INTRODUCTION.
Artificial intelligence is the study of how to make computers do things which at the moment people do better[1].
AI, therefore, refers to the development of computer systems that can mimic human decision-making and perform tasks that generally require human intelligence. AI uses algorithms, which are sets of rules that a computer can execute.
Examples of AI include (robots, unmanned aerial vehicles (drones), and apps) in Uganda the artificial intelligence we have includes drones CCTV cameras, app temperature guns and sensors used to detect weapons. Data are input into the algorithm, which applies those instructions and produces an output. It is classified into three types which are
1. Narrow Artificial intelligence,
2 Artificial General Intelligence
3. Artificial Super Intelligence
Courtesy Photo
Narrow Artificial intelligence
Narrow artificial intelligence that is also known as weak artificial intelligence is an application of artificia lintelligence technologies to enable a high-functioning system that replicates and perhaps surpasses human intelligence for a dedicated purpose. Some of these include Image and facial recognition systems like Facebook and Google to automatically identify people in photographs.
Chatbots and conversational assistants which include popular virtual assistants Google Assistant Siri and Alexa which are normally used for quick research and
Self-driving vehicles include autonomous cars, such as some Tesla models and autonomous drones, boats and factory robots[2].
2. Artificial General Intelligence
Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is a hypothetical form of artificial intelligence in which a machine can learn and think like a human AGI is considered to be strong artificial intelligence (AI), which contrasts with weak or narrow AI, which is the application of artificial intelligence to specific tasks or problems
3. Artificial Super Intelligence.
Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI) is a hypothetical form of artificial intelligence that is self-aware and intelligent enough to surpass the cognitive abilities of humans. ASI is considered to be a more advanced form of AI than Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), which is a theoretical form of AI that can learn and think like a human
Courtesy Photo
1.2 Background
While the philosophy of Artificial Intelligence has been argued since at least Leibnitz in the early 18th Century, the concept of AI as we use it has existed since the early 1940s and made famous with the development of the “Turing test” in 1950. More recently, we are experiencing a period of rapid development in the field of AI as a result of three factors: improved algorithms, increased networked computing power, and increased ability to capture and store an unprecedented amount of data. As well as technological advancements, the very way of thinking about intelligent machines has shifted significantly since the 1960s, which has enabled many of the developments we are seeing today.
Real-life applications of AI technologies are already established in our everyday lives, although many people are not conscious of this. One of the characteristics of AI is that once the technology works, it stops being referred to as AI and transforms into mainstream computing. For example, being greeted by an automated voice on the other end of the phone, or being suggested a movie based on your preferences, are examples of mainstream AI technology.
Now that these systems are an established element in our lives, the fact that AI technologies– including speech recognition, natural language processing and predictive analytics – are at work is often forgotten.
The ways that artificial intelligence can enrich our lives are immense. Increased efficiency and lower costs, huge improvements in healthcare and research, increased safety of vehicles, and general convenience, are just some of the promises of artificial intelligence. But, as with any new technology, the opportunities of artificial intelligence come with an array of challenges for society and the law to which some are associated with copyright and to what extent can one rely on AI-generated authored works.
Among the challenges posed by the use of Artificial Intelligence is that it is at times inaccurate and well is prone to mistakes.
This was highlighted in the US case of Robert Mata v AVANICA[3] & the state of New York where a lawyer was sanctioned for submitting a brief created with Chat GPT AI and it contained many made-up cases
However, the issue of whether AI-authored works can acquire copyright was settled in the US case of StephenThaler v Shira Perlmutter[4] where copyright Judge Beryl A Howel of the US district court for the District of Colombia agreed with the US copy right office’s decision to deny copyright registration to the computer scientist Stephen Thaller who argued a two-dimensional artwork created by his AI program “Creativity Machine” should be eligible for protection it was conclusively stated that artwork created by AI isn’t eligible for copyright protection because it lacks human authorship.
To assess this we need to first understand what copyright law is and this can be established from the case of University of London Press Ltd v University Tutorial Press Ltd[5], which established the roots of copyright law and its main objective, Lord Justice Peterson summarily stated this when he stated that Copyright law is a law that seeks to protect the expression of thought not ideas themselves
The Blacks law dictionary[6] defines copyright to mean a right granted by statute to an author for works that are originally created by the author. Section 2 of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006, means a physical person who created or creates work that is protected under this law furthermore an author can also amount to a person who employs a person to create work or an idea. In regards to Copyright Protection under the Ugandan law regard must be placed towards Section 4(1) of the Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 2006, the author of any work shall have a right of protection of work where the work is “original” and is reduced to material form. This principle was highlighted
Similarly, in the case of Ladbroke (Football) Ltd. V. William Hill (Football) Ltd (1964)/W.L.R 273 at P.277[7].
The court observed, that “copyright Acts are concerned with the originality of ideas and with the expression of thought in print or writing”
In Angella Katatumba v. Anti Corruption Coalition of Uganda[8], it was held that copyright law seeks to protect an author's moral right to the originality of works and claim of authorship.
S.10 of The Copy Rights Neighboring Act (CRNA) 2006 provides that
“The author of any work protected by copyright law shall have a moral right to claim authorship of that work except where it is included in current events by media /or other means to have the author’s name mentioned or acknowledged each time the work is used and to object and seek relief if there is any distortion, mutilation, alteration or modification of the work.
The author can withdraw the work from circulation if it no longer reflects his conviction or intellectual concept and indemnifies any authorized user affected by the withdrawal
The Nexus of AI vis a vis Originality.
As the law is still developing as to whether AI works would amount to Original concepts.
we look back at what amounts to Originality which aims at giving an author the exclusive right of exploitation.
The originality in Copyright Law is more concerned with the manner in which the work was created and the work need not be unique or meritorious. The true test is that the work must have originated from the author as argued in the case of Ladbroke (Football) Ltd V William Hill (Football) Ltd [1964]1 WLR 273 at 291 the Court held as follows;
The word original only requires that the work should not be copied but should originate from the author. This definition allows for a wider scope of original works. For as long as the author laboured to create the work as embodied in the ‘Sweat of the brow doctrine’ but not only that, such an author involved a sufficient amount of skill, labour and judgment (SSLJ) in the creation of the work, then his work can be said to be original.
Only original work is protected.
There is no requirement for novelty and non-obviousness as with patents, but the work must have originated from the author. The work must involve a sufficient amount of skill, labour and judgment (SSLJ).
Unlike the novelty requirement under patent law, the concept of originality in copyright law I modest. Focus is on something one produces as an author. Sweat of the brow alone is not enough.
There has to be a creative spark.
As argued in the case of Feist Publications Inc. rural Telephone Services co, court held, among other things,
“Original, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was indecently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity….. the vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some spark of creativity: there has to be some contribution by the author.
The challenge for copyright law is to reward originality and creativity, but not at the expense of protecting purely factual material and inhibiting the development of further technological inventions, However, the coming of AI into the innovative sphere seems to undermine the concept of Originality.
Section 4 of the Copyright and Neighboring Act 2006 provides that;
“work shall not be eligible for protection unless it’s original and reduced t material form”.
The work is original if it is the product of the independent effort of the author. (See lecture Notes by Mrs. J. Nanvuma Kaddu
Where she states that this requirement is to give an author an exclusive right to exploit his work. Work for protection must have originated from the author and does not require originality per se or inventive thought but should be a work that involves a sufficient amount of effort, Judgment and skill. Work need only to be shown to have originated from the author it does not require original or inventive thought but only that the work should not be copied and that the author should have expanded a sufficient amount of labour, Judgment, skill and effort.
The originality that is required for copyright purposes relates to the expression and not the idea embodied therein. It must involve some creativity. Dicks vs Brookes;
“the court held that ………….so long as someone has invested sufficient skill and labor to give the resultant work a new character is termed original”.
b) Material form/ Fixation.
S.4 (1) of the Copyright and Neighboring Act 2006 states that
the author of any work specified in section 5 shall have a right of protection of the work, where work is original and is reduced to material form in whatever method irrespective of quality of the work or the purpose for which it is created.
Copyright only accrues where the work is original and is reduced to material form in any method and it doesn’t matter whether the work is of poor quality or for whatever purpose. However, this is not meant to subject the author to formalities in order to afford protection but aims at aiding the process of ascertaining works.
S.4 (2) states that the protection of the author’s work shall not be subject to any formal. According to 4(3), a work is original if it is the product of the independent efforts of the author.
Conclusion
Therefore, it can conclusively be stated that works created by Artificial Intelligence cannot be registered as copyright as it lacks the aspects of originality that are necessary to warrant copyright protection which also entails human authorship.
Publication by Byaruhanga Joshua Morris
A Final year student at Uganda Christian University
Email- joshmorris728@gmail.com
Linkedn- Byaruhanga Joshua Morris
Twitter - @ JoshuaMorris728
BOOKS / DICTIONARY
1. Elaine Rich and Kevin Knight, “Artificial Intelligence” 2nd edition
2.The Blacks law Dictionary 2nd Edition
LIST OF CASES
1.Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 1:22-cv-01461, (S.D.N.Y.)
2.Stephen Thaler v Shira Perlmutter Civil Action No. 22-1564 (BAH)
3.University of London Press Ltd v University Tutorial Press Ltd [1916]2Cn 601
4.Ladbroke (football) ltd. V. William Hill (football) ltd (1964)/W.L.R 273 at P.277.
5.Angella Katatumba v. Anti Corruption Coalition of Uganda High court Commercial Division
Websites
[1] Elaine Rich and Kevin Knight, “Artificial Intelligence” 2nd edition [2] https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/definition/narrow-AI-weak-AI [3] Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 1:22-cv-01461, (S.D.N.Y.) [4][4] Stephen Thaler v Shira Perlmutter Civil Action No. 22-1564 (BAH) [5] University of London Press Ltd v University Tutorial Press Ltd [1916]2Cn 601 [6] The Blacks law Dictionary 2nd Edition [7] Ladbroke (football) ltd. V. William Hill (football) ltd (1964)/W.L.R 273 at P.277. [8][8] Angella Katatumba v. Anti Corruption Coalition of Uganda High court Commercial Division
.jpg)
Comments