I attended the HKPC Lunch & Learn Talk named “The
Challenges of Generative AI in Intellectual Property Protection” (探討生成式AI在知識產權保護方面的挑戰). Dr. Albert So is the guest speaker and we had joined ANQ Congress
together in last year.
Firstly, he briefed the background of IP protection ordinance
in Hong Kong. IP included three areas and they were Copyright, Trademark and Patent. Nature of Copyright included any article, music and art that no need for registration and effective once created.
Then Dr. Albert So stated the ownership of copyright that author is the first owner. If author is employed by company to create the items, employer had the copyright in default. For commissioned work, the contractor is the owner if not stated clearly in the contract agreement.
Restricted act by copyright included copy, distribution in public, open performance, broadcasting, etc. However, some statutory permitted acts had been allowed such as action not affected owner’s benefit and some special purposes (e.g. education, comments & research).
After that Dr. So briefed some legal IP aspects on
Generative AI. Who would be responsible to the infringement that included AI
Model Developer, AI Model User, Platform Service Provider and End User.
Finally, some cases were discussed. The first case was
“Monkey-selfie copyright dispute”. Between 2011 and 2018, a series of disputes
took place about the copyright status of selfies taken by Celebes crested
macaques using equipment belonging to the British wildlife photographer David
J. Slater. In December 2014, the United States Copyright Office stated that
works created by a non-human, such as a photograph taken by a monkey, are not
copyrightable. In April 2018, the appeals court ruled that animals
cannot legally hold copyrights. Non-human is key words that included AI!
The second case was Edmond de Belamy that is a
generative adversarial network (GAN) portrait painting constructed in 2018 by
Paris-based arts-collective “Obvious”. In this case, Obvious received USD $432,500.
Dr. Albert So mentioned that it could be employed the Doctrine of “Authorship Transfer”
that person behind the AI who had control over the creative process if no infringement.
Since the teaching draw were long time ago, it is not covered by copyright
(more than 50 year after author pass away).
The last case was that a user requested
Ultraman-related images from the AI platform, which was not named in reporting,
the outputs were extremely similar to the plaintiff’s original creation. The
Guangzhou Internet Court ruled that an AI company infringed on the plaintiff's
"copyright and adaptation rights" to the Ultraman works while
providing generative AI services, ordering the defendant to pay 10,000 yuan
(about USD$1,389) in compensation to the plaintiff for the economic loss.
At the end, Dr. Albert So concluded that AI generative
texts or diagrams may infringe copyright. So we needed to consider the context
owner and country related ordinances, as well as, AI derives product.
Reference
20231019: ANQ Congress 2023, in Phy My, Ba
Ria Vung Tau, Vietnam – Day 2 (Part A – Parallel Session) - https://qualityalchemist.blogspot.com/2023/10/anq-congress-2023-in-phy-my-ba-ria-vung_19.html
20231005: Lunch with Prof. Philip Chan for
ANQ Congress 2023 - https://qualityalchemist.blogspot.com/2023/10/lunch-with-prof-philip-chan-for-anq.html
沒有留言:
發佈留言