1 00:00:00,050 --> 00:00:00,680 Case study. 2 00:00:00,710 --> 00:00:06,560 Navigating AI in IP law Challenges and solutions in the Digital Age, the complex relationship between 3 00:00:06,560 --> 00:00:13,040 artificial intelligence and intellectual property law is reshaping the landscape of innovation and creativity. 4 00:00:13,430 --> 00:00:19,700 This convergence demands a reevaluation of IP principles originally intended to safeguard human ingenuity 5 00:00:21,530 --> 00:00:22,520 in Silicon Valley. 6 00:00:22,550 --> 00:00:26,750 A startup named Sinnot employs AI to generate digital art. 7 00:00:27,020 --> 00:00:32,900 The team, led by Emily, the CEO, and Raj, the chief programmer, has developed an AI named Artemis. 8 00:00:33,590 --> 00:00:37,220 Artemis can create astonishing artworks without human intervention. 9 00:00:37,250 --> 00:00:42,620 One day, Emily receives an email from a renowned art gallery interested in displaying Artemis created 10 00:00:42,620 --> 00:00:43,460 pieces. 11 00:00:43,670 --> 00:00:48,230 This elicits a crucial question who should be recognized as the author of these works? 12 00:00:49,640 --> 00:00:53,840 Emily discusses this with Raj and the company's legal advisor, Maria. 13 00:00:54,260 --> 00:00:57,560 Raj insists that he should be credited since he programmed Artemis. 14 00:00:58,520 --> 00:01:03,250 Emily, however, believes that the company should hold the rights as it funded the development. 15 00:01:03,700 --> 00:01:09,190 Maria points out that current copyright law does not recognize non-human entities as authors. 16 00:01:09,520 --> 00:01:15,220 This legal gap creates uncertainty about who legally owns the rights to Artemis's creations. 17 00:01:15,790 --> 00:01:21,430 Should the programmer, the corporation, or a new legal category be recognized as the author? 18 00:01:22,600 --> 00:01:28,660 To explore this further, the team analyzes a recent case where a US court ruled that an AI generated 19 00:01:28,660 --> 00:01:32,800 artwork could not be copyrighted due to the absence of human authorship. 20 00:01:33,400 --> 00:01:38,800 This case underscores the current limitations in IP law, and suggests the need for legislative action 21 00:01:38,800 --> 00:01:41,950 to clarify the status of AI generated works. 22 00:01:42,760 --> 00:01:47,290 If existing laws don't adapt, could this hinder investment in AI innovation? 23 00:01:47,320 --> 00:01:54,610 Due to uncertainties in IP protection, simultaneously, in another part of the tech industry, a biomedical 24 00:01:54,610 --> 00:02:01,510 firm named Innovate Bio faces a different challenge their AI Medibot has independently developed a groundbreaking 25 00:02:01,510 --> 00:02:03,160 pharmaceutical compound. 26 00:02:03,520 --> 00:02:07,720 Doctor Helen, the head of R&D, believes the invention should be patented. 27 00:02:07,750 --> 00:02:13,330 However, the US Patent and Trademark Office requires a human inventor for patent applications. 28 00:02:13,450 --> 00:02:16,540 This situation puts innovate bio in a dilemma. 29 00:02:16,570 --> 00:02:22,090 Should the patent be attributed to Medabots creators, or should new legal categories be established 30 00:02:22,120 --> 00:02:24,130 to recognize AI inventors? 31 00:02:25,870 --> 00:02:31,180 Doctor Helen argues that Medabots creators should be listed as inventors, but the legal team advises 32 00:02:31,180 --> 00:02:31,930 caution. 33 00:02:32,470 --> 00:02:38,530 They refer to a case where the European Patent Office rejected a patent application for an AI generated 34 00:02:38,530 --> 00:02:41,470 invention, due to the lack of human inventorship. 35 00:02:41,950 --> 00:02:47,650 This precedent suggests that without a human inventor, innovate bio might face similar rejections. 36 00:02:48,250 --> 00:02:53,710 How should the company proceed to safeguard its innovations while navigating existing legal frameworks? 37 00:02:55,780 --> 00:03:01,600 Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, a startup named Algo Tunes uses AI to compose music. 38 00:03:01,780 --> 00:03:07,620 The team, including founder Max and data scientist Sarah, trains their eye on vast data sets of existing 39 00:03:07,620 --> 00:03:08,430 music. 40 00:03:08,820 --> 00:03:13,830 However, they are soon confronted by a lawsuit from a major record label, claiming that the use of 41 00:03:13,830 --> 00:03:18,150 copyrighted songs to train their AI constitutes copyright infringement. 42 00:03:18,660 --> 00:03:24,270 This raises another pivotal issue does the use of copyrighted material for AI training fall under fair 43 00:03:24,300 --> 00:03:27,420 use, or does it infringe existing copyrights? 44 00:03:28,800 --> 00:03:31,620 The court's decision could set a critical precedent. 45 00:03:31,650 --> 00:03:37,710 Max believes that their use falls under fair use, but the legal complexities suggest otherwise. 46 00:03:37,950 --> 00:03:43,950 Courts have started to see cases contesting the use of copyrighted material in AI training, with outcomes 47 00:03:43,950 --> 00:03:46,350 that could influence future practices. 48 00:03:46,590 --> 00:03:52,020 If the court rules against algorithms, what could be the broader implications for AI development? 49 00:03:52,050 --> 00:03:55,800 Relying on vast data sets protected by IP laws. 50 00:03:57,000 --> 00:04:03,030 In another scenario, a tech giant named Cybersecure faces the threat of IP infringement facilitated 51 00:04:03,030 --> 00:04:04,590 by I there. 52 00:04:04,620 --> 00:04:09,870 I deep shield, designed to detect and prevent counterfeiting, uncovers a sophisticated counterfeit 53 00:04:09,900 --> 00:04:12,090 operation run by another I. 54 00:04:12,300 --> 00:04:18,420 This counterfeit I generates and distributes high quality fake products, bypassing copyright protections. 55 00:04:18,420 --> 00:04:23,910 This not only challenges cyber secures business, but also raises questions about how to enforce IP 56 00:04:23,940 --> 00:04:24,390 rights. 57 00:04:24,390 --> 00:04:29,040 In an era where AIS can easily replicate and distribute creative works. 58 00:04:30,300 --> 00:04:35,430 Cyber secures legal team led by attorney Kevin explores legal avenues to combat this. 59 00:04:35,430 --> 00:04:41,220 They find that deep learning algorithms can generate deep fakes and counterfeit products, complicating 60 00:04:41,250 --> 00:04:46,680 IP enforcement and posing significant challenges for rights holders and regulatory bodies. 61 00:04:46,950 --> 00:04:53,160 How can Cybersecure develop robust strategies to enforce IP rights effectively against AI generated 62 00:04:53,160 --> 00:04:54,090 infringements? 63 00:04:56,130 --> 00:05:02,160 On the global stage, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the European Union are proactively 64 00:05:02,160 --> 00:05:05,120 addressing the implications of AI on IP law. 65 00:05:05,150 --> 00:05:11,240 The EU Parliament has called for a legal framework to recognise AI generated works and protect data 66 00:05:11,270 --> 00:05:12,920 used in AI training. 67 00:05:12,950 --> 00:05:18,320 Similarly, Euipo engages stakeholders worldwide to develop policy recommendations. 68 00:05:18,320 --> 00:05:24,740 How should international agreements like the Berne Convention and Trips be updated to harmonise IP laws 69 00:05:24,770 --> 00:05:28,340 across borders in response to AI's global impact? 70 00:05:29,270 --> 00:05:32,120 Finally, Sinnott faces an ethical dilemma. 71 00:05:32,120 --> 00:05:37,790 While AI generated art showcases technological advancements, it also raises questions about the nature 72 00:05:37,790 --> 00:05:39,890 of creativity and human agency. 73 00:05:40,490 --> 00:05:46,730 Some team members argue that attributing artistry to AI devalues human creativity, while others believe 74 00:05:46,760 --> 00:05:49,670 it reflects the evolving nature of artistic expression. 75 00:05:49,700 --> 00:05:55,850 This debate highlights the intertwined ethical and legal considerations in developing a fair and equitable 76 00:05:55,850 --> 00:05:56,840 IP regime. 77 00:05:57,470 --> 00:06:03,110 How can companies navigate these ethical waters while ensuring compliance with evolving IP laws? 78 00:06:04,340 --> 00:06:09,500 As the team at Sinnott ponders these questions, they recognize that thoughtful and coordinated legal 79 00:06:09,500 --> 00:06:11,030 responses are essential. 80 00:06:11,390 --> 00:06:17,270 Policymakers, legal scholars, and tech innovators must collaboratively devise frameworks balancing 81 00:06:17,270 --> 00:06:20,900 the interests of creators, rights holders, and the public. 82 00:06:21,680 --> 00:06:27,110 This collaboration aims to foster an environment that promotes innovation and fair competition, while 83 00:06:27,110 --> 00:06:31,100 respecting the evolving nature of creativity in the digital age. 84 00:06:33,230 --> 00:06:37,550 The discussion at Sinnott touches upon several critical areas of analysis. 85 00:06:38,090 --> 00:06:44,660 Emily, Raj and Maria realized that the issue of authorship and ownership of AI generated works requires 86 00:06:44,660 --> 00:06:47,690 legislative action to fill the current legal gap. 87 00:06:48,230 --> 00:06:54,140 They propose advocating for updated copyright laws recognizing the contributions of AI while ensuring 88 00:06:54,140 --> 00:06:55,250 human oversight. 89 00:06:55,700 --> 00:07:01,820 This approach could provide clarity and encourage investment in AI technologies for innovate. 90 00:07:01,820 --> 00:07:08,840 Bio doctor Helen's team suggests a dual strategy listing Med Bots creators as inventors while lobbying 91 00:07:08,840 --> 00:07:13,430 for legal reforms to introduce new categories for AI generated inventions. 92 00:07:13,460 --> 00:07:18,890 This would address current legal requirements and push for progressive changes, ensuring that AI driven 93 00:07:18,890 --> 00:07:20,420 innovations are protected. 94 00:07:22,190 --> 00:07:28,340 Max and Sara at Algo Toons decide to carefully document their use of copyrighted materials, emphasizing 95 00:07:28,370 --> 00:07:32,030 transformative aspects to strengthen their fair use defense. 96 00:07:32,600 --> 00:07:38,480 They also join industry groups advocating for clearer guidelines on AI training data, which could protect 97 00:07:38,480 --> 00:07:41,870 future AI development from similar legal challenges. 98 00:07:43,490 --> 00:07:50,150 Cybersecurity strategy focuses on enhancing AI capabilities to detect and mitigate AI generated counterfeits, 99 00:07:50,150 --> 00:07:55,970 while lobbying for international cooperation to combat IP infringements by coordinating with global 100 00:07:55,970 --> 00:07:57,170 regulatory bodies. 101 00:07:57,200 --> 00:08:03,710 They aim to develop effective enforcement mechanisms tackling sophisticated AI driven IP violations 102 00:08:05,410 --> 00:08:06,970 on an international level. 103 00:08:06,970 --> 00:08:12,670 Sinnott's legal advisor Maria recommends engaging with Ypo and the EU to influence policy discussions 104 00:08:12,670 --> 00:08:14,620 on harmonizing IP laws. 105 00:08:15,070 --> 00:08:19,960 By contributing to these international forums, they aim to ensure that global treaties reflect the 106 00:08:19,960 --> 00:08:25,720 new realities introduced by AI, fostering a cohesive global IP framework. 107 00:08:26,620 --> 00:08:31,810 Ethically, Sinnott decides to attribute AI generated artworks to Artemis with clear acknowledgements 108 00:08:31,810 --> 00:08:34,180 of human oversight and contribution. 109 00:08:34,660 --> 00:08:40,750 This approach respects human creativity while recognising AI's role in artistic innovation, setting 110 00:08:40,750 --> 00:08:45,370 a thoughtful precedent for other companies navigating similar ethical dilemmas. 111 00:08:47,470 --> 00:08:54,550 Thus, the intersection of AI and IP law presents a multifaceted landscape requiring innovative solutions, 112 00:08:54,550 --> 00:08:57,610 collaborative efforts, and forward thinking policies. 113 00:08:57,940 --> 00:09:02,920 These measures will ensure that as AI continues to evolve, it does so within a legal framework that 114 00:09:02,920 --> 00:09:07,210 promotes creativity, innovation and fair competition globally.