November 2018 2
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Artificial Intelligence Generated Works Under Copyright Law, NLUJ Law Review 6(2) 93 (2020)
NLUJ Law Review Ayush Pokhriyal & Vasu Gupta, Artificial Intelligence Generated works under Copyright Law, NLUJ Law Review 6(2) 93 (2020) ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE GENERATED WORKS UNDER COPYRIGHT LAW AYUSH POKHRIYAL+ AND VASU GUPTA* ABSTRACT The world as we know it has changed tremendously in leaps and bounds with the evolution of technology, but changes in law haven't always followed in synchrony. Traditionally creative works like writing and cooking which were conceptualized only to the ingenuity of humans, have now become an apparent task of Artificial Intelligence. Since then, great advancement in programming and computational intelligence has opened many possible avenues of work for computers, one of which being creative works. This upsurge of mechanically created original work has led itself to a collision course with the Copyright Law in India, raising doubts in the minds of legal practitioners as to who shall be the owner of the said original creation. Applying the traditional rules of intellectual property law does not yield a plausible solution to this problem. This paper shall discuss whether autonomously developed mechanical creation can be copyrightable, and if yes then what are the basic impediments in the current legal scenario which prevents machines and Artificial Intelligence to be allowed such Intellectual + The author is a second-year student of Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur and may be contacted at pokhriyal.ayush[attherate]gmail[dot]com. * The author is a second-year student of Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur and may be contacted at guptavasu2899[attherate]gmail[dot]com. 94 NLUJ Law Review [Vol 6.2 Property Rights. -
The Sequel: the Rights of Authors Vs. Computer-Generated Read-Alike Works, 28 Loy
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Volume 28 Number 1 Symposium: Is the UCC Dead, or Alive and Well? Practitioners' Perspectives and The Third Annual Fritz B. Burns Lecture on Rule Article 21 11 Reform: Progress or Retreat on Attorney Sanctions 11-1-1994 Hamlet II: The Sequel: The Rights of Authors vs. Computer- Generated Read-Alike Works Tal Vigderson Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Tal Vigderson, Hamlet II: The Sequel: The Rights of Authors vs. Computer-Generated Read-Alike Works, 28 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 401 (1994). Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol28/iss1/21 This Notes and Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HAMLET H: THE SEQUEL? THE RIGHTS OF AUTHORS VS., COMPUTER-GENERATED "READ-ALIKE ' 1 WORKS I. Introduction ............................................. 402 II. You Can't Teach an Old Dog New Tricks: Why Current Law is Not Equipped for a New World .............. 408 A. Analyzing Just This Once Based on Current Law: The Computer Associates International v. Altai, Inc. Test ....................................... 409 1. Abstraction ...................................... 410 2. Filtration. .............................. 411 3. Comparison ...................................... 413 B. Current Law is Not Sufficient .................. 414 III. What is Artificial Intelligence? ...... .................... 416 A. Artificial Intelligence as a Person .................... 417 1. -
Proposing a Framework for Assigning Copyright to Creative Works Made by AI Jerome D
Solving a Copyright Quandary: Proposing a Framework for Assigning Copyright to Creative Works Made by AI Jerome D. Canlas* I. PREFATORY .............................................................................. 1045 II. THE RISE OF THE CREATIVE AI ................................................ 1052 III. EXISTING COPYRIGHT REGIMES REGARDING AI-CREATED WORK ....................................................................................... 1058 A. The United States of America B. The United Kingdom C. The European Union D. Other Developed Countries IV. INADEQUACY OF THE EXISTING REGIMES ................................ 1070 V. POTENTIAL COPYRIGHT OWNERS AND THEIR RIGHT TO CLAIM OWNERSHIP ................................................................... 1076 A. The AI Itself B. The AI Programmer/Developer C. The End-User of the AI D. Special Questions Arising From AI Generated Works VI. PROPOSED FRAMEWORK .......................................................... 1096 VII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................... 1102 I. PREFATORY [Where] we can go [T]he sun is singing in the forest rain * ’09 J.D., University of the Philippines College of Law, ’19 LL.M., Kyushu University. He is a Senior Associate in Cruz Marcelo & Tenefrancia and is a member of the firm’s Telecommunications and ICT, Litigation and Dispute Resolution, Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution, Taxation, and Labor Departments. His areas of practice include technology law, data privacy, tax and customs litigation, -
Ex MACHINA: COPYRIGHT PROTECTION for COMPUTER- GENERATED WORKS
Ex MACHINA: COPYRIGHT PROTECTION FOR COMPUTER- GENERATED WORKS Robert C. Denicola* Abstract A professor in France claims to have written a million books using his computer software platform. Many of the sports and financial news stories available on the Internet are written by computers. Computers also draw, paint, and compose music. Is their output copyrightable? Copyright law requires an identifiable human author because authors own copyrights and computers do not possess the personhood necessary to own property. The Copyright Office and some courts and commentators go further, requiring for copyright not only an identifiable human author, but also human authorship of the protected work. They demand, in other words, that the copyrightable expression in a work emanate from a human being. If a person uses a computer to assist in the manipulation of expression created by the user, the result is copyrightable. If a user's interaction with a computer prompts it to generate its own expression, the result is excluded from copyright. This is a tenuous and ultimately counter-productive distinction. It denies the incentive of copyright to an increasingly large group of works that are indistinguishable in substance and value from works created by human beings. The copyright statute does not define "author"and the constitutional interpretation of that concept is sufficiently broad to include a human being who instigates the creation of a work. A computer user who initiates the creation of computer-generated expression should be recognized as the author and copyright owner of the resulting work. A number of foreign countries have already taken this step.