Are the hottest AI creations protected by copyrigh

  • Detail

Are AI creations copyrighted?

alphago, a Google subsidiary, can play chess. Microsoft "Xiaobing" published the first poetry anthology written by an AI virtual robot in the history of publishing. However, this also led people to think: does the content generated by AI involve intellectual property issues, and to whom does it belong

in view of these hot and difficult issues of intellectual property protection in the field of artificial intelligence, China Science Daily interviewed Professor sunyurong of the Department of experimental accuracy and high literature and law of Beijing University of technology to explore how intellectual property can protect artificial intelligence

AI creations need to be protected

China Science Daily: at this stage, are there many AI creations like Microsoft "Xiaobing" writing poems

sunyurong: when it comes to artificial intelligence, everyone will think of Microsoft "Xiaobing" and its poetry collection. "Xiaobing" published his poems under 27 pseudonyms in Tianya, Douban, Jianshu, etc. Before the disclosure, we didn't expect that the authors of these poems came from artificial intelligence

2. Display value error

AI creations involve music, art works, novels, poems, manuscripts. An American company made such a prediction: in the next 15 years, 90% of the manuscripts will be created by robots

China Science Daily: do AI creations need to be protected

sunyurong: a large number of music, art works and manuscripts come from AI, and there are more and more AI creations. If it is not protected, many social and legal problems will arise. Artificial intelligence may plagiarize each other, or human beings may plagiarize artificial intelligence. Without legal regulation, it will be a chaotic situation, which is not conducive to the development of artificial intelligence industry, nor to the healthy and orderly development and virtuous cycle of cultural industry

no matter from the perspective of encouraging innovation, or from the perspective of promoting the healthy development of the cultural industry and maintaining legal stability, everyone has reached a consensus that AI creations must be protected

China Science Daily: are AI creations works in the sense of copyright law

sunyurong: the content generated by artificial intelligence is called creation by some people and creation or product by others. At this stage, I think these titles are all right. After all, there is no legal definition to define them. But no matter what it is called, it will not cause ambiguity, because everyone knows that it is the same thing

as for whether it is a work in the sense of copyright law, there are two schools of views. Most people believe that AI creations meet the constitutive requirements of copyright law and are works in the sense of copyright law. Of course, a few scholars hold opposing views

protection under the framework of copyright law

China Science Daily: then, what kind of ways should be used to protect AI creations

sunyurong: as for the issue of how to protect, I am in favor of protecting AI creative achievements under the existing and current conditions and the framework of copyright law

as we all know, copyright law is built around human intelligence as its protection object. However, AI has been used as a tool to assist human creation and now it has begun to create independently. In the process of making artificial intelligence creations, a large number of reserved text corpora and processed and synthesized language models themselves contain human creative work. For example, Microsoft "Xiaobing" learned the modern poetry of more than 500 poets since 1926 and wrote poetry after tens of thousands of training

some scholars will take the case of monkeys taking pictures of themselves to demonstrate that AI creations cannot constitute works in the sense of copyright law. But I think this is quite different from what the United States Copyright Administration said in the document, "works produced by automatic or random mechanical methods without any creative input or human author's intervention". This is my personal view

China Science Daily: what is the basis for protection under the framework of copyright law

sunyurong: from the definition of works, AI creations are actually within the protection framework of copyright law. It belongs to the "original" expression of science and art, and it can also be copied. In 2016, the European Commission on legal affairs made a proposal to the European Commission, which is to define the standard of "independent intellectual creation" of artificial intelligence

in fact, there is no need for a fundamental change in the legal system of intellectual property. The provision that AI creations are the new object of intellectual property does not deviate from the personality basis of copyright law. From the perspective of human audience (Readers), the judgment of whether artificial intelligence creation belongs to a work should not be based on whether the work comes from human or non-human, but on whether it belongs to the original expression in the field of literature, art or science, and whether it has replicability

therefore, whether an AI creation is a work in the sense of copyright law depends mainly on whether it meets the constitutive requirements of the work. In other words, we should adopt an objective judgment standard, rather than the standard of whether it comes from human or non-human

reach a consensus to escort AI

China Science Daily: under the current legal framework, who is the right subject of AI creations

sunyurong: the top priority is to reach a consensus on whether AI creations can constitute works. On this basis, we can then explore the subject of its rights

if we can reach a consensus now, we can take advantage of the precious opportunity of revising the copyright law and regulate it by modifying the relevant provisions. If we can't reach a consensus, we can think about special legislation. However, independent legislation is more difficult and slow to start than the revision of the copyright law. So I think under the existing conditions, adopting the protection mode of copyright law is the best choice

speaking of the subject of rights, at least at this stage, AI itself cannot become the owner of rights, which is basically the consensus of the industry. There are different views at home and abroad on whether the copyright owner of the content generated by AI is the developer or the user of the program. The British practice belongs to the operator or user of the program, while the United States believes that it belongs to the developer of artificial intelligence programs. Clear up different points of view, our thinking is more clear. For example, the right belongs to whoever created it

China Science Daily: in practice, how should we implement the protection of AI creations

sunyurong: first of all, there must be certain actions at the legislative level. In fact, it is an expanded interpretation of the trial meaning of the aluminum plate aging furnace of the work, which does not need to shake the foundation of the existing copyright law. Then, when discussing the ownership of rights, if a consensus cannot be reached, contractualism can be adopted

we discuss these issues with the ultimate goal of escorting AI. In the case that the existing intellectual property law cannot clearly regulate emerging things, it is only a last resort to adopt the traditional contract law and trade secret law to protect them. Therefore, the ownership of rights can also be reached by signing contracts

at present, AI creations have not reached the level that can be seen all over the street. Before large-scale commercial applications, it seems that the problems are not so prominent and there are not so many disputes. The current user or programmer is actually a subject. For example, a company developed artificial intelligence for commercial applications such as writing and writing, because it is the same subject, there is no dispute. However, if a company transfers or leases AI after developing it, there will be a situation that the owner and user of AI are not the same, which is prone to disputes

some judges believe that a comprehensive judgment can be made according to the specific circumstances of the case and the contribution of programmers and users. I think this is also a wise choice under the current situation

scan QR code and share to

tag -

AI, creation, Google, protection mode

Station - Sun Siqing

Copyright © 2011 JIN SHI