Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

AI-konstnärer i den fjärde industriella revolutionen - Hur hanteras AI-genererade verk upphovsrättsligt?

Hagelroth, Ebba LU (2018) LAGF03 20182
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Uppsatsen behandlar hur AI-genererade konstnärliga och litterära alster hanteras upphovsrättsligt i Sverige och i EU. Eftersom USA generellt är ledande i den tekniska utvecklingen på området kan den rättsliga regleringen där påverka Sveriges konkurrensmöjligheter. Därför görs även jämförelser med de amerikanska diskussionerna.

Verk med mänsklig delaktighet skyddas om AI:n har använts som verktyg. Redan idag finns dock AI som ensamt kan generera såväl musikstycken som texter och tavlor. Helt AI-genererade verk skyddas inte av upphovsrätt idag pga. direkta och indirekta krav på delaktighet från en fysisk person. Det finns dock omständigheter som tyder på att dessa verk kommer att skyddas i framtiden inom EU och i USA. Uppsatsen redogör... (More)
Uppsatsen behandlar hur AI-genererade konstnärliga och litterära alster hanteras upphovsrättsligt i Sverige och i EU. Eftersom USA generellt är ledande i den tekniska utvecklingen på området kan den rättsliga regleringen där påverka Sveriges konkurrensmöjligheter. Därför görs även jämförelser med de amerikanska diskussionerna.

Verk med mänsklig delaktighet skyddas om AI:n har använts som verktyg. Redan idag finns dock AI som ensamt kan generera såväl musikstycken som texter och tavlor. Helt AI-genererade verk skyddas inte av upphovsrätt idag pga. direkta och indirekta krav på delaktighet från en fysisk person. Det finns dock omständigheter som tyder på att dessa verk kommer att skyddas i framtiden inom EU och i USA. Uppsatsen redogör därför för några alternativa lösningar för att hantera AI-genererade verk.

En möjlighet är att programmeraren till AI:n får upphovsrätt till dess verk. Detta alternativ blir dock långsökt då det saknas ett direkt samband mellan programmeraren och varje enskilt verk. Vidare undersöks möjligheten för AI:n själv att få upphovsrätten. Alternativet baseras på diskussioner inom EU att införa statusen ”elektronisk person” för sofistikerade robotar. Alternativet är intressant men skulle kräva stora lagändringar. Ett annat alternativ är att införa ett investeringsskydd för AI, likt katalogskyddet. Ett sådant skydd har många fördelar, men har inte diskuterats ingående i USA.

En ytterligare möjlighet är att låta användaren av AI:n få upphovsrätt, via ett fiktivt anställningsförhållande eller genom att behålla en minimal mänsklig insats i varje enskilt verk. Det förstnämnda alternativet är inte enkelt applicerbart på svensk rätt eftersom det i vissa fall skulle kräva möjlighet för AI att ingå avtal med ”arbetsgivaren”. Det sistnämnda förslaget har många fördelar och skulle inte kräva lagändringar. Trots att det kan diskuteras om det är rimligt att få upphovsrätt med endast en minimal mänsklig insats, skulle en sådan lösning inte innebära ett alltför stort avsteg från dagens upphovsrätt.

Sammanfattningsvis utgör flera av alternativen intressanta lösningar. Frågan kräver dock vidare forskning och eventuellt lagstiftning. Som rättsläget ser ut idag är det mest fördelaktigt att bevara kravet på, åtminstone minimal, personlig inblandning i varje enskilt AI-genererat verk, för att på så sätt behålla AI:ns status som verktyg. (Less)
Abstract
This essay examines how the intellectual property rights of AI-generated artistic and literary works are handled in Sweden, the EU and the United states. If an AI has been used as a tool for the user to create, the copyright legislation is satisfactory. There are already however, machines that can generate music, text and paintings without any, or with minimal, human input. Completely AI-generated works are not protected by copyright today because of direct and indirect requirements of human creative input. There are however circumstances in the EU and the US that indicate that AI-generated works will be protected by copyright in the future. In order to stay relevant in the development of AI, it is in Sweden’s interest to review our... (More)
This essay examines how the intellectual property rights of AI-generated artistic and literary works are handled in Sweden, the EU and the United states. If an AI has been used as a tool for the user to create, the copyright legislation is satisfactory. There are already however, machines that can generate music, text and paintings without any, or with minimal, human input. Completely AI-generated works are not protected by copyright today because of direct and indirect requirements of human creative input. There are however circumstances in the EU and the US that indicate that AI-generated works will be protected by copyright in the future. In order to stay relevant in the development of AI, it is in Sweden’s interest to review our copyright regulations, in relation to developments in other countries. This essay therefore discusses some options for managing AI-generated works.

One possibility for protecting AI-generated works is to let the AI-programmer obtain copyright. This option is however improbable as there is a lack of connection between the programmer and each individual work. The possibility for the AI itself to obtain copyright is also examined. The alternative is based on discussions within the European parliament to introduce an electronic personhood for sophisticated robots. The alternative would require major legislative changes. Another option is to introduce a sui generis protection for AI-generated works, resembling the protection of databases. Such protection has many advantages but has not been discussed in the US. As the US is in the lead of the development of AI, it could be beneficial for Sweden to take into account relevant solutions there.

Furthermore, there are reasons to examine whether it is beneficial to protect AI-generated works at all, from a moral point of view. Today, AI-generated works become public property, even in the US. Recent discussions, however, show signs of the development taking a different turn, moving towards protecting AI-generated works. In the U.S., discussions mainly concern the possibilities of allowing the user of the AI to obtain copyright, either by the work-for-hire doctrine or by allowing works with only minimal human input to be copyrightable. The former option is not completely applicable to Swedish law. The latter option has some advantages and would not require legislative changes.

In conclusion, several of the alternatives constitute interesting solutions. Although further research is required, the most plausible alternative is to allow works with even small creative, human contribution in each individual AI-generated work to be copyrightable. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Hagelroth, Ebba LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20182
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Immaterialrätt, Artificiell intelligens, Upphovsrätt
language
Swedish
id
8965693
date added to LUP
2019-03-17 14:22:31
date last changed
2019-03-17 14:22:31
@misc{8965693,
  abstract     = {{This essay examines how the intellectual property rights of AI-generated artistic and literary works are handled in Sweden, the EU and the United states. If an AI has been used as a tool for the user to create, the copyright legislation is satisfactory. There are already however, machines that can generate music, text and paintings without any, or with minimal, human input. Completely AI-generated works are not protected by copyright today because of direct and indirect requirements of human creative input. There are however circumstances in the EU and the US that indicate that AI-generated works will be protected by copyright in the future. In order to stay relevant in the development of AI, it is in Sweden’s interest to review our copyright regulations, in relation to developments in other countries. This essay therefore discusses some options for managing AI-generated works.

One possibility for protecting AI-generated works is to let the AI-programmer obtain copyright. This option is however improbable as there is a lack of connection between the programmer and each individual work. The possibility for the AI itself to obtain copyright is also examined. The alternative is based on discussions within the European parliament to introduce an electronic personhood for sophisticated robots. The alternative would require major legislative changes. Another option is to introduce a sui generis protection for AI-generated works, resembling the protection of databases. Such protection has many advantages but has not been discussed in the US. As the US is in the lead of the development of AI, it could be beneficial for Sweden to take into account relevant solutions there.

Furthermore, there are reasons to examine whether it is beneficial to protect AI-generated works at all, from a moral point of view. Today, AI-generated works become public property, even in the US. Recent discussions, however, show signs of the development taking a different turn, moving towards protecting AI-generated works. In the U.S., discussions mainly concern the possibilities of allowing the user of the AI to obtain copyright, either by the work-for-hire doctrine or by allowing works with only minimal human input to be copyrightable. The former option is not completely applicable to Swedish law. The latter option has some advantages and would not require legislative changes. 

In conclusion, several of the alternatives constitute interesting solutions. Although further research is required, the most plausible alternative is to allow works with even small creative, human contribution in each individual AI-generated work to be copyrightable.}},
  author       = {{Hagelroth, Ebba}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{AI-konstnärer i den fjärde industriella revolutionen - Hur hanteras AI-genererade verk upphovsrättsligt?}},
  year         = {{2018}},
}