Hylly
Henkilönnimi Bonadio, Enrico, kirjoittaja.
Nimeke- ja vastuullisuusmerkintö Implications of Artificial Intelligence in Action - A Jamaican Perspective
Julkaistu Sweet & Maxwell, London : 2022.
Ulkoasutiedot
Sarjamerkintö ei-lisäkirjausmuodossa European Intellectual Property Review, ISSN 0142-0461 ; 44(10)
Huomautus sisällöstä, tiivistelmä tms. Creative expression, and authorship of creative works, has long been associated with humans. Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms generally associated with routine tasks, are now being used in the creative industries. While human effort is still necessary to perfect creative works done by technology, ongoing algorithmic improvements and adaptations have further advanced the creative capabilities of AI technology. If humans are unable to decipher whether a painting, a piece of music or a literary work was created by humans or an algorithm then it potentially opens a Pandora’s Box. What therefore are the legal implications in the creative space when an algorithm passes the Turing test, i.e. when a human is unable to tell whether an output (artistic work) was generated by a human or a machine? In July 2021, workshops were held in Jamaica with stakeholders from the creative industries, the technology industry and legal practitioners to determine their knowledge of capabilities of AI in the creative industries and their perspectives on the possible legal implications of a creator not being human. This paper considers the legal significance of the presumption that, creativity and authorship, tenets on which intellectual property (IP) protection is generally premised, emanate from a person. Arguably, the dialectic is not whether AI has supplanted human creativity, or the difficulty with being able to distinguish a work created by a human or autonomously by AI. The polemic posed is, what, if any, legislative or regulatory accommodation is needed to address acknowledgment or non-acknowledgment of AI as an author. Further, to what extent, if any, should creative works autonomously produced by AI be deemed protected IP assets. This paper brings into focus analysis of data gleaned from Jamaican stakeholders that suggests there is justification for heightened economic reward for AI owners and creative output bade solely by AI, even if AI is not ascribed the legal title of “author” or “inventor” and the attendant rights and responsibilities of ownership.
Asiasana
Maantieteellinen nimi asiasanana
Henkilönnimi Mimler, Marc, kirjoittaja. Mansingh, Gunjan, kirjoittaja. Corthésy, Natalie, kirjoittaja. Stone, Matthew, kirjoittaja. McDanel, Gillian, kirjoittaja. Parkes, Alex, kirjoittaja. Harvey, Stephen, kirjoittaja.
Sarjalisäkirjaus - yhtenäistetty nimeke European Intellectual Property Review, 0142-0461 ; 44(10)
*000 ab a ar
*00117542
*008 s2022||||xxk|||||||||||||||||eng||
*040 $aFI-CUTE$bfin$erda
*0410 $aeng
*1001 $aBonadio, Enrico,$ekirjoittaja.
*24510$aImplications of Artificial Intelligence in Action - A Jamaican Perspective /$cEnrico Bonadio.
*264 1$aLondon :$bSweet & Maxwell,$c2022.
*300 $as. 611-622
*336 $ateksti$btxt$2rdacontent
*337 $akäytettävissä ilman laitetta$bn$2rdamedia
*338 $anide$bnc$2rdacarrier
*4901 $aEuropean Intellectual Property Review,$x0142-0461 ;$v44(10)
*520 $aCreative expression, and authorship of creative works, has long been associated with humans. Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms generally associated with routine tasks, are now being used in the creative industries. While human effort is still necessary to perfect creative works done by technology, ongoing algorithmic improvements and adaptations have further advanced the creative capabilities of AI technology. If humans are unable to decipher whether a painting, a piece of music or a literary work was created by humans or an algorithm then it potentially opens a Pandora’s Box. What therefore are the legal implications in the creative space when an algorithm passes the Turing test, i.e. when a human is unable to tell whether an output (artistic work) was generated by a human or a machine? In July 2021, workshops were held in Jamaica with stakeholders from the creative industries, the technology industry and legal practitioners to determine their knowledge of capabilities of AI in the creative industries and their perspectives on the possible legal implications of a creator not being human. This paper considers the legal significance of the presumption that, creativity and authorship, tenets on which intellectual property (IP) protection is generally premised, emanate from a person. Arguably, the dialectic is not whether AI has supplanted human creativity, or the difficulty with being able to distinguish a work created by a human or autonomously by AI. The polemic posed is, what, if any, legislative or regulatory accommodation is needed to address acknowledgment or non-acknowledgment of AI as an author. Further, to what extent, if any, should creative works autonomously produced by AI be deemed protected IP assets. This paper brings into focus analysis of data gleaned from Jamaican stakeholders that suggests there is justification for heightened economic reward for AI owners and creative output bade solely by AI, even if AI is not ascribed the legal title of “author” or “inventor” and the attendant rights and responsibilities of ownership.
*650 7$aimmateriaalioikeus$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p3068$2yso/fin
*650 7$atekoäly$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p2616
*650 7$aluovuus$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p8311$2yso/fin
*650 7$ateknologia$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p2339$2yso/fin
*651 7$aJamaika $0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p107112$2yso/fin
*7001 $aMimler, Marc,$ekirjoittaja.
*7001 $aMansingh, Gunjan,$ekirjoittaja.
*700 $aCorthésy, Natalie,$ekirjoittaja.
*7001 $aStone, Matthew,$ekirjoittaja.
*7001 $aMcDanel, Gillian,$ekirjoittaja.
*7001 $aParkes, Alex,$ekirjoittaja.
*7001 $aHarvey, Stephen,$ekirjoittaja.
*830 0$aEuropean Intellectual Property Review,$x0142-0461 ;$v44(10)
*852 $hSA-EIPR
^
Tästä teoksesta ei ole arvioita.
Näpäytä
kun haluat kirjoittaa ensimmäisen arvion.