Academic

Letting sleeping wasps lie: general-purpose AI models and copyright protection under the European Union AI Act

Abstract This article addresses two principal research objectives: first, to examine how and to what extent the provisions of the EU AI Act (EUAIA) dedicated to general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) models (GPAIm) govern the intersection of copyright and AI, through the scrutiny of major legal challenges raised by AI manipulations of copyrighted material, and, second, to distil whether and how the EUAIA’s provisions on prohibited AI practices can be applicable to AI-based copyright infringement. The author posits that the provision of Article 5(1)(a) EUAIA, which does not explicitly refer to copyright, can be interpreted in a sense that it allows us to qualify the use of copyrighted material for creating manipulated content as a ‘purposefully manipulative or deceptive technique’, but only once the other criteria of Article 5(1)(a)—not related to copyright law—are fulfilled. A specific, customized methodological approach with three main characteristics is adopte

U
Uroš Ćemalović
· · 1 min read · 29 views

Abstract This article addresses two principal research objectives: first, to examine how and to what extent the provisions of the EU AI Act (EUAIA) dedicated to general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) models (GPAIm) govern the intersection of copyright and AI, through the scrutiny of major legal challenges raised by AI manipulations of copyrighted material, and, second, to distil whether and how the EUAIA’s provisions on prohibited AI practices can be applicable to AI-based copyright infringement. The author posits that the provision of Article 5(1)(a) EUAIA, which does not explicitly refer to copyright, can be interpreted in a sense that it allows us to qualify the use of copyrighted material for creating manipulated content as a ‘purposefully manipulative or deceptive technique’, but only once the other criteria of Article 5(1)(a)—not related to copyright law—are fulfilled. A specific, customized methodological approach with three main characteristics is adopted to successfully address the objectives outlined above. First, the legal content analysis of the EU legislation is teleological, dynamic and holistic. Second, the literature review is combined with references to relevant jurisprudence and insights into legal reasoning of policy makers and practitioners. Third, the methodological approach is, whenever necessary, based on convergence of legal studies with interdisciplinary explorations of political science, psychology, economics and technologies. The article argues that, by refraining from a more comprehensive regulation of the intersection between GPAIm and copyright law, the EU legislators have inadvertently created a fertile environment for a multitude of interpretative and enforcement challenges of the Union’s regulatory framework in the Member States.

Executive Summary

The article examines the intersection of copyright law and general-purpose AI models under the European Union AI Act, highlighting the potential for interpretative and enforcement challenges. It argues that the Act's provisions on prohibited AI practices can be applicable to AI-based copyright infringement, but only when specific criteria are met. The author adopts a customized methodological approach, combining legal content analysis, literature review, and interdisciplinary explorations to address the research objectives.

Key Points

  • The EU AI Act's provisions on general-purpose AI models and copyright protection are examined
  • The article argues that Article 5(1)(a) EUAIA can be interpreted to qualify AI-based copyright infringement as a 'purposefully manipulative or deceptive technique'
  • The Act's lack of comprehensive regulation on the intersection of GPAIm and copyright law creates interpretative and enforcement challenges

Merits

Comprehensive analysis

The article provides a thorough examination of the EU AI Act's provisions and their potential implications for copyright law

Demerits

Limited scope

The article's focus on the EU AI Act and European Union law may limit its applicability to other jurisdictions and legal frameworks

Expert Commentary

The article provides a nuanced and insightful analysis of the complex relationships between AI, copyright law, and the EU AI Act. The author's customized methodological approach and interdisciplinary perspective offer a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and implications arising from the intersection of these fields. However, the article's focus on European Union law and the EU AI Act may limit its applicability to other jurisdictions, highlighting the need for further research and analysis to address the global implications of AI-based copyright infringement.

Recommendations

  • Further research is needed to explore the global implications of AI-based copyright infringement and the development of effective strategies for prevention and enforcement
  • Policymakers and regulators should consider providing clearer guidance and regulation on the intersection of GPAIm and copyright law to address the challenges and uncertainties highlighted in the article

Sources