“The challenges of artificial intelligence in the field of IP”
Meta description:
This article throws light ion the concept of artificial intelligence and IP and also it gives the knowledge of challenges which is faced by the AI in the field of intellectual property right. As we know that artificial intelligence machines have that ability to create subject matter which can be protected by the IP. AI can easily create work of art, design an object or develop it sown new brand name in the market.
This purpose of this article is to spread the knowledge about the artificial intelligence can also be in the field of IP also it can be registered under IPR. As we know the benefits of AI technology are varied and also have potential to revolutionize many aspects of the life. But the introduction of artificial intelligence also poses the challenges in the IP industry.
Here we explore the potential difficulties we expect to emerge with the development of AI and the question which are ultimately likely to be heard by courts. In this modern age science does not stop but it aims for the best what the means of AI is that it feels like human than ever before. The improvement of technology for the advancement of humankind is the force behind the development of AI.?
Keyword: Artificial intelligence and IPR?
Challenges of AI in the field of IPR
The artificial intelligence is advance simulation of intelligence of the human by using the machines and technology. This term sound like very technical and now a days we are using this term or listening this in daily life. Take an example of Alexa, as this device people use in their house more like smart device, we can talk to Alexa and he/she obey our command which we can say its more like smart and work with the help of artificial intelligence.?
Now the question is can artificial intelligence comes under IP or can we have registered under the IPR and challenges faced by AI in the field of IP. Presently the law of intellectual property only considers the value of human creation and can be IP holder or infringers. This raises the issues of AI regarding the IP rights in the future.?
The law which is present that does not cover the scope of AI and based upon the last generation of IP laws. According to the Indian patent act of 1970, it says that things such as computer programs, mathematical formula are not considered in the patentable inventions.?
There is one example as we all know about the humanoid robot called SOPHIA and she get citizenship of Saudi Arabia. Will she own IP rights? No, she will not own because of the reason that until the legislature includes the AI system within the ambit of person or any other computer system till then they will not own any rights.?
AI does not possess the capacity to claim or enforce any rights and in India also they have not drafted any laws or rules and neither there are any cases that pertain to AI and its legal status.
In the concept of IP, it says that anything which a person creates novel and innovation with industrial application which is not in the nature itself that we create or invent by our own that can be own the IP right under different branch of IP like trademark, patent, copyright, design, GI, etc.?
But if anything, which created by the AI or with the computer-based system or machines that can not own any rights because in the section 2 (d) (6) of the copyright act it says that any artistic work that is created with the help of computer system then the author if work shall be a person or human creation not the computer system.?
领英推荐
AI is more advanced and having wide range of intelligence than the human and as the time comes the future of AI will be great because in field the AI works now and giving the best result but now at the present time it faces the challenges because it owns no rights its more like we say its just a tool.?
There was one case LOUIS VUITTON V. GOOGLE FRANCE, in this case it states that there was in instance where the keyword advertisement of google France through its AI infringed the trademark of the petitioner creating a landmark case of AI breach of trademark law.?
In the future times, may be AI would get its own IP rights because AI is really very helpful in the future times and everyone is using the AI technology for the advancement of work and smart work. In current scenario there is no law which can gives rights to the artificial intelligence in this world. IP rights only get to the human creation which generated by them which must be novel, innovating and having industrial application, which is not in the market.
AI is expected to be make a dramatic entry into the world of IP and WIPO also started using the application of artificial intelligence. AI will be most useful and helpful in the developing practical working tools and it will develop new trends and open up the new market segment.
There was one news comes that an AI was recognized as a co-author, Ankit sahani an IP lawyer who owned this AI app. In November 2020, RAGHAV AI associated with this app and Ankit was granted the copyrights for painting called suryast.??
Solution for challenges faced by AI in IP
As the matter of facts that the controversy and challenges, there is a need to generate a practical and accurate way to deal with the situation. The results which can be generated by artificial intelligence are either an outcome of its own intelligence or an algorithm. If the artificial intelligence machine’s function is merely mechanical, rather than innovative, artificial intelligence might be considered to be lack creativity. The existing IP law of any country would not identify artificial intelligence as an owner of Intellectual Property. Therefore, artificial intelligence technology would not be able to get any ownership for any creation until and unless it is able to achieve the legal personality status similar to humans. Most countries’ existing Intellectual Property require that any rights holder must have a legal personality i.e., lacking in the case of artificial intelligence.?
In the coming time, artificial intelligence will soon be able to transcend human intelligence and lead the society to discoveries, and to achieve these goals, the Intellectual Property law of the country must safeguard the interest of artificial intelligence technologies. If artificial intelligence can prove an independent innovation, it might be considered a potential author and could be able to claim a copyright for such innovation as other human authors.
There is a concern that artificial intelligence might be able to create such inventions that will be completely against the betterment of human lives. In such cases where artificial intelligence users should be able to foresee the results and outcomes, or are responsible for managing and caring for artificial intelligence, then they could be held liable. Nonetheless, if artificial intelligence functions autonomously and can work without any direct programme, develop anything through self-learning and go beyond predictability, then the liability or responsibility can fall upon the artificial intelligence itself. The legislation should be drafted in such a way that will ensure that human beings have the right to override any artificial intelligence decision and also grant power to human beings to control the functioning of artificial intelligence.
If we take a look at the main objectives of the Intellectual Property law, the key policy of these laws exists to grant exclusive rights to investors or creators in order to enjoy the benefits provided by their respective works. If the same rights were given to AI technologies, they would also be able to recognize the achievement they incurred from such creation or by inventing any subject matter and would be able to enjoy the privileges. However, giving value to innovation that provides benefit to the public is a fundamental goal of the Intellectual Property, and excluding such innovation from granting rights would be then inconsistent with the Intellectual Property law. It would be contrary to the provision which is related to Intellectual Property if the legislator considered creativity and innovation over the betterment of human beings. There must be a reasonable balance between these two conditions.?
Reference: