Earlier, copyright law had faced the similar question with generated works to which the suggestion can still be relevant in the current context like Samuelson 1985 advocated that users b
Significance of the Research
Humanity always finds themselves eager to make everyday life become more convenient and efficient This motive encourages the technology to constantly advance Another milestone in humanity history is marked with the introduction of Artificial Intelligence
AI has started to appear in various sectors, fulfilling multiple roles, and proving its indefinite potential Novels and films like “I, Robot”, “Wall E” become a prophecy The one used to be some fictional creation now walks into life From medical, healthcare, hospitality, now, this technology is even involved in the creativity sector, something that once a human only capacity is now turned into a process that can be carried out by a machine
With the advent of AI, copyright law faces unprecedented challenges Traditionally, copyright protection has been exclusive to humans, as only they possess the inherent ability to create original works However, AI's remarkable advancements in art, music, literature, and other creative endeavors have sparked a debate on whether the products of these machines deserve the same legal safeguards afforded to human-generated works.
At the moment, the question of whether the AI-generated work should be protected and if yes then what legal instrument is sufficient is still in need for more discussion and research, no legislation can claim to have provided any protection at all Even the United Kingdoms, one of a few countries that have a regime to protect computer-generated works, is still facing a similar conundrum Because unlike computer’s works to which the protection can be granted to “the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken”, 1 AI went further as there is nothing in the output work that can be contributed to the human at all
1 The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) section 9(3)
As aforementioned, copyright was designated for human’s creation, this resulted in a number of uncertainties and difficulties in granting protection for AI’s creation, especially in terms of authorship and the concept of originality
This thesis focuses on examining the concept of Artificial Intelligence and Copyright law to understand the obstacles in the current legal regime It is then arguing in favor of granting copyright protection for AI-generated works as I believe such protection will raise investments and achieve technical and cultural progress in terms of promoting creativity and supporting innovation.
Literature Review
The debate on intellectual property protection for AI-generated works remains unresolved, with diverse perspectives prevailing While the topic has garnered significant attention, a consensus on the most suitable approach has yet to emerge.
Many scholars opined that AI, as well as any non-human creature, should not now or ever be considered for copyright protection as this is a concept that was established for humans and should be reserved for humans only Since 1970, Stephen Breyer has suggested to exempt works by computer from copyright protection 2 and he restated himself later in 2011 3
He is against the argument that because the cost to produce work is higher than to copy it valid enough to grant protection Patrick Zurth (2020) argued that copyright or any kind of protection will increase the number of new monopolies, which will not act in favor of fostering creativity Moreover, another argument for this concern is the suppression of human creation as well as the inability of AI to be considered creative 4
Others suggest for a different type of law to be introduced in order to
2 Breyer, S (1970) The uneasy case for copyright: a study of copyright in books, photocopies, and computer programs Harv L Rev., 84, 281 p 344
3 Breyer, S G (2010) A Look Back across Four Decades Geo Wash L Rev., 79, 1635
4 Zurth, P (2020) Artificial Creativity? A Case against Copyright Protection for AI-Generated Works UCLA
JL & Tech., 25, i protect AI’s works so it will not be necessary to accommodate the present copyright regime
Earlier, copyright law had faced the similar question with computer- generated works to which the suggestion can still be relevant in the current context like Samuelson (1985) advocated that users be given ownership of computer- generated works 5 Ramalho (2017) proposed a method that was compatible with both the public domain and "copyright" models 6 Another option presented by Bridy (2012) to use the concept of work-made-for-hire, reasoning that it will avoid the problem of “treating the programmer as the author-in-fact of works that are actually made by code”, 7 and Pearlman (2018) has also taken into account the model of employment that can be applied to AI systems 8
Another option is to grant copyright protection for AI-generated work Davies (2011) has taken into account that AI has a greater ability than a mere tool and it is also continuing to develop further 9 China shook the world and seems to be backing this notion with a recent decision that conferred copyright protection on an AI-written text 10
Nevertheless, the debate is still going on and no matter which option is prefered, it can always be altered as the AI technology is advancing rapidly
This topic is relatively new in Vietnam as it is not an immediate problem for the legal framework at the moment but it has gradually received attention from the scholars
Bui Thi Hang Nga, Nguyen Thao Linh (2021) stated their opinion on granting legal personality for Artificial Intelligence as this will set the base to
5 Samuelson, P (1985) Allocating ownership rights in computer-generated works U pitt L rev., 47, 1185 p 2985
6 Ramalho, A (2017) Will Robots Rule the (Artistic) World? A Proposed Model for the Legal Status of Creations by Artificial Intelligence Systems Forthcoming in the Journal of Internet Law, 1-20
7 Bridy, A (2012) Coding creativity: copyright and the artificially intelligent author Stan Tech L Rev., 5
8 Pearlman, R (2018) RECOGNIZING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) AS AUTHORS AND INVENTORS UNDER U.S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW U.S Intellectual Property Law, 24(2), 1-7
9 Davies, C R (2011) An evolutionary step in intellectual property rights–Artificial intelligence and intellectual property Computer Law & Security Review, 27(6), 601- 619 p 601, 617
10 Shenzhen Tencent Computer Sys Co v Shanghai Yingxun Tech Co., (People’s Ct of Nanshan (Dist Of Shenzhen) Dec 24, 2019) (China), translated in 51 INT’L REV INTELL PROP & COMPETITION L 652 (2020) resolve legal relation that concern with AI, which includes intellectual property law relationship 11
AI regulation faces challenges in various legal areas, including the absence of clear guidelines for human-AI interactions, legal status determination for AI, and concerns over ethics, security, personal data, intellectual property, liability, and privacy Legal experts highlight the need for addressing these issues and suggest extending copyright protection to AI-generated works by eliminating the requirement for human involvement in originality assessments.
Nguyen Luong Sy since 2018 has voiced his opinion on granting protection for AI-generated works He further made suggestions for Vietnamese legislation to make adaptation to accommodate computer’s creation with a preference over using employment relationships to allocate ownership to either the owner, the user or the developer 14
Vu Thi Hai Yen (2020) in her publication advocates for copyright protection over AI-generated works, reasoning that the protection will help affirm the potential of investing in AI for both investors and technology companies Another reason is the inability to identify AI’s creation out of human’s work She supports the idea introduced by CDPA of appointing “the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken” to be the author 15
This thesis will add on the table justifications to support protecting AI- generated work under copyright law and provide suggestions for copyright law to adapt
11 Bui Thi Hang Nga, Nguyen Thao Linh (2021) Xác lập tư cách pháp lý cho trí tuệ nhân tạo Available at
12 Nguyen Thi Que Anh (2022) Một số khía cạnh pháp lý trong lĩnh vực luật tư khi ứng dụng trí tuệ nhân tạo Tạp chí Nghiên cứu Lập pháp số 22 (446), tháng 11/2021 Available at
13 Vietnam National University, Law School, “Hội Thảo Khoa Học: Hoàn thiện dự thảo luật sửa đổi, bổ sung một số điều của Luật Sở hữu trí tuệ” (Vietnam National University, Law School, May 12, 2022)
14 Nguyen Luong Sy (2018) Quyền tác giả đối với tác phẩm hình thành bởi trí tuệ nhân tạo
Tạp chí Pháp luật và Thực tiễn số 01/2018
15 Vu Thi Hai Yen (2020) Bảo hộ quyền tác giả đối với tác phẩm được tạo ra bởi trí tuệ nhân tạo Tạp chí Nhà nước và Pháp luật số tháng 03/2020 p 45-54.
Objective of the Research
Since protection for AI-generated works is currently a hot topic, and is in necessity for a conversation about the appropriateness of present solutions, as well as what copyright legislation needs to effectively regulate AI- generated works, the thesis attempts to contribute to the discussion from a theoretical viewpoint
The thesis will examine current copyright law as well as the condition of copyright protection to identify the current restraints that prevent works of
It will then provide arguments for the need and the benefit of copyright protection and will suggest revision of copyright law to overcome the aforesaid challenges.
Research questions
In order to argue in favor of providing copyright protection for AI- generated works, I will attempt to answer three questions:
- Do AI-generated works meet the conditions for copyright protection?
- Why should AI-generated works be protected under copyright law?
- How should copyright law protect AI-generated works?
Research Methods
The thesis will mainly rely on traditional legal research (doctrinal research), using analysis, synthesis and comparative methods
International treaties, other national laws, and case law will be used as source material to assess how other laws respond to similar challenges Academic articles and other sources are critical components of this study since they will provide significant information that will aid in answering the research objectives
The current study's research technique was based on a legal dogmatic approach This method is based on the content being analyzed and systematized within the current legal framework.
Structure of the Thesis
In addition to the Introduction, Conclusion and Bibliography, the thesis is structured as follows:
Copyright law plays a crucial role in understanding the protection of intellectual property, especially in the context of artificial intelligence (AI) The rationale behind copyright protection lies in the need to incentivize creativity and protect the rights of creators However, AI-generated works present unique challenges in terms of copyright eligibility, as they raise questions about authorship and the traditional notions of originality and human expression To address these challenges, it is essential to establish a theoretical framework that evaluates the need for protection for AI-created works, considering both the potential benefits and limitations of copyright law in this emerging domain.
The second chapter will dig into the dilemma of Artificial Intelligence, find out the ability of it as well as provide a distinction between AI-generated works and AI-assisted works This part will also provide how AI-generated works failed to fit in with the criteria of protection under the current regime of copyright
Chapter 3 provides reasons to support AI-generated works to be granted with copyright protection from different standpoints
Finally, chapter 4 will make suggestions for how copyright law can be applied to AI-generated works.
OVERVIEW OF COPYRIGHT LAW
Overview
1.1.1 The history of Copyright law
Copyright regime is believed to have first been established during the 15th, 16th century for literature works In this period, the publication was not easy as the books can only be copied by hand The protection was granted not for the author but the publisher for the exclusive right to publish and bring the work onto the market in a five to ten year period 16
From that point, copyright has gone a long way The introduction of modern regulations of copyright is due to the influence of different factors including the right for self expression, the technology development, and the market demand 17
The printing technology that came in around that time 18 allowing mass reproduction is a leap for copyright With the invention of the printing press, published works could be copied in a manner that was less time-consuming and took less effort than copying by hand The chances to be exposed to works of art, mostly books, were made to be easier than ever
Individualism, a key factor in the transfer of copyright ownership from publishers to authors, has significantly influenced this shift The emergence of individualism has fostered a heightened sense of self-expression, leading to the imperative to safeguard personal creations.
Finally, the public expressed an interest in being the owner of books
16 Spoor, m J., Verkade, m., & Visser, m (2005) Recht en Praktijk, Auteursrecht: Auteursrecht, naburige rechten en databanken recht (Vol 42) Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer p 17 as cited in Hornman, F (2018) A robot’s right to copyright (Doctoral dissertation, Master’s thesis, University of Tilburg http://arno uvt nl/show cgi)
17 Mezei, P (2020) From Leonardo to the next Rembrandt–The need for ai-pessimism in the age of algorithms Available at
18 MacQueen, Hector L; Charlotte Waelde; Graeme T Laurie (2007) Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law and Policy Oxford University Press p 34
19 Mezei, P (2020) From Leonardo to the next Rembrandt–The need for ai-pessimism in the age of algorithms Available at during that time which created an appealing market 20 The high demand combined with the convenience in production required a stricter protection regime in order to guarantee the execution of the law
In 1710, England introduced the Statute of Anne, the first copyright act that granted protection for authors 21 , stopped publishers’ monopolies 22 as well as made a debutant for the public domain doctrine 23
This act later influenced the United State 24 first copyright act, which were introduced in 1793
It is historically evident that the technology has a strong effect on the evolution of copyright We have now gone through three “waves” of copyright law development which also correlated with technology advancement
The first one was the printing press, which was invented in Europe and contributed to the introduction of a new copyright protection regime The second wave arrived around the second half of the twentieth century with the advent of analogue reproduction technologies, which enabled a wider percentage of society to replicate protected works The third wave was brought about by digital technologies and the internet, which provide convenient, efficient, and low-cost access to and use of works, which require the copyright law to take action to prevent online copyright infringement 25
It can be seen that the majority of the challenges and changes to the copyright system have been brought about by technical advancement The rise of AI is forecasting the need for copyright law to adapt
1.1.2 The purpose of Copyright law
The very first purpose of copyright law was rather for the government
21 Downie, J.A (4 December 2008) "Periodicals, The Book Trade and The 'Bourgeois Public Sphere'" Media History 14 (3): 262 doi:10.1080/13688800802472188 S2CID 145512047
22 Deazley, R (2004) On the origin of the right to copy: Charting the movement of copyright law in eighteenth century Britain (1695-1775) Hart Publishing p.1
23 Patterson, L (2009) A Unified Theory of Copyright Hous L Rev., 46, 215
24 Alexander, Isabella (2010) Copyright Law and the Public Interest in the Nineteenth Century Hart Publishing p.17
Copyright law is a legal framework designed to grant authors exclusive control over their creative works.* Historically, governments have used censorship laws to regulate the publication and distribution of works.* In England, the Licensing of the Press Act of 1662 gave the Stationers' Company a monopoly over the publishing industry, allowing it to censor works on behalf of the Crown.* The Statute of Anne, enacted in 1709, abolished the Stationers' Company's monopoly and established a system of copyright protection for authors.
The current copyright law regime is a far cry from what it used to be The purpose of copyright protection is now “to encourage a dynamic creative culture, while returning value to creators so that they can lead a dignified economic existence, and to provide widespread, affordable access to content for the public” 30 , which balanced the between the right of the author to support creativity and the right of the public to enjoy these works
This approach comes from a certain rationale Understanding these justifications are critical in order to assess whether we can justify extending copyright protection to works made with or by new technology, posing an important point for the evolution of copyright
The two main underlying premises of copyright law are paradoxical In order to build a pool of knowledge and for people to access it, ideas should be available for all to use 31 However, free use of ideas led to discouragement for creators, authors, inventors, and enterprises to disseminate ideas into the public domain 32 A balance must be struck between these two dilemmas The modern
26 Spoor, m J., Verkade, m., & Visser, m (2005) Recht en Praktijk, Auteursrecht: Auteursrecht, naburige rechten en databanken recht (Vol 42) Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer p 18 as cited in Hornman, F (2018)
27 Hauhart, Robert C (1983) "The Origin and Development of the British and American Patent and Copyright Laws" Whittier Law Review Whittier Law School 5 (1) p.546
28 Robinson, A.J.K (1991) "The Evolution of Copyright, 1476–1776" Cambrian Law Review University of Wales Press 22 (1) p.60
29 Patterson, L (2009) A Unified Theory of Copyright Hous L Rev., 46, p.244-256
30 Yahong Li, Professor, University of Hong Kong, (Hong Kong, 13 September 2017) as cited in Dee, C M
A (2018) Examining copyright protection of AI-generated art Delphi, 1, 31
31 Sell, S (2004) Intellectual property and public policy in historical perspective: contestation and settlement Loy LAL Rev., 38, 267
32 Bently, L., & Sherman, B (2014) Intellectual property law Oxford University Press, USA p 3 copyright regime is mainly influenced by four perspectives namely Utilitarianism; Labor Theory; Personality Theory; and Social Planning Theory 33
Utilitarianism is well established in common law countries such as the United States 34 and the United Kingdoms 35
This approach emphasize to guarantee the public interest and at the same time reward the author in order to provide incentives for creativity 36 that will benefit the society 37 , to achieve “the greatest good for the greatest number” 38
The conditions for copyright protection
Copyright protects the expression of ideas emerged in literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic works It requires eligible subject matter, originality, and fixation in a tangible medium
Copyright aims to protect original expressions but not the idea behind it The law in many countries recognized the type of works that are protected under copyright law according to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, one of the most popular international documents on intellectual property rights In article 2.1, the Convention stated
48 Fisher, W (2001) Theories of intellectual property: New essays in the legal and political theory of property new essays in the legal and political theory of property Cambridge University Press, Cambridge p 170
49 Wilkof, N (2014) Theories of intellectual property: Is it worth the effort? Journal of Intellectual Property
50 Cruz, C E Intellectual Property and Innovation: In Search of a Sustainable Intellectual Property Strategy p 6
51 Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Norton, 1972)
52 Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 (International Publishers, 1964)
53 James Harrington, Oceana (Hyperion Press, 1979)
54 Morris R Cohen, “Property & Sovereignty” (1927) 13:1 Cornell Law Q 8
55 Fisher, W (2001) Theories of intellectual property: New essays in the legal and political theory of property new essays in the legal and political theory of property Cambridge University Press, Cambridge p 4
56 Netanel, N (1998) Copyright and a democratic civil society Stanford University
57 Zemer, L (2006) On the value of copyright theory Available at SSRN 1657855 p 66
“literary and artistic works” are to be protected which include “every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression, such as books, pamphlets and other writings; lectures, addresses, sermons and other works of the same nature; dramatic or dramatic or musical works; choreographic works and entertainments in dumb show; musical compositions with or without words; cinematographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to cinematography; works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving and lithography; photographic works to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to photography; works of applied art; illustrations, maps, plans, sketches and three-dimensional works relative to geography, topography, architecture or science”
Fixation requires an expression to be in a tangible form which might either be written on paper, stored on a disk, painted on canvas or recorded on tape
The Berne Convention, an international copyright treaty, leaves the issue of originality as a requirement for copyright protection to national regulation However, many national legislations consider originality a significant criterion, as copyright law aims to safeguard the unique arrangement of a work and not the underlying concept or idea.
Even though originality is an important aspect in order to determine copyright protection, no universal concept was ever agreed on 59 Each country adopted their own doctrine on the needed level of originality in a work
At the beginning, the requirement for originality is considerably low, as the “sweat of the brow” 60 doctrine under the US law, the UK’s “skill, labour
58 Berne Convention Article 2, Section 2: “It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to prescribe that works in general or any specified categories of works shall not be protected unless they have been fixed in some material form”
59 Margoni, T (2018) Artificial Intelligence, Machine learning and EU copyright law: Who owns AI?
60 Emerson v Davies, 8 F Cas 615 (C.C.D Mass 1845) (No 4436) or judgement” 61 of the author or the Canadian “exercise of skill and judgment” 62 These only concern originality to the level that the work was independently created and the author invested a certain amount of time, no creativity is needed
However, over time, many jurisdictions had changed their point of view on originality
In 1991, the Supreme Court of the United States denied the “sweat of the brow” doctrine in Feist v Rural Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc (Plaintiff) is a telephone cooperative providing telephone services The company was legally obliged to issue an annual telephone directory Feist Publications, Inc (Defendant) is a publishing company whose distributed compiling telephone directory covers a larger geographic area than Rural Despite the Plaintiff refusing to give a license to the Defendant for the phone numbers in its area, Feist copied 4,000 entries from Rural's directory without consent Rural then filed for copyright infringement
Applying the “Sweat of the brow” doctrine in this case, the trial court and appellate courts sided with Rural, reasoning that copyright provides protection for anyone who invested significant amounts of time and energy into their work
However, the Supreme Court held to the contrary Directory containing an sequential order list of the users, in conjunction with their towns and phone numbers is simply fact and not enough to fulfill the standard of copyright protection The Court decision set a new bar for the level of creativity needed in a work to be copyrightable
A common understanding now demands the work to have a minimal level of creativity 63 64 65 This means the author’s personal imprint must be
61 University of London Press v University Tutorial [1916] 2 Ch 601
62 CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada, Supreme Court of Canada, 2004 SCC 13
63 UK Intellectual Property Office, “Artificial intelligence call for views: copyright and related rights”
64 UK Intellectual Property Office "Copyright Notice: digital images, photographs and the internet" found in the protected works, which is demonstrated through the author’s free and creative choices 66
The human factor plays a crucial role in this concept of originality as it requires the personal imprint to be displayed The result is heavily affected and distinguished by a human author's manifestation of creativity, mental conceptions and characteristics
In Bleistein v Donaldson Lithographing Co., the judge found that “The copy is the personal reaction of an individual upon nature Personality always contains something unique It expresses its singularity even in handwriting, and a very modest grade of art has in it something irreducible, which is one man's alone That something he may copyright unless there is a restriction in the words of the act.” 67
A concept usually use by European Directive is “author’s own intellectual creation”, 68 the European Court of Justice then provides an explanation for this as
“the author can stamp the work created with his “personal touch” 69
Scope of protection
Promoting creative works is the core value of copyright law These
65 Daniel J Gervais (2004) "Canadian Copyright Law Post-CCH" Intellectual Property Journal 18 (2): 131
66 Case C-145/10, Eva-Maria Painer v Standard VerlagsGmbH, (2011) ECDR 6, para 99: “In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the fourth question is that Article 6 of Directive 93/98 must be interpreted as meaning that a portrait photograph can, under that provision, be protected by copyright if, which it is for the national court to determine in each case, such photograph is an intellectual creation of the author reflecting his personality and expressing his free and creative choices in the production of that photograph Since it has been determined that the portrait photograph in question is a work, its protection is not inferior to that enjoyed by any other work, including other photographic works”
68 Directive 96/9, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the Legal Protection of Databases, art 3 ả 1, 1996 O.J (L 77) 20, 25 (EC) (“In accordance with this Directive, databases which, by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents, constitute the author's own intellectual creation shall be protected as such by copyright No other criteria shall be applied to determine their eligibility for that protection.”); Directive 2006/116, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December
2006 on the Term of Protection of Copyright and Certain Related Rights, art 6, 2006 O.J (L 372) 12, 14 (EC) (“Photographs which are original in the sense that they are the author’s own intellectual creation shall be protected No other criteria shall be applied to determine their eligibility for protection.”)
69 Case C‑ 604/10, Football Dataco Ltd v Yahoo! UK Ltd., ECLI:EU:C:2012:115, ả 38 (Mar 1, 2012) (“[The] criterion of originality is satisfied when, through the selection or arrangement of the data which it contains, its author expresses his creative ability in an original manner by making free and creative choices and thus stamps his ‘personal touch’.”) rights are understandably vital as they provide the creators the chance to determine what they will do with their works Without these rights and therefore the copyright protection of their works, most creators wouldn't feel the inducement to form as they would not gain anything from it
There are two types of rights under copyright: economic rights and moral rights
Economic rights in copyright law enable the rights holder to obtain financial compensation for others' use of their works These rights include the authority to allow or restrict particular uses, such as reproduction, distribution, and public performance, or to demand payment in return for permission to use the protected work.
- reproduction of the work in various forms, such as printed publications or sound recordings;
- translation of the work into other languages;
- distribution of copies of the work;
- broadcasting or other communication of the work to the public;
- public performance of the work
Moral rights provide protection over the non-economic interests of the author such as 71
- the right to claim authorship of a work (sometimes called the right of paternity or the right of attribution); and
- the right to object to any distortion or modification of a work, or other derogatory action in relation to a work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation (sometimes called the right of integrity)
Moral rights are attached to the author’s persona and are deemed to remain so even after the author transfers all of her economic rights
70 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Understanding Copyright and Related Rights (2016) Available at
The duration for protection can vary but it is mainly determined by the author's life expectancy with a number of additional years
The Berne Convention set a minimum bar for the protection which requires that copyright protection lasts for the author's lifetime plus 50 years after their death The minimum period for other types of works is shorter: for example, the minimum term for applied art is 25 years, while the minimum term for movies is 50 years As permitted, the majority of countries have chosen a longer period of protection
The European Union 72 and the United States 73 have extended this duration to 70 years after the death of the author For a few countries, for example, Mexico, 74 this can even go up to 100 years which make the protection under this legislation one of the lengthiest
While the copyright owner holds exclusive rights over the works, certain exemptions are still regulated in order to balance the private right and the public interest A few circumstances where using a work without the copyright owner’s permission cannot be considered as copyright infringement includes: 75
- Reproduction in libraries and archives;
- Special copies for use by visually-handicapped persons
- Criticism, review and reporting current events
72 Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights (codified version) Available at
73 17 U.S Code § 302 - Duration of copyright Available at
74 "Ley Federal del Derecho de Autor" Available at
75 WIPO Managing Intellectual Property in the Book Publishing Industry A business-oriented information booklet Available at
In light of the development of AI, a few countries are beginning to recognize a new exception for text and data mining 76 77
76 The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) Section 29A: “An exception to copyright exists which allows researchers to make copies of any copyright material for the purpose of computational analysis if they already have the right to read the work (that is, they have “lawful access” to the work) This exception only permits the making of copies for the purpose of text and data mining for non-commercial research
"Researchers will still have to buy subscriptions to access material; this could be from many sources including academic publishers”
77 Japan Copyright Act Art 30.4 “It is permissible to exploit work, in any way and to the extent considered necessary, in any of the following cases or other cases…
Article (ii) defines "exploitation" as using a work for text-and-data mining, which involves extracting, comparing, classifying, or otherwise analyzing language, sound, image data, or other components that make up a sizable collection or volume of works or data.
The first chapter has explored the development of copyright law through a period of hundreds of years to understand the notion behind such a regime
Copyright protection is created with the intention to provide the authors with incentives to continue on creating arts and the society can also benefit from it In order to achieve its goal, the regime is established with certain requirements which evidently has evolved through time to adapt with the changes of the world
The evolution of technology has continually intersected with copyright law since its inception, and the advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI) poses fresh challenges to the established legal framework The need for adaptation in copyright regimes becomes imperative as technology advances, and AI's impact on intellectual property rights demands careful consideration.
Chapter 1 has set the context It is necessary to understand the current copyright law in order to evaluate the possibility and the cost to provide AI- generated works with copyright protection which will be elaborate later.
AI-GENERATED WORKS AND ITS CHALLENGES TO
Definition of Artificial Intelligence
People have soon dreamt about human-like machines The very first idea of Artificial Intelligence can be traced back to ancient Greek as the philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BCE) described automation in his work, The Politics Later, around 1495, Leonardo Da Vinci sketched designs for a humanoid robot in the form of a medieval knight
Thinking machines, algorithms, artificial intelligence – tools that were first imagined by Ada Lovelace and Charles Babbage, and then put into reality by computer scientists like Claude Shannon and Alan Turing – came true
However, the term “Artificial Intelligence” was only coined in 1956 by John McCarthy at the very first academic conference about AI which was held at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire He defines it as “the science and engineering of making intelligent machines” There are also other names for the field that have been proposed, such as computational intelligence, synthetic intelligence or computational rationality
Until today, there is no universal definition of AI since it is not an easy task The European Parliament specified in its Recommendations on Civil Law Rules on Robotics: “There is a need to create a generally accepted definition of robot and AI that is flexible and is not hindering innovation” 78
According to Florian De Rouck, “AI systems will be designed to perform human-like cognitive tasks, steadily improving their performance by learning from experience or external data” 79
78 European Parliament Report with Recommendations on Civil Law Rules on Robotics, Recital C