1
00:00:00,050 --> 00:00:00,740
Case study.

2
00:00:00,770 --> 00:00:03,320
AI generated art and intellectual property.

3
00:00:03,320 --> 00:00:05,990
Legal, ethical and philosophical challenges.

4
00:00:06,020 --> 00:00:08,450
The sale of the AI generated painting.

5
00:00:08,450 --> 00:00:17,090
Portrait of Edmond de Bellamy for $432,500 at Christie's auction in 2018, ignited significant debate.

6
00:00:17,450 --> 00:00:22,610
This thought provoking event exemplified the complex and evolving landscape of intellectual property

7
00:00:22,610 --> 00:00:24,740
rights and AI system ownership.

8
00:00:24,830 --> 00:00:30,800
This case study explores these challenges through the lens of various legal, ethical, and philosophical

9
00:00:30,800 --> 00:00:32,000
considerations.

10
00:00:33,260 --> 00:00:39,530
In the city of Paris, the art collective obvious, comprised of AI developers Pierre Fautrel, Gauthier

11
00:00:39,560 --> 00:00:46,040
Vernier, and Hugo Caselles Dupre, developed a generative adversarial network to create works of art.

12
00:00:46,520 --> 00:00:51,890
Their most famous creation, the Portrait of Edmond de Belamy, was produced by training the Gan on

13
00:00:51,890 --> 00:00:54,050
a dataset of historical portraits.

14
00:00:54,500 --> 00:01:00,200
When this AI generated painting fetched an astonishing price at auction, the question arose who should

15
00:01:00,200 --> 00:01:01,910
hold the copyright to this work?

16
00:01:01,940 --> 00:01:05,020
The AI, the developers or the collective.

17
00:01:06,160 --> 00:01:12,280
From a legal standpoint, current copyright laws do not recognize AI systems as entities capable of

18
00:01:12,280 --> 00:01:13,390
holding rights.

19
00:01:14,020 --> 00:01:20,140
According to US copyright law, protection is granted to original works of authorship fixed in a tangible

20
00:01:20,140 --> 00:01:24,310
medium of expression traditionally attributed to human creators.

21
00:01:25,090 --> 00:01:30,940
Given this framework, attributing authorship to an AI system disrupts conventional legal definitions.

22
00:01:31,450 --> 00:01:35,230
Should the developers be credited as the authors since they created the Gan?

23
00:01:35,230 --> 00:01:39,280
Or should the collective that facilitated the project hold the rights?

24
00:01:39,790 --> 00:01:45,370
The sale of the portrait of Edmond de Bellamy at Christie's highlighted the necessity to reconsider

25
00:01:45,370 --> 00:01:47,560
traditional IPR frameworks.

26
00:01:48,700 --> 00:01:55,090
Similarly, the case of Dabus, an AI system that generated two inventions, underscores the challenges

27
00:01:55,090 --> 00:01:56,500
faced by patent law.

28
00:01:57,160 --> 00:02:03,010
Dabus created a fractal based beverage container and a neural flame device for search and rescue missions.

29
00:02:03,580 --> 00:02:09,050
When patent applications were filed listing Dabus as the inventor, the US Patent and Trademark Office

30
00:02:09,080 --> 00:02:14,870
and the European Patent Office rejected the applications, asserting that an inventor must be a natural

31
00:02:14,870 --> 00:02:15,590
person.

32
00:02:16,250 --> 00:02:22,070
This brings us to the question of whether patent laws should be amended to recognize AI generated inventions,

33
00:02:22,070 --> 00:02:25,280
and if so, how should the rights be distributed?

34
00:02:26,930 --> 00:02:30,920
The implications of these legal challenges extend beyond mere ownership.

35
00:02:31,670 --> 00:02:37,220
One pertinent question is whether granting intellectual property rights to AI systems or their developers

36
00:02:37,220 --> 00:02:40,820
would incentivize further advancements in AI technology.

37
00:02:41,300 --> 00:02:47,330
If AI generated works and inventions receive protection, developers might be more motivated to push

38
00:02:47,330 --> 00:02:52,850
the boundaries of AI capabilities, thus fostering technological progress and economic growth.

39
00:02:53,540 --> 00:02:59,420
However, this also raises concerns about monopolistic practices and the concentration of power among

40
00:02:59,450 --> 00:03:01,880
a few AI developers or corporations.

41
00:03:02,120 --> 00:03:07,850
Hence, how can policymakers strike a balance between encouraging innovation and preventing monopolization?

42
00:03:09,700 --> 00:03:15,250
Moreover, accountability and liability issues emerge when considering AI system ownership.

43
00:03:15,250 --> 00:03:21,430
For instance, if an AI system produces defamatory or harmful content, determining liability becomes

44
00:03:21,430 --> 00:03:22,360
convoluted.

45
00:03:22,480 --> 00:03:28,120
The AI developer, the user, or the AI system itself could potentially be held accountable.

46
00:03:28,150 --> 00:03:34,030
This necessitates a thorough examination of how legal frameworks can adapt to address the multifaceted

47
00:03:34,030 --> 00:03:38,800
nature of AI generated content, and ensure transparency and accountability.

48
00:03:40,210 --> 00:03:46,180
Ethical considerations are equally significant in discussions about IPR and AI system ownership.

49
00:03:46,210 --> 00:03:53,380
AI systems have the potential to perpetuate biases, infringe on privacy, and exacerbate social inequalities.

50
00:03:53,410 --> 00:03:59,380
Engaging diverse stakeholders such as ethicists, technologists, legal experts, and representatives

51
00:03:59,380 --> 00:04:05,350
from marginalized communities is essential to ensure that AI technologies are developed and implemented

52
00:04:05,350 --> 00:04:08,560
in alignment with societal values and ethical principles.

53
00:04:09,400 --> 00:04:15,260
How can policymakers ensure that ethical considerations are prioritized in the development and governance

54
00:04:15,260 --> 00:04:16,610
of AI technologies.

55
00:04:18,140 --> 00:04:22,580
International cooperation is another critical aspect of addressing IPR and.

56
00:04:22,610 --> 00:04:24,170
AI system ownership.

57
00:04:24,860 --> 00:04:30,500
Given the global nature of AI development and deployment, inconsistencies in national laws can create

58
00:04:30,530 --> 00:04:34,010
legal uncertainties and hinder cross-border innovation.

59
00:04:34,040 --> 00:04:40,370
International organizations like the World Intellectual Property Organization play a crucial role in

60
00:04:40,370 --> 00:04:46,160
facilitating dialogue and cooperation among member states to develop coherent and harmonized approaches

61
00:04:46,160 --> 00:04:48,170
to AI and intellectual property.

62
00:04:48,590 --> 00:04:53,540
Our current international efforts sufficient to address the complexities of AI and IPR.

63
00:04:53,570 --> 00:04:56,930
Or is there a need for more robust international frameworks?

64
00:04:59,540 --> 00:05:04,880
In exploring solutions to these challenges, one potential approach is the development of new legal

65
00:05:04,880 --> 00:05:10,730
categories or doctrines specifically tailored to AI generated works and inventions.

66
00:05:11,030 --> 00:05:16,790
This could involve creating a sui generis system of protection that acknowledges the unique characteristics

67
00:05:16,810 --> 00:05:22,720
of AI generated content while balancing the interests of developers, users, and society at large.

68
00:05:23,590 --> 00:05:29,920
Alternatively, existing intellectual property laws could be amended to include provisions for AI generated

69
00:05:29,920 --> 00:05:35,500
works offering clearer guidelines on authorship, ownership and liability.

70
00:05:35,800 --> 00:05:41,080
For instance, if a sui generis system were established, it could provide a dedicated right for AI

71
00:05:41,110 --> 00:05:46,420
generated works potentially encompassing both copyright and patent protections.

72
00:05:46,900 --> 00:05:52,000
This system would recognize the contributions of AI developers, while ensuring that the rights of human

73
00:05:52,000 --> 00:05:55,000
inventors and creators are not undermined.

74
00:05:56,170 --> 00:06:02,020
Such a framework could also address liability issues by establishing clear guidelines on accountability

75
00:06:02,020 --> 00:06:06,040
in cases of harmful or defamatory AI generated content.

76
00:06:06,880 --> 00:06:13,330
Moreover, policymakers could consider introducing legal mechanisms that promote transparency and accountability

77
00:06:13,330 --> 00:06:14,740
in AI development.

78
00:06:15,040 --> 00:06:21,420
For example, mandatory disclosures about the data and algorithms used to train AI systems could help

79
00:06:21,450 --> 00:06:26,760
mitigate biases and ensure that AI generated content aligns with ethical standards.

80
00:06:27,240 --> 00:06:31,830
How can such transparency measures be effectively enforced without stifling innovation?

81
00:06:33,030 --> 00:06:39,360
Another important consideration is the role of public awareness and education in addressing AI and IPR

82
00:06:39,390 --> 00:06:40,350
challenges.

83
00:06:40,800 --> 00:06:46,200
Educating the public about the capabilities and limitations of AI systems, as well as the legal and

84
00:06:46,200 --> 00:06:52,020
ethical implications of AI generated content, can foster informed dialogue and decision making.

85
00:06:52,230 --> 00:06:57,210
How can governments and organizations effectively raise public awareness about these issues?

86
00:06:58,980 --> 00:07:05,010
Furthermore, engaging diverse stakeholders in policy making processes is crucial for developing inclusive

87
00:07:05,010 --> 00:07:07,770
and equitable AI governance frameworks.

88
00:07:08,190 --> 00:07:13,680
By involving ethicists, technologists, legal experts, and representatives from marginalized communities,

89
00:07:13,680 --> 00:07:19,770
policymakers can ensure that diverse perspectives are considered in the development of AI regulations.

90
00:07:19,800 --> 00:07:24,820
How can policymakers facilitate meaningful stakeholder engagement in AI governance.

91
00:07:27,130 --> 00:07:33,280
In conclusion, the intersection of intellectual property rights and AI system ownership presents a

92
00:07:33,280 --> 00:07:38,320
complex and evolving landscape that requires thoughtful and adaptive legal frameworks.

93
00:07:38,770 --> 00:07:44,440
While current IPR laws are not fully equipped to address the unique challenges posed by AI generated

94
00:07:44,440 --> 00:07:48,280
content, there are promising avenues for reform and innovation.

95
00:07:48,610 --> 00:07:55,210
Developing new legal categories, amending existing laws, and fostering international cooperation are

96
00:07:55,210 --> 00:08:01,270
essential steps toward creating a balanced and equitable framework for AI and intellectual property.

97
00:08:01,870 --> 00:08:07,630
Additionally, ethical considerations must be prioritized and diverse stakeholders should be engaged

98
00:08:07,630 --> 00:08:14,380
in policy making processes to ensure that AI technologies align with societal values and principles.

99
00:08:14,890 --> 00:08:20,230
By addressing these challenges comprehensively, policymakers can promote the responsible and equitable

100
00:08:20,230 --> 00:08:25,750
development of AI technologies, fostering innovation while safeguarding public interests.