Search

The paper analyzes possible ways of protecting artificial intelligence systems and their elements with the help of intellectual property law from the perspective of European Union law. This paper deals with copyright law, patent law and sui generis database protection in relation to artificial intelligence systems. The paper begins with an analysis of whether and how an artificial intelligence can be protected by means of copyright. The author analyzes the European Union's copyright acquis and concludes that the elements of the Al system, as well as the entire artificial intelligence system, that are implemented in software, can be protected by copyright as a computer program if the originality requirements are met. However, the originality requirement is unlikely to be met in all cases in this context. The same issue with the originality requirement applies to potentially possible copyright protection of artificial intelligence systems as databases. Therefore, it is concluded that the fulfillment of copyright requirements for protection of an artificial intelligence system must be established in each particular case. The author also considers whether patent law is applicable to protect artificial intelligence systems. For this purpose, the provisions of the patent law of the European Union, in particular, of the European Patent Convention, are analyzed. The author concludes that the artificial intelligence system may be patentable as a "computer-implemented invention" in case all the requirements for patent protection are met. Sui generis database protection is also considered as an additional possibility for legal protection of artificial intelligence systems, taking into account that its applicability is limited to the European Union. Whether sui generis database protection is applicable to the artificial intelligence system should be decided on a case-by-case basis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Internet memes, a bourgeoning form of communication, resemble accessory elements of language. However, internet memes are conceptually complex. Their collective re-creative process relies heavily on copying underlying works, usually without asking for prior-permission from their rightsholders. Internet memes challenge core copyright assumptions on reasons of re-creation and modes of exploitation. Without a fundamental rethink of this mismatch, internet meme culture may be threatened. Going forward, copyright reforms should be holistic and distinguish between traditional and newer forms of re-creative processes. This article proposes that existing copyright can be flexibly interpreted to limit private property rights of underlying works and meme variations when they are used as internet memes, so as to facilitate their adaptation and support socio-cultural discourse. This article proposes a two-step holistic interpretation: copyright can conceptualise and confer limited rights for underlying works and meme variations when they are copied and re-used as internet memes. Copyright can also conceptualise a narrower scope of property rights by flexibly interpreting a combination of fundamental notions, including joint authorship, fair dealing, idea-expression, or user rights. This holistic approach sits comfortably with user-creators and their blurry cultural production-consumption patterns, alongside their nuanced (non)economic use of internet memes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent swell of public interest in AI image generating software, such as Midjourney, DALL-E 2, and Stable Diffusion, has led to a great deal of consternation among conventional visual artists. Understanding that the process through which these machines generate images depends ultimately on a machine learning process that involves the use of copyrighted artworks, has led many artists to allege that AI art is theft. There has already been a substantive debate in the literature concerning whether this use of copyrighted material by AI image generating software constitutes copyright infringement in the United States. However, the artists’ complaint appears to be a moral claim, rather than a legal one. In this paper, I will argue that these artists are essentially mistaken. Their copyrights should not protect them from this use of their art by AI image generating software. While I am sympathetic to the claims that this technology will harm visual artists, and that there should be some kind of protection afforded to artists against that harm, that harm is not caused by anything analogous to theft. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study adopts a multiple-case study design to address 'Does copyright law protect automated news, and if so, how' in three jurisdictions: the United States, the European Union and China. Through doctrinal legal analysis of the copyright laws and document analysis of policy reports, corporate responses and other empirical evidence, this study has found that the three copyright regimes differ substantively with regard to both formal texts and informal enforcement of copyright claims to artificial intelligence (AI)-generated news. In the United States, there has been a policy silence. In the European Union (EU), eager regulators have rushed to enact premature laws and failed policy patchwork. In China, the state is instrumentalising both laws and journalism to further its own interests. These findings suggest that current regulatory frameworks in all cases have led to a weakening of the institution of copyright, which, in turn, has contributed to the deinstitutionalisation of journalism and the institutionalisation of algorithms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Products from many domains (art, music, engineering design, literature, etc.) are considered to be creative works, but there is a misconception that computer programs are limited by set expressions and thus have no room for creativity. To determine whether computer programs are creative works, we collected programs from 23 advanced graduate students that were written to solve simple and complex bioinformatics problems. These programs were assessed for their variability of expression using a new measurement that we designed. They were also evaluated on several elements of their creativity using a version of Cropley and Kaufman's (2012) Creative Solution Diagnosis Scale that was modified to refer to programming. We found a high degree of variation in the programs that were produced, with 11 unique solutions for the simple problem and 20 unique solutions for the complex problem. We also found higher ratings of propulsion-genesis and problematization for the complex problem than for the simple problem. This combination of variation in expression and differences in level of creativity based on program complexity suggests that computer programs, like many other products, count as creative works. Implications for the creativity literature, computer science education, and intellectual property law, particularly copyright, are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright law is the bedrock of the music industry, governing the ownership, distribution and commercialisation of musical works and sound recordings. It serves as a linchpin that sustains the complex ecosystem made up of users, authors, and owners. Supported by various multifaceted justifications for its existence, the landscape of music copyright law in Malaysia is characterised by diversity and cultural richness. Despite being primarily governed by the Copyright Act 1987, which offers protection for both sound recordings and musical works, there remains a notable lack of awareness regarding the applicability of copyright law and possible infringements. Addressing this is imperative, alongside the need to align Malaysian copyright law with international standards. With the rapid advancement of the global music industry, ongoing efforts are essential to foster a thriving music industry that benefits creators, consumers, and owners. Therefore, this paper aims to comprehensively analyse and understand music copyright law in Malaysia and provide insights into the global issues shaping the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Soochow University Law Edition is the property of Soochow University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article offers a comprehensive analysis of the Digital Single Market Directive of the European Union, with a specific emphasis on Article 17. The Directive aims to achieve the objectives of unifying copyright laws throughout the European Union while striking a balance between the interests of copyright owners and the rights of internet users. An in-depth analysis is conducted on the intricacies of implementing Article 17, its ramifications on fundamental rights, and its influence on the digital economy in Europe. The study also examines the various approaches used to implement the Directive in European Union member states and the legal debates it has sparked, therefore enhancing the comprehension of the digital copyright framework in the European Union. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) has resulted in an enormous volume of content created by machines. This article explores the copyright implications of AI-generated content and the legal challenges that arise in determining authorship, ownership, and liability. It analyses the current copyright laws and their application to AI-generated content, discusses the challenges in determining authorship and ownership, and investigates how AI-generated content could influence the development of copyright law in the future. The paper also provides examples of legal cases related to AI-generated content and their outcomes. Finally, the paper offers recommendations for dealing with the copyright issues raised by AI-generated content, including the importance of establishing clear copyright guidelines, promoting transparency and accountability in the development of AI technology, and engaging in continued legal and policy dialogues about these concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The passing of basketball icon Kobe Bryant at the beginning of 2020 was devastating for many different sporting and cultural communities. However, the plethora of opportunities Bryant left his family, and the management of those entities by his estate, thereafter, shed light on a neglected area of branding research. How athletes are able to prepare their estates to continue to benefit from their name, image, and likeness, even after death, is a substantial topic in regard to the legacy that various athletes are able to establish. Through an analysis of various posthumous branding phenomena, as well as a comparison with other posthumous celebrity brands, this commentary discusses the current issues faced by athletes, such as ownership and protection. An understanding of current barriers to greater posthumous earnings will benefit how athletes and researchers alike construct and evaluate brands, respectively. Future research should address how prevalent forward thinking is to athletes' brand building toward a successful postathletic career, as well as the current status of estate planning and brand communication by athletes and/or their brand managers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: this article aims to answer the following questions: 1. Can generative artificial intelligence be a subject of copyright law? 2. What risks the unregulated use of generative artificial intelligence systems can cause? 3. What legal gaps should be filled in to minimize such risks?Methods: comparative legal analysis, sociological method, concrete sociological method, quantitative data analysis, qualitative data analysis, statistical analysis, case study, induction, deduction.Results: the authors identified several risks of the unregulated usage of generative artificial intelligence in the creative industry, among which are: violation of copyright and labor law, violation of consumers rights and the rise of public distrust in government. They suggest that a prompt development of new legal norms can minimize these risks. In conclusion, the article constants that states have already begun to realize that the negative impact of generative artificial intelligence on the creative industry must not be ignored, hence the development of similar legal regulations in states with completely different regimes.Scientific novelty: the article provides a comprehensive study of the impact of generative artificial intelligence on the creative industry from two perspectives: the perspective of law and the perspective of the industry. The empirical basis of it consists of two international surveys and an expert opinion of a representative of the industry. This approach allowed the authors to improve the objectivity of their research and to obtain results that can be used for finding a practical solution for the identified risks. The problem of the ongoing development and popularization of generative artificial intelligence systems goes beyond the question “who is the author?” therefore, it needs to be solved by introduction of other than the already existing mechanisms and regulations - this point of view is supported not only by the results of the surveys but also by the analysis of current lawsuits against developers of generative artificial intelligence systems.Practical significance: the obtained results can be used to fasten the development of universal legal rules, regulations, instruments and standards, the current lack of which poses a threat not only to human rights, but also to several sectors within the creative industry and beyond.

AbstractThe seminal copyright case of Pope v. Curll is typically cited by lawyers as the case which, for the first time in Anglo-American law, disassociated the physical copy of a literary work from its metaphysical content. A decades-long enmity between the author Alexander Pope and printer Edmund Curll culminated in Pope’s suit against Curll for having printed stolen personal letters. While not disputing traditional understandings of Pope v. Curll, this article offers an additional, alternative reading of the arguments made by Pope in the case. The litigation is situated within the context of early modern celebrity culture to argue that Pope was pursuing property rights on three levels, not simply the two typically recognized. Pope sought property rights to the physical material of the purloined letters and for property rights in the literary content of the letters, but also for the property right in his own image-making. This third argument is essentially the modern equivalent of publicity rights – a twentieth-century quasi-intellectual property right used to protect names, images, and likenesses. This article thus reads modern publicity rights jurisprudence as having deeper roots than previously discussed. Pope v. Curll represents a road not taken in the history of copyright law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of ABI Technik is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The growth of digital technology has been one of the highlights of the 21st century. This has led to the growth of the development of new Software and Computer-Related Inventions (CRIs). The grant of Intellectual Property Rights protection to these inventions has been questionable since they have been explicitly excluded from IP protection statutes across the world. However, as time progresses, legislatures across the world have been under pressure to provide some sort of protection to such inventions. This has resulted in amendment of laws and a criterion has been devised to protect CRIs and software. The approach adopted towards the same varies from country to country. Moreover, there has also been a rise of inventions generated using Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI has made the process of invention much easier since the mental element is taken care of by the AI. However, questions are raised regarding the grant of IP protection to such inventions for the lack of an inventive step. The paper analyses the scope of protection granted to Software and CRI across different legal systems in the world. It also explores the possibility of the application of these principles to AI or the modification of existing principles to allow for the patentability of AI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The controversy over copyright theory in the metaverse scenario mainly arises from the issue of copyrightability of metaverse products. Metaverse products have initially reached the standard of originality and formally conform to the dichotomy of thought and expression, however, the incompatibility of object types has led to controversy over its copyright theory. In addition, the three types of disputes and difficulties based on the "behavior" element: original acquisition and derivative acquisition, original products and derivative products, and public domain and private domain, are not just copyright disputes in the metaverse scene, but also a difficult problem that the copyright system cannot reconcile. In this regard, this article draws on overseas experience, introduces the theory of copyright expansion, and combines the needs of China's judicial practice and China's national conditions, trying to solve the copyright legal issues in the metaverse scenario one by one through the "source of communication" theory, behavior restriction theory and interest game theory, and propose China's response to the problems caused by the generalization of digital technology from the three dimensions of originality standard identification, object classification, and rights restriction rules. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Trade book publishing is characterised by authors with weaker bargaining power than the commercial intermediaries, including publishers and distributors. One key solution representing the empowerment of authors is self-publishing works, thereby cutting out the gatekeeper. However, self-publication has failed to improve the position of authors: their incomes continue to fall across the sector. Using social network analysis as well as industry practices, this article examines UK trade book publishing dynamics. It argues that the reason for the self-publication route’s ‘underperformance’ is structural, explained by a realistic view of the publishing sector and the relationships it entails. The self- publishing author is shown to have little information and bargaining power, while self-published books are subject to inherent commercial limitations. The wider structural impact of market concentration in book distribution is clarified. The findings suggest that solutions need to combine copyright with competition law interventions as bargaining and market issues require different but coherently designed remedies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper aims to point to the presence of creativity in translation. First, it analyzes the translation process, in which it uncovers its creative aspects, and then identifies the creative potential of individual types of translation. It reveals the possibilities available to translators in order to apply their creative translation solutions. The above view of translation as a process and translation as a product presents translators in a role that is often questioned and even overlooked – the role of a creator, while complementing the assessment of their work from the point of view of law. How does the law interpret creative activity in the case of translation, and when is the result of such activity, a translation, protected by copyright law? Under what conditions can a translator become an author? The authors attempt to answer such questions with an interdisciplinary understanding of the issue of creativity in translation, which, from their perspective, deserves increased attention from both the lay and professional public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research delves into the study of illegal broadcasting from the perspective of Law Number 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright. The background of the research arises from the increasing cases of copyright violations through unauthorized broadcasting media, which has the potential to harm the intellectual property owners. The objective of this research is to analyze the impact and legal implications of illegal broadcasting practices within the framework of the prevailing copyright law. The research method involves legal document analysis, literature review, and case studies to gather up-to-date information. The research findings indicate that illegal broadcasting practices harm copyright holders, create injustice in the creative industry, and violate legal norms governing copyright. The legal implications include sanctions that can be applied to illegal broadcasting actors in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Law. The research conclusion emphasizes the need for stricter law enforcement and preventive measures to address illegal broadcasting in order to protect copyright and promote sustainable growth in the creative industry. This study provides in-depth insights into the legal aspects of illegal broadcasting, summarizes the complexity of the issue, and highlights the serious attention required for copyright protection in the digital era. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Commercial & Intellectual Property Law (TFM) / Ticaret ve Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku Dergisi is the property of Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University, Facult of Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Assigning appropriate films for undergraduate business ethics students to watch and report can help students find conflicts of interest and ethical dilemmas in different environments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The digital revolution has launched myriad new technologies in the field of art and cultural heritage law, including digital art, NFTs (non-fungible tokens), artificial intelligence (AI)-generated art, virtual reality and reality augmentation, online viewing rooms and auctions, holograms, immersive experiences, and more. As a $67.8 billion industry, the art market is a global driver of innovation, international collaboration, and national economies, given its cross-border transactions. However, given the extremely rapid development of these new technologies, regulators have struggled to keep pace and implement legal measures that are fit for purpose in this field. Limited oversight has resulted in several claims that have the potential to change the legal landscape. For instance, claims over the theft/misappropriation of NFTs and the related fraud and money laundering that may ensue, as well as a recent class action copyright infringement suit against the creators of a popular AI algorithm and infringement claims over immersive installation and light technologies, demonstrate how new ways of thinking are required to assess cases involving digital property (distinguished from other types of non-tangible property). Moreover, the US Supreme Court has issued a landmark ruling on fair use within the copyright context, which will be relied upon in the future to determine whether (and to what extent) the appropriation of existing copyrighted material is permitted. This includes both the digital use of physical artworks and the use of born-digital works. Although jurisprudential decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, factual patterns involving online media, digital art, and related technologies could serve as guidance for legislators and other decision-makers when considering what limits should be imposed on Web 3.0. This article will focus on recent US-based claims and regulations and dovetail with existing art market regulations in this jurisdiction (e.g., anti-money-laundering statutes) to determine their impact on new technologies, whether directly or indirectly. Finally, the article highlights ongoing trends and preoccupations to provide an overview of the shifting legal landscape. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As a result of globalization and technology breakthroughs, digital painting has become more popular in Indonesia and has enabled artists to display their work online. Still, art theft is a serious problem, especially for artists who contribute to the art industry.The purpose of this research is to find out the technological developments, impact, and legal protection against theft of digital painting cases against perpetrators of the art industry in Indonesia. Research methods are qualitative research with descriptive and analytical approaches. The conclusion of this study is that the dynamics of the art industry in Indonesia are heavily influenced by technological advances and the style of digital painting. The impact of the theft of digital painting works of art on perpetrators of the art industry in Indonesia is loss of recognition, financial losses, and violations of the law. The Legal protection to deal with theft of digital painting artworks against perpetrators of the art industry in Indonesia can be done in a variety of ways namely by registering Copyright by submitting an application for copyright registration, protection of Digital Painting, updating of legislative regulations leading to more detailed explanations relating to the artwork of Digital painting, and Legal awareness and education.

Laws and policies are important instruments to protect and promote innovation. Intellectual property laws like copyright, patent, and confidential commercial information law facilitate can increase business outputs, economic growth, and green production standards. The objective of the article is to analyze copyright, patent, and confidential commercial information laws in Saudi Arabia to see the availability of these laws in encouraging and protecting energy-efficient innovation while contributing to achieving sustainable development. Content analysis, doctrinal research method, and comparative legal analysis were used to achieve the research objective. The research findings demonstrate that the three selected legislation could be extended to protect energy-efficient innovation in Saudi Arabia though there is a need to amend some of the provisions of the existing laws. However, creating public awareness of the availability of laws and proper implementation of the laws are necessary to protect energy-efficient innovation. The article proposes recommendations to the policymakers about the need for further improvement of the law and its enforcement. The findings of this research could fill the gap in the literature on the assessment of intellectual property law to protect energy-efficient innovation in Saudi Arabia.