Filter

Open

Copyright Authorship to Artificial Intelligence

20

JUL

2022

Copyright is an exclusive right granted to the author of an original work. It is a protection provided to the original creation of human mind. In India, copyright is granted to the expression of idea and not to the idea itself. These rights, on part of the owner, prevent the public from copying or exploiting his/her work.

It was held in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak [1], that the main objective of the Copyright Act, 1957 is to protect the exclusive right of author over his work from an unlawful exploitation or infringement. Copyright is a right to restrict other people from copying author’s work without his prior consent or permission as he is the exclusive owner of the work. Thus, the ultimate object of Copyright Act, 1957 is to create a balance between the interest and the right of the author and that of the general public. It can be seen that since 1970s computer generated work have a lot of attraction. However, with the development of technology Artificial Intelligence is capable of creating output without human intervention. With the existing set of frameworks, it is difficult to extend copyright protection to Artificial Intelligence generated works. The major question which is raised in regard to the work produced by Artificial Intelligence is who is the author of such work? Currently, the ownership of the work lies with a natural or a juristic person. This is to ensure that legal proceedings can be initiated against them, if the case requires.

Who owns the work created through artificial intelligence

A similar situation relating to Artificial Intelligence arose in USA in August 2019. The copyright office of United States rejected the application of Dr. Stephen Thaler for the work that was created autonomously by computer algorithm known as Creativity Machine. Dr. Stephen claimed that the Creativity Machine is the author of the work and he is the owner of the work. The copyright was rejected as the work lacked human authorship which is one of the prerequisites to get copyright. Being aggrieved by the decision of the office Dr. Stephen filed a first request to reconsider the application. The board upheld the decision of the copyright office and thus, Dr. Stephen filed a second request in May 2020.

The debate

The following arguments were raised by Dr. Stephen in his second request:

  1. If Juristic Persons such as companies are allowed to be author of copyright under work for hire doctrine, then copyright should also be allowed for Artificial Intelligence generated work.
  2. There is no binding precedent which prohibits the granting of copyright to Artificial Intelligence generated work.
  3. Refusal to the work generated by Artificial Intelligence will have grave polices ramifications where people might start acting dishonestly and apply for copyright over work in which they have no creative input.

The board rejected the first contention of Dr. Stephen and held that to claim copyright over a work in US the work must be a product of human ingenuity. The board also drew a distinction between the work made for hire and the case of Dr. Stephen. The board mentioned that there needs to be a legally binding contract between the parties in work for hire agreement. As the companies are competent to enter into the contract copyright can be provided to such entities. On the other hand, since Creativity Machine cannot enter into contractual relations, no copyright can be granted to it. The board while rejecting the second argument of Dr. Stephen quoted the Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices, 2021 that the work without any creative input or without human intervention i.e., produced by a machine or by mere mechanical process are not protected by copyright. The board also rejected the last contention of Dr. Stephen by stating that there are many mechanisms to penalize the applicant who makes false representation in their application.

Thus, the board rejected the second request of Dr. Stephen and denied copyright.

Indian Case Study

In India, in the case of Rupendra Kashyap v. Jiwan Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. [2], the Delhi High Court held that CBSE being an artificial person cannot claim copyright over the set of question papers until and unless it proves that the question papers were prepared by human intervention. Thus, only natural person can claim copyright in Indian law. This position was upheld in the case of Navigators Logistics Ltd. v. Kashif Qureshi & Ors. [3], where copyright was claimed over a list prepared by the computer itself. The copyright was again rejected on the ground of lack of human intervention. Thus, the situation of India is same as the situation of USA and hence, authorship cannot be solely claimed by Artificial Intelligence.

However, the situation is different in China. In the case of Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co. Ltd. v. Shanghai Yingxun Technology Co. Ltd. [4], the Artificial Intelligence system created financial report for Tencent’s website This report was also published at Yingxun’s website and it led to an infringement case. The question that came before the court for consideration was where there was copyright in the financial report at all. The court held that the report being an original work qualifies the basic requirements of being copyrightable. Although the work was fully created by Artificial Intelligence still there was some human contribution. As per the court, the creators of the article have just used the AI software to represent their choice or arrangements

Conclusion

Thus, it can be concluded by saying that copyright law has been largely shaped by international norms and treaties that have been ratified and implemented by the member countries. These international standards provide much-needed guidance to the member countries in formulating measures for the protection and regulation of copyright at local and international level. So, it is the need of the hour to take into reconsideration the Intellectual Property framework to ensure that the laws keep pace with the development.

Author: Abhinav Rana a student of GGSIPU, currently doing internship at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com.

About the Firm

Khurana and Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys
Address E-13, UPSIDC, Site-IV, Behind-Grand Venice, Kasna Road, Greater Noida - 201310, UP, National Capital Region, India.
Tel 91-120-4296878, 91-120-4909201, 91-120-4516201
Fax 91-120-4516201
Email info@khuranaandkhurana.com
Link www.khuranaandkhurana.com

Related Articles

15
AUG
2022
Patentability Search of Plants
15
AUG
2022
A patent search or patentability search is also known as a prior art search or a novelty search. Thi...

Read More

15
AUG
2022
Patent Laws of Malaysia
15
AUG
2022
Malaysia is a common law country and is governed by the doctrine of judicial precedent (stare decisi...

Read More

03
AUG
2022
Single Colour Trademarks - A Prevailing Conundrum
03
AUG
2022
There was a strong need to compete in the business sector due to expanding industrialization. ...

Read More

20
JUL
2022
Removal of Unified GCC Patent System
20
JUL
2022
The Gulf Cooperation Council, also known as the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf,...

Read More

15
JUL
2022
Compulsory Licensing For Expensive Medicines 
15
JUL
2022
The Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE) has released a...

Read More

17
JUN
2022
Intellectual Property Risks with Respect to Digital Technology
17
JUN
2022
Introduction Throughout the life of an IP right, intellectual property risk management is the...

Read More

09
JUN
2022
All Comic Cons Titles Are Not Generic in Nature!!
09
JUN
2022
The case involves Dan Farr Production (Defendants) usage of the term “Salt Lake Comic Con&r...

Read More

27
MAY
2022
Patent of Addition under Indian Patents Act, 1970
27
MAY
2022
The possibility of improving or modifying an invention remains open once an invention has been devel...

Read More

18
MAY
2022
Frappuccino: Made By Starbucks and Used ONLY By Starbucks
18
MAY
2022
Introduction Who doesn’t like to indulge in the sweet, creamy and chilled Starbucks FRAPPUCCI...

Read More

09
MAY
2022
Trade Mark Dilution: A Case to be Looked Upon
09
MAY
2022
Adidas is a leading manufacturer of athletic apparel and footwear. Skechers is one of the largest f...

Read More

26
APR
2022
IP Protection in The Metaverse
26
APR
2022
Introduction Metaverse is a virtual reality world in which people are supposed to socialize, pla...

Read More

13
APR
2022
Fanfiction, Fan-Culture , Fan Art, and Copyright Law
13
APR
2022
Fanfiction, Fan-Culture, Fan art ,And Copyright Law In popular culture, fans take up a space of sign...

Read More

06
APR
2022
Groundless Threats for Patent Infringement: Analysing S.106 of Patents Act,1970
06
APR
2022
INTRODUCTION A groundless threat is one when a party threatens another party with legal proceedings...

Read More

11
MAR
2022
Identical Trademarks: A dilemma of Textual interpretation v. Contextual interpretation of a Statute
11
MAR
2022
Introduction In the case of Renaissance Hotel Holdings INC Vs B Vijaya Sai (2022), an appeal was re...

Read More

03
MAR
2022
Indian Advent in Any Types of Arbitration of IP Dispute - The Need to Clear the Judicial Enigma
03
MAR
2022
The Indian advent in any types of arbitration of IP dispute judiciary has been active and diligent i...

Read More

11
FEB
2022
DRS Logistics Vs Google: Liability for Using Third Party Trademarks as Keywords
11
FEB
2022
INTRODUCTION With advancements in technology and the introduction of the Internet, our personal ...

Read More

08
FEB
2022
Can a Passing-off Action be Filed against The Infringement of Shape of a Good? A Case Analysis
08
FEB
2022
Introduction: Have you ever wondered if a bottle shape may be trademarked? Typically, The Designs...

Read More

21
JAN
2022
Cybersquatting & Regulatory Mechanisms
21
JAN
2022
Cyber Squatting is a word that has come to be linked with the registration of domain names without t...

Read More

13
JAN
2022
Intellectual Property Insurance – A Look into The Future
13
JAN
2022
The rise of the start-up culture in India has led to a huge influx of investment in the Indian ma...

Read More

20
DEC
2021
The Paradigm Shift in the Online Gaming Industry in India
20
DEC
2021
INTRODUCTION The relentless growth of the online gaming industry in India has posed a great chal...

Read More

07
DEC
2021
NFT and Its Relationship with IPR
07
DEC
2021
The non-fungible tokens [hereinafter referred to as “NFTs” have been the talk of the ...

Read More

15
NOV
2021
Enantiomer Patents: Non Obviousness in Secondary Pharmaceutical Patents
15
NOV
2021
Enantiomers, Racemate & Chirality ‘Stereochemistry’ is the study of spatial arrangem...

Read More

09
NOV
2021
Demystifying Fashion Law in India
09
NOV
2021
One of the niche areas of law, Fashion Law, is growing in existence in India. There might not be a c...

Read More

19
OCT
2021
An Overview on Trademark Bullying in Commercial Environments
19
OCT
2021
A trademark is an essential component of a brand’s image. In a broad sense, trademarks are sym...

Read More

19
OCT
2021
Publicity Rights in India: Need for Post-Mortem Recognition
19
OCT
2021
Right to Publicity relates to the right to control one’s identity and ensure protection agains...

Read More

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4