The Emerging Debate on Granting AI the Status of Inventors: Rethinking Intellectual Property Laws for Non-Human Creation
If an AI system composes a song for you, generating both lyrics and music, the question of original authorship arises. Would you be considered the creator of the song, or should it be attributed to the AI? The ownership of the ideas, products, arts, or any solutions created by #AI is a matter that is currently in the limelight, with one particularly trending case being that of #DABUS (Device for Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience). DABUS, an AI system capable of autonomously generating or inventing new products through simulated human brainstorming. One of its notable creations is a food container. #StephenThaler, the owner of DABUS, has submitted patent applications in various countries, such as Australia, the UK, the US, the European Union, and South Africa. In these applications, DABUS is recognized as the inventor, and Stephen Thaler asserts his ownership of the invention. However, the patent applications have been rejected by the intellectual property offices of the UK, US, and Australia, as their patent laws do not acknowledge non-human entities as inventors. Conversely, the South African Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) has accepted the application, although its decision has faced significant international criticism. Nevertheless, DABUS became the first AI system or a non-human who got recognized as an inventor. A similar case that gained widespread attention occurred in 2011, often referred to as the 'Monkey selfie copyright dispute'. It involved a British nature photographer named #DavidSlater, who traveled to Indonesia to capture photos of an endangered species of monkeys known as Celebes crested macaques. To achieve this, Slater gained the trust of the monkeys and set up his camera on a tripod, with a remote cable attached to the camera and placed next to it. After adjusting all the settings, he allowed the monkeys to play with the camera. Fascinated by their reflections in the lens, the monkeys accidentally triggered the remote shutter and took their own close-up selfies. Wikimedia, a free image-sharing website, found itself at the center of controversy when it uploaded the monkey selfie photos without obtaining permission from British photographer David Slater. Upon discovering this, Slater objected and promptly requested Wikimedia to remove the photos from their platform. However, Wikimedia took a different stance, asserting that since the photos were taken by a non-human entity, no one could claim copyright ownership. Consequently, they argued that the images belonged to the public domain and refused to comply with Slater's request for removal.
This decision by Wikimedia sparked a heated debate, with various perspectives coming to light. PETA, an American animal rights non-profit organization, argued that the monkey itself should be recognized as the copyright holder. On the other hand, United States copyright laws specifically state that only works created by humans are eligible for copyright protection. According to these laws, photographs or artwork produced by animals or machines without human involvement do not qualify for copyright. The reasoning behind this distinction lies in the requirement for original intellectual conceptions by an author, which copyright law is limited to.
Consequently, David Slater's claim to copyright was ultimately denied, and the monkey selfie photos now reside freely in the public domain, accessible to anyone. This case not only raised intriguing questions about the intersection of copyright and non-human creations but also highlighted the complexities and evolving nature of intellectual property rights in the digital age.
In 2019, the #WorldIntellectualPropertyOrganization (WIPO) organized a conference to discuss the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on intellectual property (IP) rights. The aim was to engage all member states and other interested parties in a discussion on how to incorporate AI inventions and creations into existing IP laws. Currently, IP laws around the world only recognize natural persons as inventors or creators. Consequently, AI-generated works do not receive patent protection, as demonstrated by the earlier example. However, this practice can discourage the development of new technologies and hinder the use of AI, which is detrimental to societal progress. Therefore, there is a need to amend existing laws or create new ones to include AI-generated creations within the realm of IP rights.
Apart from the issue of copyright ownership disputes and the question of whether AI inventions should be granted patent protection, there are other challenges emerging in the field of IP regulations. One such issue pertains to infringements of IP rights. Generative AI utilizes data to identify patterns and relationships in order to create new works. This data may include portions of existing copyrighted works, leading to potential copyright infringement. Currently, the laws regarding such cases are unclear. However, several questions arise: What impact would this have on the development of AI and the free flow of data for enhancing innovation in AI? Could a licensing system be a viable alternative to copyright infringement? Can the unauthorized use of data from copyrighted works for machine learning be detected and enforced, particularly when a large number of copyright works are created by AI?
These are just a few of the many issues that exist in relation to the challenges of IP rights with the advent of AI technologies. Individuals and businesses working in the field of AI need to stay updated on these matters and develop their own strategies to address these problems. Addressing these questions is crucial to foster research and innovation in the field of AI.
Reference ;