWS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
There have been major advancements in the field of Artificial
Intelligence ever since the Greek myths of antiquity came across the concept of
robots and artificial humans. These
developments also include the creation of Turing Test by Alan Turing in 1950 .
In general parlance, the test is basically a mechanism to determine whether a
computer can think intelligently like humans.[9] In
retrospect, last 3 decades have been of great importance and significance in
the field of AI.
In 1991, during the Persian Gulf war, U.S Military deployed an
artificial intelligence namely, Dynamic Analysis and Replanning Tool, commonly
abbreviated as DART,[10] to
enhance and streamline the transportation of supplies or personnel and address
various logistical challenges through optimization and scheduling. Further, in
2005, Stanley, the robot vehicle capable of navigating for itself, without any
human present in the driving seat or remote controls, won the DAPRA great
challenge after beating 20 other robot cars.[11] In
2017, SOPHIA, the humanoid robot was granted Saudi Arabian Citizenship, becoming
the first robot to receive Legal Personhood in any country.[12]
All these advancements make one believe that Artificial Intelligence is
booming around the world and is capable of so much more. In March, the Sony
World Photography Awards declared the winner of their creative photo category,
which featured a black-and-white image capturing the embrace between an older
woman and a younger one, titled "PSEUDOMNESIA: The Electrician." The
announcement hailed the photograph as "eerie" and drawing inspiration
from the visual style of family portraits from the 1940s. However, Boris
Eldagsen, the Berlin-based artist behind the image, declined the award.
Contrary to expectations, he revealed that the image was not a traditional
photograph but rather a creation generated through the creative input of DALL-E
2, an artificial intelligence image generator.[13]
In the recent case of Naruto v Slater[14], a
San Francisco Court ruled that animals lack legal standing under the Copyright
Act to sue for infringement[15]. The
court, composed of Judges Carlos T. Bea, N. Randy Smith, and District Judge
Eduardo C. Robreno, deliberated on whether a monkey could seek damages and
injunctive relief for copyright infringement. They determined that animals,
including the specific monkey in question and animals in general, do not have
statutory standing under the Copyright Act, despite having constitutional
standing under Article III of the United States Constitution.[16] The
court emphasized that since the Copyright Act does not explicitly grant animals
the ability to file copyright infringement lawsuits, Naruto, the monkey, cannot
bring a lawsuit for copyright infringement.[17] As a
result, a similar situation has emerged for AI systems, as they also lack
copyright protection.
The next question that comes to the mind is that who will own the
creations and innovations created by these Humanoid robots? Presently, there
are no laws that govern the possession of IP
rights (in India as well as abroad) and the current law only regards
Humans as creators, and hence IP holders and Infringers.
(A)
AI AND COPYRIGHT
Art generated by AI is gaining momentum in the present time, which is
causing uncertainty and confusion within the Indian Copyright Act. This art is
fabricated independently by artificial intelligence without any innovative
input by the human mind. These creations fall under the category of “computer
generated works” as defined by the Indian Copyright Act. The person seeking
ownership of the copyrighted work must be author of the same as per Section 2(d)
of the act. According to Section 2 (d) "author" means,- (vi) in
relation to any literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work which is computer
generated, the person who causes the work to be created;"[18] The
issue lies within the phrase "the person who causes the work to be
created" in the definition. The proximity of a human or legal person to
the work is crucial for them to be considered the cause of its creation. In
other words, the involvement of a human or legal entity in close association
with the work is necessary according to this act.[19]
The sine qua non of Copyright is originality. It is not even pertinent
that the work should involve a novel expression of that and all that is
required from the work is an expression of originality which basically means
that the work should not be copied and should be an independent creation of the
author. Now, there are two doctrines that revolve around the test of
originality of work and these doctrines are -:
1. Sweat of the Brow Doctrine
2. Modicum of creativity
On one hand, sweat of the brow doctrine states that an author can
obtain a copyright by exercising simple diligence during creation of the work
and substantial creativity or “Originality” is not an essential. This
doctrine provides copyright protection on
basis of the labour, skill and investment of capital put in by the creator
instead of the originality.[20]
On the other hand, In Feist Publication Inc. v. Rural
Telephone Service Co. Inc [21], the US Supreme Court ruled that for a work to be considered original,
it must not only be independently created but must also display a "modicum
of creativity." This decision emphasized the importance of creative
originality and introduced a new test to safeguard creative works based on the
minimum level of creativity involved. The doctrine states that originality
exists in a work when enough intellectual creativity and judgment has been
applied during its creation. While the standard of creativity does not need to
be exceptionally high, there should be a minimum level of creativity present to
qualify for copyright protection.
The
Indian Courts follow “Modicum of
creativity” approach and the landmark judgement in this regard is that of Eastern Book
Company v. D.B. Modak [22], where the Supreme Court discarded the ‘Sweat of the Brow’
doctrine and shifted to a ‘Modicum of creativity’ approach as
followed in the US. So, after a brief reading of this doctrine,
it cannot be stated that AI is not capable of creating an original work. Thus,
the art and work generated by these machines can easily pass the originality
test, but does that mean, these machines should be granted ownership of
copyrights and should also be treated as juristic or legal person. The question
that persists is that who should be given ownership of such a work, the
programmer creating AI, AI itself or is there a possibility of a third
alternate i.e., a co-authorship of the creation.
·
TO PROGRAMMER
The most
followed practice across countries is to grant all copyright related rights to
the programmer itself and the rationale behind this practice is that AI or its
creation was facilitated by the programmer through his intellectual creativity.
Thus, in its most rudimentary sense, the rights should rest with the
programmer. This rule has been very well summarized in UK copyright law,
section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (CDPA), which says that:
"In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is
computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the
arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken."[23]
·
TO AI ITSELF
There is a
common argument suggesting that AI should be granted sole copyright ownership
when it autonomously produces original work using its computational intellect,
independent of human involvement. However, there are two main reasons why this
rule is not currently accepted.
Firstly,
granting a machine sole ownership would essentially imply granting legal
personality to AI, allowing it to exercise rights. Currently, no country
recognizes such rights for machines. Secondly, it is widely established
worldwide that copyright can only be granted to original works resulting from
human creativity and intellect. Since AI is not human, it cannot possess the
same rights as humans.
For
instance, the United States Copyright Office has explicitly stated that it will
"register an
original work of authorship, provided that the work was created by a human
being". This stance is reinforced
by the case law of Feist
Publications v Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc.,[24]
where the court emphasized that copyright protection is limited to the products
of human intellectual labor and creative powers of the mind. In essence, only
works originating from human intellect possess the potential for copyright
protection.
·
CO-AUTHORSHIP
In 2020,
an application was registered with the copyright office to register AI (RAGHAV)
as the sole owner of an artwork, but the same was rejected. However, copyright
office granted registration on the second application where a natural person
and an AI (again RAGHAV) were named as co-authors of another artwork. on the
second application. The reason behind such an approval wasn’t clear and it is
presumed that such approval was granted by mistake as the copyrights office
issued a withdrawal of the same registration withing an year from such
approval. The current status of this proceeding is unclear, but as per status on
website of the copyright office, status of this application is still
“registered.”[25]
This
doesn’t hold any precedent for future scenarios but makes one think whether
it’s possible to hold rights related to artwork in co-authorship. This scenario
will not only provoke the legislature to recognize and enact the legal status
of AI but will also create a positive environment for companies investing their
time, money and resources in creation of such AI in the first place.
(B)
AI
AND PATENTS
The
transformative nature of AI innovation presents one of the most significant
challenges as it has the capacity to fundamentally alter the essence of
innovation. The Indian Patent Act of 1970 outlines the requirements for
identifying an inventor and determining who can file a patent application in
India. These criteria are detailed in Section 2 and Section 6 of the Act.
Section 6 specifically addresses the eligibility of individuals to apply for a
patent[26],
while Section 2(1)(s) defines the term "Person"[27]
and Section 2(1)(y)[28]
specifies individuals who are not considered the true and first inventor when
filing a patent application. Furthermore, it is important to highlight that
Section 2(1)(s) of the Indian Patent Act explicitly indicates that the
individual or entity filing for a patent can be either a "natural
person" or a "Government" organization.
In 2019,
over a dozen countries, including the European Union, received two patent
applications in which an AI system called DABUS [29]
(Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) was listed as
the sole inventor[30].
The applications were submitted by Dr. Stephen Thaler, who claimed the
inventions were generated solely by DABUS without any human assistance. As a
result, DABUS was named as the inventor in the patent applications, while Dr.
Stephen Thaler was listed as the applicant. This concept of assigning
inventorship to an AI machine presented new legal complexities and raised
global concerns regarding intellectual property (IP) rights in relation to
AI-generated patents.
In India,
the Controller General of Patents recently raised objections to the patent
application (202017019068) for an AI-generated invention known as DABUS. The
examination report highlighted objections based on Section 2 and Section 6 of
the Patents Act 1970. According to the report, the application failed to meet
the formal and technical requirements outlined in these sections because DABUS
is not recognized as a legal person. The objections raised by the Controller
General of Patents in the examination report of Thaler's Indian patent
application were centered around the fact that the application did not meet the
formal and technical criteria specified in Section 2 and Section 6 of the
Patents Act, 1970. This was primarily due to the non-recognition of DABUS as a
legal person.[31]
Several legal precedents, including the V.B. Mohammed Ibrahim
v. Alfred Schafranek case[32],
supported this view. The court ruling in that case stated that neither a
corporation nor a financing partner can be considered the sole inventor and
emphasized that only a natural person who actively contributes their skill and
knowledge to the innovation can legitimately claim inventorship.
While
current international, Indian, and various national regulations clearly
stipulate that the inventor must be a natural person, it is essential to
consider the implications of this provision considering future social and
economic conditions. It is crucial to examine whether this requirement aligns
with the primary objective of the patent system, which is to disseminate
inventions widely, make them beneficial to society through mandatory
publication, and facilitate further technological advancements. Through the
grant of exclusive rights for a limited duration, the patent system also
creates economic interests for right holders. Given these factors, it becomes
necessary to contemplate the potential consequences if AI-generated inventions
are excluded from the scope of patent protection in the future.[33]
(C)
AI
AND TRADEMAK
The
primary objective of trademark law is to safeguard the rights of individuals or
entities involved in the manufacturing and sale of goods with unique trademarks.
It aims to prevent fraudulent activities wherein other parties try to deceive
consumers by passing off their goods as counterfeits. Over the years, trademark
law has effectively fulfilled its purpose of protecting consumers and
preserving the integrity of brands. However, the advent of new technologies has
posed certain challenges to the fundamental principles of trademark law.
Traditionally,
there have been limited disruptions or significant changes in brand suggestions
and the process of purchasing products, allowing trademark law to operate
smoothly. However, the emergence of disruptive technologies such as Artificial
Intelligence, Internet of Things (IoT), Blockchain, and Data Analytics is
poised to have an impact on the conventional practices of trademark law. While
trademark law has successfully navigated through three revolutions, questions
arise regarding its compatibility with the fourth revolution, namely AI.
Artificial
Intelligence represents the next evolutionary phase in the market domain and
consequently, in trademark law. Online retailers are increasingly utilizing
AI-powered algorithms to provide personalized recommendations to buyers. These
algorithms analyze vast amounts of data including search histories,
preferences, purchasing behavior, and other intricate details. However, it is
crucial to recognize that this extensive use of AI systems is rendering the
core concept of trademarks obsolete. AI can potentially undermine customer
autonomy in selecting products, as it manipulates and influences their choices.
It is both intriguing and concerning to observe that although customers believe
they are making independent decisions or exercising control over their choices,
many are unaware of the limitations imposed on their options.
The market
has experienced a proliferation of AI-assisted products such as Google Home,
Amazon Echo, Apple Home Pod, and Samsung bots. These products have advanced in
imitating human thoughts and preferences. However, it is important to consider
the potential consequences of relying on these products to make real-life
decisions. For instance, if an AI-based system is used to order a product and
the algorithm selects the best option based on user data, who bears liability
if the product turns out to be counterfeit or if there are discrepancies in
quantity or quality? Are tech giants like Google and Amazon accountable for
intellectual property infringements and exploiting the reputation of product
manufacturers? Moreover, the fundamental elements of trademark law, such as
likelihood of confusion and imperfect recollection, have not been adequately
addressed in the application of AI. These concerns demand urgent answers to
justify the convergence of AI and trademark law.
Another
example of AI challenging trademarks is Amazon's "Amazon Dash
Replenishment Service" (DRS)[34],
which enables automatic ordering of supplies when they are running low. This
system limits consumer choice by subconsciously eliminating the opportunity to
try different brands. As the system evolves, it may even make brand choices
independently. Additionally, AI chatbots used by shopping websites, such as
H&M's "Kik" bot or eBay's "Shop bot," have the
potential to influence consumer loyalty[35].
However, there is a risk of biased recommendations from these AI-based bots, as
algorithmic systems can generate biased outputs. This raises the question of
liability if a bot suggests an infringing product and consumers act on that
recommendation. It is crucial to ensure that AI bots refrain from making
discriminatory suggestions and avoid favoring only the companies that pay the
parent organization manufacturing the bot.
Although
there is still a limited number of cases addressing the intersection of
Artificial Intelligence and trademark liability, a few such cases have emerged
in the past decade. A notable case in this context is the "Lush v. Amazon"[36]
case. The dispute arose when Amazon bid on the keyword "Lush" from
Google, which resulted in redirecting users to Amazon's platform when they
searched for "lush" on Google. The infringement claim was strong
because even when searching on Amazon's own website, the displayed results
showed similar products but not the original "Lush" brand products.
This clear case of infringement led the court to hold Amazon liable for
trademark infringement.
This
situation raises concerns as e-commerce platforms powered by AI algorithms play
a significant role in brand manipulation. It is expected that courts worldwide
will encounter similar cases. As Artificial Intelligence becomes the new
consumer, the interpretation of trademark law principles such as
"likelihood of confusion" and the "average consumer" will
evolve. Courts will need to consider the implications and assess how
technological advancements impact legal interpretations. While courts have
traditionally focused on the unwary "consumer" as a reference point,
soon they may need to consider the perspective of the "artificial
consumer" in algorithmic contexts. This seems to be the most plausible way
forward in addressing these issues.
III. IF
AI OWNS IP
The issue
of AI owning intellectual property (IP) raises several concerns regarding
infringement. Firstly, if AI is considered the holder of IP rights, it would
need to be treated as an individual in terms of infringement and enforcement.
However, AI cannot be held legally accountable or enter into contracts on its
own, making this approach impractical.
Secondly,
accountability becomes a question when AI infringes on the rights of a third
party. In cases of copyright, for example, if an AI copies the work of an
author, proving access to the protected work may be easier due to the vast
availability of content on the internet.
Thirdly,
the transparency of AI systems regarding their ownership of IP rights poses a
challenge. If AI systems are protected as trade secrets, it hinders
transparency and responsibility in decision-making processes. As society
increasingly values transparency, this becomes an important consideration. Therefore,
the crucial question is how to address transparency when machine learning
involves multiple data sources, dynamic development, and opaque elements due to
technological or legal reasons.
IV.
CONCLUSION
The future
of intellectual property rights (IPR) in the context of artificial intelligence
(AI) is a complex and evolving landscape. AI technologies have the potential to
revolutionize various aspects of IPR, including ownership, inventorship,
copyright, patentability, enforcement, and ethical considerations. As AI
continues to advance, it raises new questions and challenges that require
careful examination and adaptation of existing frameworks. One of the key areas
of concern is ownership and inventorship. Traditionally, IPR frameworks have
recognized human inventors and creators. However, as AI systems become more
autonomous and creative, the question arises as to whether AI should be
recognized as the owner or inventor of works it generates. This challenges the
existing legal standards and requires a reevaluation of the criteria for
determining ownership and inventorship. In the realm of copyright, AI-generated
works present unique challenges. Determining whether AI-generated content
should be protected under copyright law and, if so, who should hold those
rights can be complex. Clear guidelines are needed to address issues of
attribution, protection, and exploitation of AI-generated works, ensuring a
balance between incentivizing innovation and safeguarding the rights of
creators.
Patent law
is also impacted by AI advancements. AI can facilitate innovation by automating
research, improving data analysis, and enhancing decision-making. However, the
question of whether AI-generated inventions meet the requirements of inventive
step, non-obviousness, and human involvement for patentability arises.
Policymakers and legal experts need to address these challenges to ensure a
fair and effective patent system that encourages innovation while upholding the
principles of patentability. Enforcement and liability issues emerge when AI
systems infringe upon IPR. Determining responsibility and accountability in
cases of AI-generated infringements can be complex, especially when AI operates
autonomously or with limited human intervention. Developing frameworks to
address liability and enforcement in AI-related IPR infringement cases is
essential to protect the rights of creators and ensure a fair and balanced system.
Ethical
considerations are another crucial aspect. Bias, fairness, transparency, and
accountability must be carefully addressed to ensure that AI technologies do
not undermine the principles and goals of the IPR system. Striking the right
balance between fostering innovation and protecting the interests of creators
and society requires thoughtful deliberation and ethical guidelines. Regulatory
frameworks must also adapt to the evolving landscape of AI and IPR. Existing
laws and regulations may need to be updated or augmented to effectively address
the challenges posed by AI. Policymakers, legal experts, and stakeholders
should work collaboratively to anticipate and address the legal and regulatory
gaps associated with AI and IPR.
In
conclusion, the future of AI and IPR requires comprehensive examination and
adaptation of existing frameworks. As AI technologies continue to advance, it
is essential to strike a balance between encouraging innovation, protecting the
rights of creators, and addressing ethical concerns. By anticipating and
addressing the challenges posed by AI, we can ensure a fair and effective IPR
system that fosters innovation while upholding the principles of intellectual
property rights. On an ending note, renowned astrophysicist Stephan Hawking
quoted, “I believe there is no deep
difference between what can be achieved by a biological brain and what can be
achieved by a computer. It, therefore, follows that computers can, in theory,
emulate human intelligence — and exceed it”[37]
[2] Kathleen Paisley and Edna Sussman,
Artificial Intelligence Challenges and Opportunities for International
arbitration, New York State Bar Association, https:// archive.nysba.org/DisputeResolutionLawyer/
[3] Pooja Agarwal et al; Artificial Intelligence; Vol-2, Issue 6 Issn (2305-509X), INT’L JOURNAL OF CASE STUDIES, 3 pp. 07-14
[4] OXFORD, OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY
(Oxford University Press, 3rd ed., 2010)
[5] Chetan Kumar GN, Artificial
Intelligence: Definition, Types, Examples, Technologies, MEDIUM (Jan. 25, 2021)
https://medium.com/@chethankumargn/artificial-intelligence-definition-types-examples-technologies962ea75c7b9b
[6] Pooja Agarwal et al; Artificial Intelligence; Vol-2, Issue 6 Issn (2305-509X), INT’L JOURNAL OF CASE STUDIES, 3 pp. 07-14
[7] History of Java Intelligence, JavaTPoint, https://www.javatpoint.com/history-of-artificial-intelligence
[8] Rockwell Anyoha, History of Artificial Intelligence, Harvard University Graduate School
of Arts and Sciences, https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/history-artificial-intelligence/
[10] "AI Military Topics" (web). Association for the Advancement of Artificial
Intelligence. Retrieved 2008-02-28
[11] https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_1377824 , National Museum of American
History
[12] UNDP (November 22, 2017). "UNDP in
Asia and the Pacific Appoints World's First Non-Human Innovation Champion". UNDP Asia
and the Pacific (Press release). Archived from the original on July 9,
2018. Retrieved July 21, 2018.
[13] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-my-ai-image-won-a-major-photography-competition/
[14] Naruto v Slater, No. 16- 15469,
opinion dated 23-4-2018.
https://blog.scconline.com/post/2018/04/26/animals-by-virtue-of-thefact-that-they-are-not-humans-lack-locus-standi-under-copyright-act-to-sue-for-copyright-infringement/
[15] Available at
https://blog.scconline.com/post/2018/04/26/animals-by-virtue-of-the-fact-that-they-are-not-humans-lack-locusstandi-under-copyright-act-to-sue-for-copyright-infringement/.
[16] ibid
[17] ibid
[18] Copyright Act, 1957, sec. 2, cl.
(d), (vi)
[19] ‘Mounting Artificial Intelligence:
Where are we on the time line?’ by Vaishali Singh, para.7. Available at
https://blog.scconline.com/post/2018/06/07/mounting-artificial-intelligence-where-are-we-on-the-timeline/.
[20] Hailshree
Saksena, DOCTRINE OF “SWEAT OF THE
BROW” http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1398303)
[21] Feist Publication Inc. v. Rural
Telephone Service Co. Inc [499 US 340]
[23] Copyright, Designs and Patent Act
1988, sec. 3, cl. (3), UK Legislation
[25] EXCLUSIVE: INDIA RECOGNIZES AI AS
CO-AUTHOR OF COPYRIGHTED ARTWORK
https://www.managingip.com/article/2a5czmpwixyj23wyqct1c/exclusive-india-recognises-ai-as-co-author-of-copyrighted-artwork
[26] Patents Act, 1970, Section 6
[27] Patents Act, 1970, Sec. 2, cl.
(1), (s)
[28] Patents Act, 1970, Sec. 2, cl.
(1), (y)
[29] DABUS is an acronym short for
Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience. Yogini
Bhasvar-Jog, Artificial Intelligence as an Inventor on Patents The Global
Divide and the Path Forward, JD SUPRA (Dec. 22, 2021),
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/artificial-intellig
ence-as-an-inventor-7892764/.
[30] Laura Butler, World First Patent
Applications Filed for Inventions Generated Solely by Artificial Intelligence,
UNIV. OF SURREY (Aug. 1, 2019),
https://www.surrey.ac.uk/news/world-firstpatent-applications-filed-inventions-generated-solely-artificial-intelligence;
Martin Coulter, Patent Agencies Challenged to Accept AI Inventor, FIN. TIMES
(July 31, 2019), https://www.ft.com/content/
9c114014-b373-11e9-bec9-fdcab53d6959.
[31] Demystifying Rights of AI Generated
Inventions, https://www.livelaw.in/law-firms/law-firm-articles-/ai-generated-inventions-chatgpt-indian-patent-act-dabus-united-states-patent-trademark-office-european-patent-office-226394?infinitescroll=1
[32] V.B. Mohammed Ibrahim v. Alfred
Schafranek AIR 1960 Kant 173,
AIR 1960 Mys 173
[33] See Stephanie Skaff et al.,
Artificial Intelligence Can?t Patent Inventions: So What?, IPWATCHDOG (July 13,
2020),
https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/07/13/artificial-intelligence-cantpatent-inventions/id=123226/
[hereinafter So What?].
[34] Amazon Alexa Team, Amazon Dash
Replenihment, AMAZON DEVELOPERS (Jan. 26, 2021)
https://developer.amazon.com/en-US/alexa/dash-services.
[35] PSFK, The Future of Retail, PSFK
(Jan. 27, 2021)
https://www.psfk.com/2018/04/chat-ai-shopping-assistantsconversational-commerce.htm
[36] 5Cosmetic Warriors and Lush v
Amazon.co.uk and Amazon EU, [2014] EWHC 181 (Ch).
[37] From a speech given by
Hawking at
the opening of the Leverhulme Centre of
the Future of Intelligence,
Cambridge, U.K., October 2016
Article Information
AI AND IPR: NAVIGATING THE NEW CHANGING LANDSCAPE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
Authors: SANYA THAREJA
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/06/20
- 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.