Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 103

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Copyright and Artificial Creation: Does EU Copyright Law Protect AI-Assisted Output?

Hugenholtz, P. Bernt, Quintais, João Pedro·2021·IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law
DOI 10.1007/s40319-021-01115-0
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article queries whether and to what extent works produced with the aid of AI systems – AI-assisted output – are protected under EU copyright standards. We carry out a doctrinal legal analysis to scrutinise the concepts of “work”, “originality” and “creative freedom”, as well as the notion of authorship, as set forth in the EU copyright acquis and developed in the case-law of the Court of Justice. On this basis, we develop a four-step test to assess whether AI-assisted output qualifies as an original work of authorship under EU law, and how the existing rules on authorship may apply. Our conclusion is that current EU copyright rules are generally suitable and sufficiently flexible to deal with the challenges posed by AI-assisted output.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40319-021-01115-0

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Diagram of an iterative creative process
Fig. 1 Diagram of an iterative creative processCC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. Bently L et al (2018) Intellectual property law, 5th edn. OUP. https://global.oup.com/ukhe/product/intellectual-property-law-9780198769958?cc=nl&lang=en&. Accessed 15 Jul 2020 · DOI
  2. Bonadio E, McDonagh L (2020) Artificial intelligence as producer and consumer of copyright works: evaluating the consequences of algorithmic creativity. Intellect Prop Q 2:112
  3. Boyden BE (2016) Emergent works. Columbia J Law Arts 39:377
  4. Bridy A (2011) Coding creativity: copyright and the artificially intelligent author. Stanf Law Rev 5:1
  5. Bridy A (2016) The evolution of authorship: work made by code. Columbia J Law Arts 39:395
  6. Burk DL (2020) Thirty-six views of copyright authorship, by Jackson Pollock. Houst Law Rev 58. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3570225. Accessed 9 Apr 2021
  7. Butler TL (1982) Can a computer be an author – copyright aspects of artificial intelligence. Hastings Comm Ent L J 4:707
  8. Craig CJ, Kerr IR (2019) The death of the AI author. In: Osgoode legal studies research paper. https://robots.law.miami.edu/2019/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Kerr_Death-of-AI-Author.pdf. Accessed 4 May 2020 · DOI
  9. Deltorn J-M, Macrez F (2018) Authorship in the age of machine learning and artificial intelligence. In: The Oxford handbook of music law and policy. OUP. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3261329. Accessed 29 Apr 2020 · DOI
  10. Denicola R (2016) Ex machina: copyright protection for computer-generated works. Rutgers Univ Law Rev 69:251
  11. Dietz A (1993) Le Concept d’auteur Selon Le Droit de La Convention de Berne. RIDA 155(01):2–57
  12. Dreier T (1992) Creation and investment: artistic and legal implications of computer-generated works. In: Leser HG, Isomura T (eds) Wege zum japanischen Recht. Festschrift für Zentaro Kitagawa. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp 869–888
  13. Drexl J et al (2019) Technical aspects of artificial intelligence: an understanding from an intellectual property law perspective. Max Planck Inst Innov Compet 11. https://www.ip.mpg.de/en/publications/journals/research-paper-series.html. Accessed 4 May 2020 · DOI
  14. Gervais D (1991) The protection under international copyright law of works created with or by computers. IIC Int Rev Intellect Prop Compet Law 5:629
  15. Gervais DJ (2019) The machine as author. Iowa Law Rev 105:19
  16. Gervais D (2020) Is intellectual property law ready for artificial intelligence? GRUR Int 69:117 · DOI
  17. Ginsburg J (2003) The concept of authorship in comparative copyright law. DePaul Law Rev 52:1063
  18. Ginsburg JC (2018) People not machines: authorship and what it means in the Berne Convention. IIC Int Rev Intellect Prop Compet Law 49:131
  19. Ginsburg JC, Budiardjo LA (2019) Authors and machines. Berkeley Technol Law J 34:343
  20. Goldstein P, Hugenholtz PB (2019) International copyright: principles, law, and practice, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
  21. Grimmelmann J (2016) Copyright for literate robots. Iowa Law Rev 101:657
  22. Grimmelmann J (2017) There’s no such thing as a computer-authored work – and it’s a good thing, too. Columbia J Law Arts 39:403
  23. Guadamuz A (2017) Do androids dream of electric copyright? Comparative analysis of originality in artificial intelligence generated works. Intellect Prop Q 2:169
  24. Hewitt S (1983) Protection of works created by the use of computers. New LJ 133:235
  25. Hilty RM, Hoffmann J, Scheuerer S (2020) Intellectual property justification for artificial intelligence, vol 1. Oxford University Press, Oxford
  26. Hugenholtz PB et al (2006) The recasting of copyright & related rights for the knowledge economy. IViR. Report to the European Commission, DG internal market ID 2018238. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2018238. Accessed 15 Jul 2020 · DOI
  27. Kaminski ME (2017) Authorship, disrupted: AI authors in copyright and first amendment law. Social Science Research Network. SSRN scholarly paper ID 3086912. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3086912. Accessed 4 May 2020
  28. Kummer M (1968) Das Urheberrechtlich Schützbare Werk. Stämpfli, Bern
  29. Milde KF Jr. (1969) Can a computer be and author or an inventor. J Pat Office Soc 51:378
  30. Quaedvlieg AA (2012) Authorship and ownership. In: Synodinou T (ed) Codification of European copyright law: challenges and perspective. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn
  31. Ramalho A (2017) Will robots rule the (artistic) world? A proposed model for the legal status of creations by artificial intelligence systems. J Internet Law 21:12
  32. Ricketson S (1991) The 1992 Horace S. Manges lecture – people or machines: the Bern Convention and the changing concept of authorship. Columbia VLA J Law Arts 16:1
  33. Sag M (2015) Copyright trolling, an empirical study. Iowa Law Rev 100:1105
  34. Samuelson P (1986) Allocating ownership rights in computer-generated works. In: Symposium cosponsored by University of Pittsburgh Law Review and the software En on The future of software protection. University of Pittsburgh Press
  35. Scheuerer S (2021) Artificial intelligence and unfair competition – unveiling an underestimated building block of the AI regulation landscape. GRUR Int. https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikab021 · DOI
  36. Senftleben M, Buijtelaar L (2020) Robot creativity: an incentive-based neighboring rights approach. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 42:797–806
  37. Spindler G (2019) Copyright law and artificial intelligence. IIC Int Rev Intellect Prop Compet Law 50:1049
  38. Spoor JH, Verkade DWF, Visser DJG (2019) Auteursrecht. Wolters Kluwer. http://www.wolterskluwer.nl. Accessed 15 Apr 2021
  39. van Gompel S (2014) Creativity, autonomy and personal touch. A critical appraisal of the CJEU’s originality test for copyright. In: van Eechoud M (ed) The work of authorship. Amsterdam University Press, pp 95–143 · DOI
  40. Vousden S (2011) Protecting GUIs in EU law: Bezpečnostní Softwarová Asociace. J Intellect Prop Law Pract 6:728 · DOI

Cited by

See all 103

Metadata

Authors
Hugenholtz, P. B., & Quintais, J. P.
ORCID
Quintais, João Pedro
Venue
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-10
Volume
52
Issue
9
Pages
1190-1216
ISSN
  • 0018-9855
  • 2195-0237
DOI
10.1007/s40319-021-01115-0
Cited by
103
References
1
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review