Artificial Intelligence, the new tech-revolution which should change the World in the same way that Electricity changed it a century ago.
Each day a new article shows how powerful and amazing Artificial Intelligence can be applied in several fields from technical to artistic ones. But as far, a problematic has not so much been raised: What is and will be the legal statute of an Artificial Intelligence regarding the Intellectual Property?
In the past decades, Scientists have realized true breakthroughs regarding Artificial Intelligence, most of them based on deep-learning. This process is based on a neural network environment designed to train an A.I. to achieve a precise task. Among the large amount of fields touched by the application of A.I., several are linked to the artistic and creative process, such as:
- In 2010, the first album of Emily HOWELL is released. This artist is not what one could call a person, indeed it is an A.I. trained by a scientist to compose music.
- In April 2016, a “New Rembrandt” was revealed to the World. It was not a lost painting of the artist, but a true new one created with the style and the touch of the master. In fact, an A.I. has been trained analyzing the 3D graphical features of more than 300 paintings of the master in order to understand the scene composition as well as the brush movement of Rembrandt. Based on all these data, the A.I. has been able to generate a new scene that could have been painted by Rembrandt. Then, using the top advanced 3D painting technology, the A.I. has “painted” the scene using the same master’s brush movement.
- In June 2016, an A.I. have written a script of a sci-fi movie after having reviewed more than tens of the same kind of movie’s scripts.
- In September 2016, Watson, an IBM’s A.I., has realized a sci-fi trailer after having watched more than ten hours of sci-fi movies and theirs trailers.
- More recently, tired of having to wait George R.R. Martin to write the next book of the series of success “Game of Thrones”, an engineer has programmed an A.I. in order to write next chapters of the series. So based on the author's previous works, but also other works of the same style, this A.I. has been able to generate 5 new chapters continuing previous plots, introducing new characters and eliminating others.
All these previous examples demonstrate the stronger and stronger involvement of the artificial intelligence in the world of the artistic creation, and while scientists greet the technical prowess and artists study these pieces of Art, the intellectual property’s world is awake and wonders... Who owns Intellectual Property rights of these works... to the creator of the A.I.? To the content providers allowing the A.I. to learn and claiming that this work is a simple assembly of items? Or to the A.I. itself?
A beginning of clue may appear through the nature of the A.I. itself and of its creative process. Indeed, an A.I. needs to be “fed” with examples in order to be able to "create" something by itself; this is the basis of the Deep Learning process.
Actually, the previous examples illustrate perfectly the fundamental need for a learning phase of the A.I. in order to be able to master a topic and begin to produce results.
Is this process of learning and trial/error not in the heart of a child learning to walk? Or an artist to create? Is it not precisely this long walk in the footsteps of previous artistic geniuses that every artist must follow to perfect his art? Music, drawings or cinema and writing schools have no other purposes than the training of future artists, in order to enable them to appreciate the different film, literary, musical styles, and thus to develop their own art.
An A.I., by its learning process, joins the young artist, learning to draw, write or even compose.
Only what is called "pure genius", i.e. the making of an artistic or technical work without prior learning, seems to escape yet Artificial Intelligence and remain the prerogative of the Mankind.
However, when a machine performs a task for which it has been programmed, can we speak of creation within the meaning of the Code of Intellectual Property? When an artist is paid for a work, it is not less the creator when even he would have been guided in its realization. So, to find out if a result creating by a machine may be interpreted in the light of the Code of Intellectual Property should be first that the machine has a legal status. However, this question cannot be answered until a much more general legal status than the one related to Intellectual Property will have been attributed to a virtual entity.
If we follow the reasoning made more than a century ago on the rights attached to a Corporation, i.e. a moral entity, we can easily imagine the day when a legal status can be attributed to a virtual person.
A first response echo seems to shine through at the level of certain legal proceedings. So Americans are currently thinking to assign a license to the A.I. controlling autonomous vehicles.
Today, this response echo is more and more loud. Indeed, recently Sophia, an A.I. with a robotic body, has acquired a legal status in Saudi Arabia, and in Japan, this is a virtual A.I. which has become an official resident in Tokyo.
These first steps toward legal recognition of Artificial Intelligences could lead someday to the filing of trademarks, designs, patents and copyrights on behalf of a virtual person. However, as long as Artificial Intelligences will not be programmed for claiming hypothetical rights, this issue will remain purely intellectual and for sure will be the object of many studies.
