Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a buzzword that’s frequently utilized by start-ups and established services in the tech industry.
In many cases, it refers to little bit more than advanced algorithms, but complicated self-learning computer system systems with human-like characteristics are actively being established also.
As these AI innovations end up being increasingly innovative, they raise more ethical and legal questions. This was acknowledged by the US Patent and Hallmark Office ( USPTO) recently, which launched a public assessment on the matter.
” Artificial Intelligence innovations are increasingly becoming essential across a diverse spectrum of technologies and services. AI presents unique obstacles in the sphere of copyright law,” USPTO writes.
The USPTO is part of the US Department of Commerce and handle different copyright rights issues. It previously raised questions on how AI technology impacts patent law and is now expanding this to copyright matters.
The assessment starts by asking whether anything produced by an AI, without human participation, can be copyrighted. This can refer to any type of content, including music, images, and texts.
” Should a work produced by an AI algorithm or process, without the participation of a natural person contributing expression to the resulting work, certify as a work of authorship protectable under U.S. copyright law?
The technology and code that makes any AI work certainly relies on human interaction, however USPTO’s question is destined to raise a lively dispute. Given that it’s expected that more and more creations will rely heavily on AI in the future, the US Federal government requests assistance on these issues.
AI composed music?
In a follow-up question, the Office zooms in even more still by asking what kind of human involvement is required to make something copyrightable.
This is a relevant question considering that these innovations can depend on input from other copyrighted works. A basic example would be where an AI ‘chooses’ to utilize hundreds of music tracks to create a brand-new one.
If that’s the case, should this simply be allowed under reasonable usage, or should the initial authors have the right to be compensated?
The Workplace notes that more assistance is needed on these and other topics so it’s asking the general public for input. USPTO says that it’s not inclined to any specific views and likewise invites extra AI feedback, beyond the concerns it asked.
The full set of concerns is available in the Federal Register notification, that includes additional background info. For those who want to chime in, the comment period closes December16
Update: IPKAT released a short article today revealing that similar issues are being discussed in Europe as well.