AIPPI: Copyright in artificially generated works

23.11.19 | AI, Allgemein, Urheberrecht

50. World IP Congress, London, 16.-18 September 2019

2019 Study Question: Copyright in artificially generated works

National/Regional Group: Anselm Brandi-Dohrn, Anja Fischhold, Jan Freialdenhoven, Björn Joachim, Sabine Kossak, Niklas Maamar, Sonja Mroß, Jan Bernd Nordemann and Michael Renner

s. AIPPI Congress News, p. 2 f.,

“Copyright in artificially-generated works Human beings are essential for the creation of an original work of art. Or at least they are according to the plenary session on copyright and AI. The resolution, passed late on Monday night, says any work of art generated by AI must involve human intervention. Working examples of the final version outline specific criteria for where and how a human must intervene for the work to receive protection. The first working example states it is not enough for a human being to be simply the creator of the AI. If a human being feeds data into the AI, the produced work can receive copyright protection, but only if the data used was of human origin. Therefore, it would seem that Beethoven’s ninth symphony is acceptable (although the resolution doesn’t muse on this), but randomly banged out notes from a machine are not, no matter how harmonious they may be. The last examples stipulate that neither a human nor a non-human can select one work among many AI-generated outputs for copyright protection. Originality is important for good art, and it is a necessary requirement for AI-created copyright eligibility. The right to copyright extends to all AI-generated works that fulfil the necessary requirements of human intervention and originality, and should be identical to other works already protected by copyright laws. In particular, the resolution focuses on economic rights, moral rights, initial ownership, and terms of protection. The last article of the resolution states that AI-generated outputs may be eligible for rights other than copyright protection, even without human intervention. The resolution concludes: “As AI is still developing, it is too early to take a position on the question whether AI-generated works not covered by such existing protection should be eligible for exclusive rights protection as a related right or as exclusive rights under copyright (not in the meaning of the revised Berne Convention).”