This is where all download will be listed, utilizing the Page Add plugin.
File Name | S22-Policy-Stoa-05-AFF-IntellectualProperty.docx |
File Size | 602.62 KB |
Date added | September 6, 2021 |
Category | Policy (Stoa) |
Author | Vance Trefethen |
Resolved: The United States federal government substantially reform the use of Artificial Intelligence technology
Case Summary: This plan reforms intellectual property (IP) rights (patents, copyrights) on work produced by artificial intelligence. Currently the output of an AI system cannot be protected as an original invention because it’s not created by a human being. This plan makes it possible to protect it under IP law.
Note #1: Please be careful to distinguish this case from patenting AI technology, which is currently done in the Status Quo and is a whole separate issue from this case. Patents on AI technology means patenting the process or “how the AI system works,” and current law allows it (in some cases). This case is about patenting the output, the end resulting newly created “thing” (chemical formulas, works of art, recipes, etc.) or “what the AI produced.” The AI system “how” can be patented under current law in certain cases. The newly created AI output “thing it produced” cannot be. Example: You might be able to patent an AI system for producing new music. But you could not copyright one of the new songs it writes.
AI output should be protected as a “Work Made For Hire” under existing legal doctrines governing creative output produced by employees on the job. Today, many companies hire workers to create things, paying them a regular salary to compensate them for all of their outputs. When they create something that is protected by IP rights (e.g. a new mechanical invention, a new pharmaceutical, a new work of music or art), the employer owns the IP rights.
The employer paid for the creative worker’s time and supplied the materials, so the employer can claim the patents or copyrights that result, since that’s what the employer was paying for when they hired the worker. AI is “employed” by its designers to create things, so its designers should own the IP on AI outputs. The designers of the AI can contract with others, sell licenses to use the AI to produce things, etc. and work out contractually how they will get paid for what the AI produces.
Note #2: Do not confuse this case with other legal issues surrounding the “inputs” to creative AI. There is also a separate controversy in the legal world about potential misuse or copyright infringement when AI looks at inputs taken from copyrighted works to use as material from which it then creates its own original work. For example, imagine all the songs of the Beatles were “read” by an AI system, which then writes its own original song based on what it “learned” from its input. The new song itself does not infringe on the copyrighted Beatles music, but was it a misuse of the copyrighted music to have the AI “read” it and “learn” by imitating it or “copying” it internally for its own processing? We don’t know and for the purpose of this case, we don’t care. All we care about here is the AI (and its owner, employer, author…?) being able to copyright the new song that came out.