Human intellectual creations in european patent and copyright law
<p>This thesis responds to the emergence of AI-driven systems capable of producing expressive and technical subject matter. If realised, such a subject matter is often indistinguishable from works and inventions—human intellectual creations.</p> <p>Historically, copyright and pate...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Thesis |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2021
|
| Subjects: |
| _version_ | 1811139184630431744 |
|---|---|
| author | Janečková, E |
| author2 | Pila, J |
| author_facet | Pila, J Janečková, E |
| author_sort | Janečková, E |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | <p>This thesis responds to the emergence of AI-driven systems capable of producing expressive and technical subject matter. If realised, such a subject matter is often indistinguishable from works and inventions—human intellectual creations.</p>
<p>Historically, copyright and patents have been reserved for human intellectual creations, ie subject matter directly and immediately created by human beings. This thesis argues that this should remain so. Preserving this restriction requires clarification of the nature of authorship and inventorship. Hence, this thesis fleshes out human authorship and human inventorship in terms of quality, quantity, specificity, and their involvement in a circumscribed process of creation.</p>
<p>The main contribution of this thesis lies in exposing the shortcomings in the European authorities’ adjudication and examination practices, namely that the human origin of intellectual creations is traditionally inferred from their expressive form or technical character. Given the advancements in AI, such inferences are no longer legitimate. This is significant because if the authorities are unable to distinguish human intellectual creations from other subject matter (albeit expressive or technical), they run a risk of granting protection where none is lawfully permitted or justified.</p>
<p>To mitigate this risk and address the shortcomings, this thesis recommends interpreting the statutory copyright subsistence and patentability criteria in the light of the implicit requirements for protection: human authorship and human inventorship. This thesis further proposes refinements of the conceptions of human authorship and human inventorship at the level of detail necessary to tackle the disruptive role of AI in the processes of creation. Finally, it recommends extending the disclosure duties of those who demand protection.</p> |
| first_indexed | 2024-09-25T04:02:03Z |
| format | Thesis |
| id | oxford-uuid:9caec786-d4a3-45ae-a77b-88ea33dc55c5 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-09-25T04:02:03Z |
| publishDate | 2021 |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:9caec786-d4a3-45ae-a77b-88ea33dc55c52024-04-29T10:34:34ZHuman intellectual creations in european patent and copyright lawThesishttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_db06uuid:9caec786-d4a3-45ae-a77b-88ea33dc55c5Intellectual propertyEnglishHyrax Deposit2021Janečková, EPila, J<p>This thesis responds to the emergence of AI-driven systems capable of producing expressive and technical subject matter. If realised, such a subject matter is often indistinguishable from works and inventions—human intellectual creations.</p> <p>Historically, copyright and patents have been reserved for human intellectual creations, ie subject matter directly and immediately created by human beings. This thesis argues that this should remain so. Preserving this restriction requires clarification of the nature of authorship and inventorship. Hence, this thesis fleshes out human authorship and human inventorship in terms of quality, quantity, specificity, and their involvement in a circumscribed process of creation.</p> <p>The main contribution of this thesis lies in exposing the shortcomings in the European authorities’ adjudication and examination practices, namely that the human origin of intellectual creations is traditionally inferred from their expressive form or technical character. Given the advancements in AI, such inferences are no longer legitimate. This is significant because if the authorities are unable to distinguish human intellectual creations from other subject matter (albeit expressive or technical), they run a risk of granting protection where none is lawfully permitted or justified.</p> <p>To mitigate this risk and address the shortcomings, this thesis recommends interpreting the statutory copyright subsistence and patentability criteria in the light of the implicit requirements for protection: human authorship and human inventorship. This thesis further proposes refinements of the conceptions of human authorship and human inventorship at the level of detail necessary to tackle the disruptive role of AI in the processes of creation. Finally, it recommends extending the disclosure duties of those who demand protection.</p> |
| spellingShingle | Intellectual property Janečková, E Human intellectual creations in european patent and copyright law |
| title | Human intellectual creations in european patent and copyright law |
| title_full | Human intellectual creations in european patent and copyright law |
| title_fullStr | Human intellectual creations in european patent and copyright law |
| title_full_unstemmed | Human intellectual creations in european patent and copyright law |
| title_short | Human intellectual creations in european patent and copyright law |
| title_sort | human intellectual creations in european patent and copyright law |
| topic | Intellectual property |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT janeckovae humanintellectualcreationsineuropeanpatentandcopyrightlaw |