Artificial Intelligence And Intellectual Property Rights

This article is written by Atul Raj, pursuing B.A. LL.B. HONS from School of Law, Galgotias
University, Greater Noida. Here he discusses the concept of “Artificial Intelligence and
Intellectual Property Rights”

ABSTRACT

Protected innovation Freedoms including Copyright and Related privileges give restrictive
freedoms to the right proprietors who are lawful people for a set span. These privileges consider
the work or creation or advancement to be safeguarded and empowers an assortment of eminences
through authorization. For an option to be conceded, the proprietor is expected to meet the rules
determined under the law. India being an individual from all significant worldwide shows and
arrangements for the security of Licensed innovation Freedoms awards sufficient insurance of
privileges for works made by legitimate people through Intellectual property Regulation and
safeguards developments through the Patent framework.
Thusly, there is no necessity to make a different class of privileges for AI and related
developments in the Indian IPR System. Consequently, while Computerized reasoning
(artificial intelligence) and related advancement is a developing stream of innovation in the
the ongoing legitimate system under the Patent and Copyright Act is exceptional in safeguarding Man-made consciousness-produced works and related advancements. As of now, there is no
the proposition to make any different right so smash end the law with regards to man-made
intelligence-created content. The select monetary privileges of a copyright proprietor, for
example, the right of multiplication, interpretation, variation and so on conceded by the
Copyright Act, 1957 commits the client of Generative man-made intelligence to get consent to
involve their works for business purposes on the off chance that such use isn’t covered under
the fair managing exemptions given under Section 52 of the Copyright Act.
Since licensed innovation privileges are private freedoms, they are upheld by the singular
freedom holders. Adequate and effective common measures and criminal cures are endorsed
under the Intellectual Property Regulation against any demonstration of encroachment or
unapproved utilization of works, including computerized avoidance.

Keywords:

Artificial intelligence, intellectual property rights, copyright, patent law, ownership,
authorship, algorithmic bias, transparency, accountability, data privacy, innovation

WHAT IS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE?

“Artificial Intelligence” refers to the capability of computer systems to make decisions or
perform tasks autonomously, often with the assistance of human intelligence. It signifies the
technology’s ability to mimic human cognitive functions, such as problem-solving and
decision-making, in various applications. The term “artificial intelligence” was officially
coined by computer scientist John McCarthy during a conference in 1956, marking a pivotal
moment in the field’s history
In this context, it appears that “he” is describing the concept of
a program or system that processes information in a way that mimics how an intelligent person
would respond to similar input. The idea is to create a system that behaves intelligently as if it
were a human when presented with certain information or stimuli. The line suggests that AI
projects were developed with a focus on instilling machines with the ability to perform tasks
that typically demand human-like creativity. It implies that there was a strong interest and
1 Prof. A. Lakshminath & Dr. Mukund Sarda, Digital Revolution and Artificial Intelligence
desire to make machines capable of tasks that involve imagination, problem-solving, and
artistic expression.

IMPACT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Artificial intelligence (AI) has significant implications for intellectual property (IP) rights
across various domains. Here are some key impacts:
1. Creation of AI-Generated Content: AI algorithms can generate original content, such
as art, music, literature, and even software code. The question arises: who owns the
rights to this content? In some jurisdictions, the creator of the AI might be considered
the author, while in others, the owner of the AI or the organization deploying it might
claim ownership.
2. Copyright Issues: AI’s ability to create content blurs the lines of copyright law.
Copyright typically protects the expression of ideas rather than the ideas themselves.
Determining authorship and ownership becomes complex when AI is involved.
Additionally, AI can be used to detect and enforce copyright infringement, raising
questions about fair use and derivative works.
3. Patents and Inventions: AI is increasingly used in innovation and research, leading to
inventions that may qualify for patent protection. However, there are challenges in
determining inventorship when AI contributes to the inventive process. Current patent
laws may need updating to accommodate AI-generated inventions and ensure fair
attribution.
4. Trademark and Brand Protection: AI can be used to monitor and enforce trademark
rights online by detecting unauthorized uses of trademarks or counterfeit goods.
However, it also raises issues of false positives and the potential for abuse if not
properly calibrated.
5. Liability and Accountability: As AI becomes more autonomous and capable of
making decisions, questions of liability and accountability arise. Who is responsible if
an AI system infringes IP rights or commits intellectual property theft? Clear legal
frameworks are needed to address these issues.

COPYRIGHT AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

“Locke’s economic theory of possessive individualism” likely suggests that copyright is
justified by the idea that individuals have the right to possess and benefit from the fruits of their
intellectual labour, in line with the principles of individual ownership and economic self-interest proposed by philosopher John Locke. This theory is often used to support the notion
that creators should have exclusive rights to their original works, as it aligns with the concept
of personal property rights. The discussion here pertains to the relevance of copyright in the
context of AI-generated literary works.
As AI technology advances and can create original literary content, it raises questions about
how copyright applies to these creations. AI-generated literary works, the application of
Locke’s economic theory of possessive individualism to copyright becomes complex. While
traditional copyright principles align with the idea that creators should benefit from their
intellectual labor, the unique nature of AI-generated content challenges the traditional notion
of an individual author. AI systems lack personal consciousness and intent, raising questions
about the attribution of creative agency.
The debate centers on whether copyright, designed to protect individual creators, is suitable for
works produced by non-human entities. Some argue for adapting copyright laws to
accommodate AI-generated content, considering factors like the involvement of human
programmers or the societal value of fostering AI creativity. As technology evolves, the
intersection of intellectual property and AI-generated works prompts a re-evaluation of existing
legal frameworks to balance the protection of innovation with ethical considerations and the
evolving nature of creativity.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE & COPYRIGHT PROTECTION

The statement suggests that in 1974, the National Commission on New Technological Uses of
Copyrighted Works (CONTU) expressed skepticism about the practicality of developing an AI
with the ability to create independent works. The term “theoretical and not practical” implies
that, at the time, the idea of AI generating original content was considered more of a conceptual
possibility than a feasible reality
. In 1986, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) re-examined the issue and, in contrast to CONTU, asserted that artificial intelligences should be
regarded as valid copyrighted works, presenting a differing perspective on their status and
implications within the realm of intellectual property. The AI creativity debate continues to
evolve, with one camp highlighting computers’ limitations in replicating human creativity,
while the opposing side emphasizes redefining creativity in the context of AI capabilities. That
AI’s ability to generate novel ideas and creative outputs challenges traditional notions of
creativity, prompting a re-evaluation of what it means for a machine to be creative. The ongoing
debate explores the nuanced intersection of human ingenuity and artificial intelligence, raising
questions about the unique aspects of creativity that may remain exclusive to human
experience.
The debate around AI creativity often involves Lovelace’s argument that machines lack true
creativity due to their rule-bound behavior. She suggests that true creativity involves
unpredictability, something machines, and computers, with their adherence to routines, might
struggle to achieve. However, some counter this by likening writers to machines, highlighting
how they process existing works and derive inspiration from pre-existing ideas, much like AI3
.
PATENT LAWS & ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

The term “patents” refers to legal protections granted for inventions, recognizing the novelty
and utility of a created technology. The shift in technology towards AI introduces complexities
as these systems, driven by their own learning, may autonomously generate new inventions.
This raises unique challenges within the realm of patent law, as it requires a reevaluation of
traditional concepts to accommodate the inventive potential of AI systems. The subsequent
sections of the paper will delve into this evolving relationship between patents and AI,
exploring the legal dilemmas that arise in this intersection.
2 Final Report, NATIONAL COMMISSION ON NEW TECHNOLOGICAL USES OF COPYRIGHTED
WORKS 4 (1978), http:// eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ ED160122.pdf
3
Intellectual Property Rights in an Age of Electronics and Information, U.S. OFFICE TECHNOLOGICAL
ASSESSMENT 1986), https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk2/1986/8610/8610.PDF
The intersection of patents and AI presents a fascinating legal landscape. One key challenge is
determining inventorship when AI systems autonomously generate inventions. This departure
from human-centric innovation poses questions about who should be credited and granted
patent rights.
Additionally, issues like disclosure requirements and the role of human oversight in AIgenerated inventions further complicate the traditional patent framework. As technology
advances, the legal system must adapt to strike a balance between fostering innovation and
maintaining fairness in patent protection.
In navigating these complexities, legal scholars, policymakers, and practitioners must
collaborate to establish guidelines that balance the incentives for AI innovation with the
principles of fairness and public interest embedded in patent laws. This evolving relationship
prompts a continuous reassessment of legal norms to keep pace with the dynamic landscape of
AI technology. Furthermore, the international nature of AI development introduces challenges
in standardizing patent laws across jurisdictions. Harmonizing patent regulations becomes
crucial to ensure a coherent global framework that encourages innovation while addressing
ethical concerns related to AI. As AI continues to reshape industries, the legal discourse on
patents must remain adaptive, fostering a supportive environment for inventors while
addressing the unique nuances of AI-generated inventions.

CONCLUSION

AI technology is reshaping the nature of innovative and creative activity. Some projected
implications, such as autonomously inventing machines still seem utopian. Others such as AI-generated comedy are already the subject of concrete IP disputes. Invariably, AI is changing
the balance of incentives as the current IP system provides them.
Policymakers need to follow these developments closely. In considering any policy reform,
they face the challenge of not overreacting and soberly looking at emerging evidence on the
impact of AI. As in the case of past technological changes, it takes time for stakeholders to
adapt, new business models to emerge, courts to interpret law, and industry practices to
consolidate. In addition, premature policy reforms risk unwarranted consequences and may not
account for the self-regulation of markets. At the same time, policy uncertainty could also
become a barrier to innovation. For example, companies may shun using AI in their innovation
and creative activities, if they fear that such use may give grounds for invalidating future IP
rights. For example, AI innovators may avoid projects and new service development that
carry high risks of copyright infringement liability.
In closing, it is important to emphasize that this article focused narrowly on the role of IP in
relation to AI innovation. It also considered AI innovation – as innovation in general and the
discovery of new, unknown applications of AI technology – as being in society’s best
interest. As many commentators – and AI researchers themselves have pointed out – AI
innovation raises numerous societal concerns, including the spreading of wrong information
and algorithmic biases that deserve careful attention by policymakers.