AI en IP (Artificieele Intelligentie en Intellectueel Eigendom)
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•216 views
Lezing door Fulco Blokhuis over de juridische aspecten die optreden bij generatieve AI, zoals ChatGPT, Dall-e e.d. VOGIN-IP-lezing 28 april 2024 Amsterdam
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
More from voginip
More from voginip (20)
AI en IP (Artificieele Intelligentie en Intellectueel Eigendom)
- 1. Fulco Blokhuis IE & Tech advocaat bij Boekx Media & IP AI en IP
- 2. 2 nt & brands GENERATIEVE AI Afbeeldingen, teksten, samenvattingen, ondertitelingen, vertalingen, software, video, editing, design, stemmen, deepfakes, muziek, chatbots, presentaties, etc.
- 10. The deal requires both consent and compensation before a song is released that uses a digital replica of an artist's voice. It added the terms "artist", "singer" and "royalty artist" could only refer to humans under the agreement.
- 11. 11 nt & brands Is het trainen van een AI tool een inbreuk? Kan de AI tool output beschermd worden door een IE recht?
- 12. 12 nt & brands Is het trainen van een AI tool een inbreuk?
- 13. 13 nt & brands Is het trainen van een AI tool een inbreuk? • Verveelvoudigen • Openbaarmaken
- 14. Midjourney
- 15. 15 nt & brands
- 16. 16 nt & brands Midjourney: LAION-5B dataset 5,85 miljard images Research purposes lijst van 16.000 artiesten Cy Twombly, Andy Warhol Anish Kapoor, Yayoi Kusama, Gerhard Richter Frida Kahlo, Ellsworth Kelly, Damien Hirst, Amedeo Modigliani, Pablo Picasso, Paul Signac, Norman Rockwell, Paul Cézanne, Banksy, Walt Disney, en Vincent van Gogh
- 17. 17 nt & brands Is training fair use? VS 20 rechtszaken Oa 1. Thomson Reuters v. ROSS (samenvattingen van rechtszaken) 2. Getty Images (US) v. Stability AI (beeld) 3. Universal v. Anthropic (muziek) 4. Doe 1 v. Github, Inc. (software) 5. New York Times v. Microsoft and OpenAI (nieuwsberichten) Chatgptiseatingthisworld.com
- 18. 18 nt & brands Is het trainen van een AI tool met auteursrechtelijk beschermde werken een inbreuk? Uitzonderingen: EU: TDM
- 19. 19 nt & brands Tekst en Data Mining Art 3. voor wetenschappelijk onderzoek (art 3 Rl 2019/790) Art 4. voor commerciële doeleinden met opt-out (art 4 Rl 2019/790) AI ACT: TDM geldt voor AI training
- 20. 20 nt & brands Is een met AI tool gemaakt werk beschermd?
- 21. Werktoets • De eigen intellectuele schepping van de auteur • Het gaat om vrije en creatieve keuzes van de auteur, die tot uitdrukking zijn gebracht in het werk • Auteur = mens
- 22. • Auteur = menselijk David Slater v PETA / Wikipedia
- 23. 23 nt & brands 1. Zarya of the Dawn 21 februari 2023
- 24. 24 nt & brands Wel beschermd: De tekst en de selectie, coördinatie en rangschikking van de geschreven en visuele elementen van het werk Niet beschermd: AI output
- 25. 25 nt & brands 2. Thaler 18 augustus 2023
- 26. 26 nt & brands We are approaching new frontiers How much human input is necessary? Must that originator be a human being to claim copyright protection? The answer is “yes.” In the absence of any human involvement in the creation of the work, the clear and straightforward answer is the one given by the Register: No.
- 27. 27 nt & brands 3. Théâtre D’opéra Spatial (USCO) – September 5, 2023
- 28. 28 nt & brands • 624 tekst prompts in Midjourney • Daarna Photoshop en Gigapixel AI voor upscaling • The Office accepted Mr. Allen’s claim that human- authored “visual edits” made with Adobe Photoshop contained a sufficient amount of original authorship to be registered. • However, the Office explained that the features generated by Midjourney and Gigapixel AI must be excluded as non-human authorship. • Because Mr. Allen sought to register the entire work and refused to disclaim the portions attributable to AI, the Office could not register the claim.
- 29. 29 nt & brands 4. Suryast December 11, 2023
- 30. 30 nt & brands Overwegingen USCO USCO: The RAGHAV app, not Mr. Sahni, was responsible for determining how to interpolate the base and style images in accordance with the style transfer value Mr. Sahni did not control where those elements would be placed, whether they would appear in the output, and what colors would be applied to them—RAGHAV did.
- 31. 31 nt & brands Overwegingen USCO USCO: The RAGHAV app, not Mr. Sahni, was responsible for determining how to interpolate the base and style images in accordance with the style transfer value Mr. Sahni did not control where those elements would be placed, whether they would appear in the output, and what colors would be applied to them—RAGHAV did.
- 32. 32 nt & brands 5. AI Suro’s Wife’ film January 8, 2024 AI Film in Zuid Korea wel beschermd
- 33. 33 nt & brands 5. AI Suro’s Wife’ film January 8, 2024 1) ensuring consistency in the images from prompt engineering, so that they were not just random, which involved “the process of selecting text, pictures, voices, etc. at each stage and reaching the final result can itself be close to creation,” (2) edits through “Photoshop, out-painting and in-painting were repeated dozens of times, even the parts that AI could not capture were enlarged and depicted,” (3) editing the images in Midjourney and Stable Diffusion, (4) incorporating images into the video, and (5) relying on their own small language model for some elements, such as to help incorporate the Korean song “Surorbun” into the work.
- 34. 34 nt & brands China 1. In de zaak Feilin v. Baidu verwierp BIC in 2018 de auteursrechtelijke bescherming van een door AI gegenereerd verslag wegens gebrek aan originaliteit. 2. De rechtbank van Shenzhen (2019) kende auteursrechtelijke bescherming toe aan een AI-gegenereerd artikel in de zaak Tencent Dreamwriter v. Yingxun. The selection of factors such as the format of the data that is fed into the algorithm and the rules that the software must follow. Are the creative choices made by humans – such as the input data, trigger rules, templates, and training of the algorithm – reflected in the final product?
- 35. 35 nt & brands 6. Chinese Beijing Internet Court: Li v. Liu November 27, 2023 four-element test: (1) belonging to the fields of literature, art, or science; (2) possessing originality; (3) having a form of expression; and (4) being a result of “intellectual achievement”. Through Stable Diffusion, Plaintiff selected over 150 prompts, arranged their order and set specific parameters. He continued to adjust and modify those prompts and parameters until the final image aligned with his conception. These steps sufficiently demonstrate that the disputed image was created as a result of Plaintiff’s intellectual inputs.
- 36. Werktoets • De eigen intellectuele schepping van de auteur • Het gaat om vrije en creatieve keuzes van de auteur, die tot uitdrukking zijn gebracht in het werk
- 37. Ultraman - Guangzhou Internet Court • Op de website van een AI-bedrijf konden gebruikers door AI gegenereerde afbeeldingen maken. Sommige van deze afbeeldingen kopieerden afbeeldingen van Ultraman geheel of gedeeltelijk. Ultraman is een wereldwijd bekende Japanse sciencefiction media franchise. Gebruikers van de tool moesten (bij)betalen om deze afbeeldingen te creëren, waardoor het bedrijf extra inkomsten genereerde. • Zorgplicht: Generatieve AI-bedrijven moeten hun gebruikers wijzen op het risico van auteursrechtinbreuk. Bovendien moeten ze een NTD systeem opzetten. • Ook moeten ze AI content labelen
- 38. Tsjechië-Rechtbank Praag 13 okt 2023
- 39. 39 nt & brands Hoe stellen we vast wat beschermd is en wat niet? Als je creëert, documenteer je creatieproces. Bewijs van menselijke creatieve keuzes wordt belangrijk
- 40. 40 nt & brands Dank voor uw aandacht Fulco Blokhuis blokhuis@boekx.com
Editor's Notes
- 41 5 op Github is AI code volgens rapporten
- https://petapixel.com/2024/03/07/recreating-iconic-photos-with-ai-image-generators/
- https://hughstephensblog.net/2024/03/10/japans-text-and-data-mining-tdm-copyright-exception-for-ai-training-a-needed-and-welcome-clarification-from-the-responsible-agency
- ML mag mits rechtmatige toegang en mits geen opt-out Wat is machine leesbaar? Wat is rechtmatige toegang? Toepassing in tijd van de beperking? Moeten de modellen vernietigd worden?
- https://www.copyright.gov/docs/zarya-of-the-dawn.pdf 15 sept 2022 – verzoek tot registratie Via social media wist USCO van het gebruik van Midjourney. Kashatnova had dat niet verteld 28 okt 2022 bericht tot intrekking 21 november 2022 reactie advocaat he Supreme Court has explained that the term “original” in this context consists of two components: independent creation and sufficient creativity. See Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 345 (1991) in Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, the Supreme Court held that photographs were protected by copyright because they were “representatives of original intellectual conceptions of the author,” defining authors as “he to whom anything owes its origin; originator; maker; one who completes a work of science or literature.” Based on Ms. Kashtanova’s description, the Office cannot determine what expression in the image was contributed through her use of Photoshop as opposed to generated by Midjourney. She suggests that Photoshop was used to modify an intermediate image by Midjourney to “show[] aging of the face,” but it is unclear whether she manually edited the youthful face in a previous intermediate image, created a composite image using a previously generated image of an older woman, or did something else.
- https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/a-recent-entrance-to-paradise.pdf November 3, 2018 seeking to register this computer-generated work as a work-for-hire to the owner of the Creativity Machine augustus 2019 refused to register March 2020 Thaler had “provided no evidence on sufficient creative input or intervention by a human author in the Work. https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2022cv1564-24
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm-fVpsQg9o
- https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/Theatre-Dopera-Spatial.pdf On September 21, 2022, Mr. Allen filed an application
- https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2024/01/08/south-korea-grants-copyright-to-ai-generated-work-ai-suros-wife-film-as-work-edited-by-humans/
- https://chatgptiseatingtheworld.com/2024/01/08/south-korea-grants-copyright-to-ai-generated-work-ai-suros-wife-film-as-work-edited-by-humans/
- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-020-00944-9 https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/specials/BeijingInternetCourtCivilJudgment(2018)Jing0491MinChuNo.239.pdf Decision of the People’s Court of Nanshan (District of Shenzhen) 24 December 2019 – Case No. (2019) Yue 0305 Min Chu No. 14010
- https://english.bjinternetcourt.gov.cn/pdf/BeijingInternetCourtCivilJudgment112792023.pdf
- The Guangzhou Internet Court emphasized that considering the fact that the generative AI industry is still in its early stages of development, it is necessary to balance between rights protection and industry development, and it is not appropriate to excessively burden service providers, while the service providers should actively fulfill reasonable and affordable duty of care, in order to contribute to the establishment of a Chinese-style artificial intelligence governance system that promotes both security and development, balance and inclusiveness, as well as innovation and protection.