Artificial intelligence, big data and intellectual property: protecting computer generated works in the United Kingdom
Big data and its use by artificial intelligence (AI) is changing the way intellectual property is developed and granted. For decades, machines have been autonomously generating works which have traditionally been eligible for copyright and patent protection. Now, the growing sophistication of AI and the prevalence of big data is positioned to transform computer generated works (CGWs) into major contributors to the creative and inventive economies. However, intellectual property law is poorly prepared for this eventuality. The UK is one of the few nations, and perhaps the only EU member state, to explicitly provide copyright protection for CGWs. It is silent on patent protection for CGWs. The chapter makes several contributions to the literature. First, it provides an up to date review of UK, EU and international law. Second, it argues that patentability of CGWs is a matter of first impression in the UK, but that CGWs should be eligible for patent protection as a matter of policy. Final
Big data and its use by artificial intelligence (AI) is changing the way intellectual property is developed and granted. For decades, machines have been autonomously generating works which have traditionally been eligible for copyright and patent protection. Now, the growing sophistication of AI and the prevalence of big data is positioned to transform computer generated works (CGWs) into major contributors to the creative and inventive economies. However, intellectual property law is poorly prepared for this eventuality. The UK is one of the few nations, and perhaps the only EU member state, to explicitly provide copyright protection for CGWs. It is silent on patent protection for CGWs. The chapter makes several contributions to the literature. First, it provides an up to date review of UK, EU and international law. Second, it argues that patentability of CGWs is a matter of first impression in the UK, but that CGWs should be eligible for patent protection as a matter of policy. Finally, it argues that the definition of CGWs should be amended to reflect the fact that a computer can be an author or inventor in a joint work with a person.
Executive Summary
The article explores the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI), big data, and intellectual property (IP) law, focusing on the protection of computer-generated works (CGWs) in the United Kingdom. It highlights the growing importance of CGWs in the creative and inventive economies and critiques the current legal framework's inadequacy in addressing these developments. The article argues for the patentability of CGWs and suggests amendments to the definition of CGWs to recognize computers as co-authors or co-inventors in joint works with humans. It provides a comprehensive review of UK, EU, and international law, offering policy recommendations to better align IP law with technological advancements.
Key Points
- ▸ The UK is one of the few countries to explicitly provide copyright protection for CGWs.
- ▸ The UK legal framework is silent on patent protection for CGWs.
- ▸ The article argues for the patentability of CGWs as a matter of policy.
- ▸ The definition of CGWs should be amended to recognize computers as co-authors or co-inventors.
Merits
Comprehensive Legal Review
The article provides an up-to-date and thorough review of UK, EU, and international law, which is crucial for understanding the current legal landscape.
Policy-Oriented Argument
The argument for the patentability of CGWs is well-reasoned and policy-oriented, addressing a significant gap in the current legal framework.
Innovative Definition Proposal
The proposal to amend the definition of CGWs to include computers as co-authors or co-inventors is innovative and forward-thinking.
Demerits
Limited Scope
The article focuses primarily on the UK legal framework, which may limit its applicability to other jurisdictions with different legal systems.
Lack of Case Studies
The article could benefit from specific case studies or examples to illustrate the practical implications of its arguments.
Assumptions About AI Capabilities
The article assumes a certain level of sophistication in AI capabilities that may not yet be realized, which could weaken its arguments.
Expert Commentary
The article provides a timely and insightful analysis of the intersection of AI, big data, and IP law. Its comprehensive review of the legal landscape is a significant contribution to the literature. The argument for the patentability of CGWs is particularly compelling, as it addresses a critical gap in the current legal framework. The proposal to amend the definition of CGWs to recognize computers as co-authors or co-inventors is innovative and forward-thinking, although it raises important ethical and practical questions that need further exploration. The article's focus on the UK legal framework is both a strength and a limitation. While it provides a detailed analysis of the UK context, it may limit the applicability of its arguments to other jurisdictions. Future research could benefit from a comparative analysis of IP laws in different countries to provide a more global perspective on the challenges and opportunities presented by AI and big data. Overall, the article is a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate on how to adapt IP laws to the digital age.
Recommendations
- ✓ Conduct comparative studies on IP laws in different jurisdictions to provide a more global perspective on the challenges and opportunities presented by AI and big data.
- ✓ Explore the ethical implications of recognizing AI as co-authors or co-inventors in greater depth to inform policy-making and legal practice.