نظام حقوق مالکیت ادبی و هنری در عصر هوش مصنوعی؛ ملاحظاتی برای سیاستگذاری در حکمرانی آتی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

دانشیار حقوق خصوصی و اسلامی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

چکیده

حقوق مالکیت ادبی و هنری بر اساس مؤلفه‌های انسانی طراحی‌شده و اثری قابل حمایت است که نشانی از شخصیت مؤلف را داشته و مؤلف نیز انسان باشد. با پیشرفت هوش مصنوعی این مسئله مطرح است که آیا اثر ناشی از هوش مصنوعی، اصیل خواهد بود؟ و مؤلف و مالک اثر چه شخصی است؟ از طرفی، هوش مصنوعی در مسیر خلق اثر از آثار دیگران استفاده می‌کند و این امر، موضوع نقض حق مؤلفان را جدی می‌کند. لذا پرسش آن است که آیا این استفاده می‌تواند نقض حق باشد و اگر نقض است کدامیک از حقوق تضییع شده است؟ مقاله حاضر با روش تحلیلی توصیفی نتیجه‌گیری می‌کند برای سیاستگذاری در این عرصه، توسعه استثنائات وارد بر حق مؤلف به‌ویژه استثنائی داده‌کاوی و پرداخت عوضی به مؤلفان، می‌تواند احتمال نقض حق را کاهش ‌دهد. افزون براینکه با پیشرفت قابلیت‌های هوش مصنوعی، آثار تولیدی می‌تواند اصیل و قابل حمایت بوده و فرض مؤلفان و مالکان غیرانسانی نیز در دستورکار سیاستگذاران قرار گیرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

مراجع

  1. AGREEMENT ON TRADE-RELATED ASPECTS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, Available at: https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf.
  2. Assemblée Nationale, PROPOSITION DE LOI, le 12 Septembre 2023, No. 1630, available at https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/16/textes/l16b1630_
  3. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Saron(1884). Available at: https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep111/usrep111053/usrep111053.pdf#:~:text=BURROW-GILES%20LITHOGRAPHIC%20COMPANY%20v.%20SA-RONY.%20IN%20ERROR%20TO,power%20of%20Congress%20to%20confer%20upon%20the%20author%2C.
  4. 1re civ. 1er juill. 1970: D. 1970, p. 734 & Cass. 1re civ. 13r nov. 1973: D. 1974.
  5. Case 1:22-cv-01564 Document 1 Filed 06/02/22, Stephen Thaler,
  6. The United States Copyright Office. Available at: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.243956/gov.uscourts.dcd.243956.1.0.pdf
  7. Carroll, Michael W(2019). Copyright and the Progress of Science: Why Text and Data Mining Is Lawful. UC Davis Law Review. 53.893-964. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3531231.
  8. Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC.
  9. Geiger, Christophe (2024). Elaborating a Human Rights-Friendly Copyright Framework for Generative AI. IIC-International Review Of Intellectual Property And competition Law. 55(7). 1129–1165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-024-01481-5.
  10. Habiba,Saeed, Shakeri,Zahra (2013). Three Steps, A test against the consumers of Artistic and Literary works. Legal Research Quarterly. 16(62).212-225. [Persian] 
  11. Habiba, Saeed, Shakeri, Zahra(2015). Public interests & Copyright, Tehran: University of Tehran Press. [Persian] 
  12. Fairfield, Joshua and Trautman, Lawrence J.(2021). Virtual Art and Non-fungible Tokens (April 11, 2021).60-70. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3814087.
  13. Fenwick, Mark and Jurcys, Paul(2023). Originality and the Future of Copyright in an Age of Generative AI . Computer Law & Security Review.Volume 51, November 2023. 1-38.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105892
  14. Frye, Brian L(2022). Are CryptoPunks Copyrightable? (February 8, 2022). Pepperdine Law Review. 105-139. Available at Available at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/plr/vol2021/iss1/4. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4029323 
  15. EU Artificial Intelligence Act, 2024 ( Date of entry into force: 2 August 2025). Available at: https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/53/.
  16. Gheisari Atrabi, Z., Shakeri, Z., & Yousefi Sadeghloo, A. (2024). A Look at DABUS Case: An Outlook toward the Future Patent System. Private Law, 21(1), 71-89. doi: 10.22059/jolt.2024.365991.1007232[Persian] 
  17. Graves, Franklin(2023) , DC Court Says No Copyright Registration for Works Created by Generative AI, https://ipwatchdog.com/2023/08/19/copyright-registration-works-created-by-generative-ai/id=165444/.
  18. Gurkaynak, Gonenc and Yılmaz, İlay and Yeşilaltay, Burak and Bengi, Berk (2018). Intellectual Property Law and Practice in the Blockchain Realm (August 1, 2018). Computer Law & Security Review, 34( 4), August 2018.847-862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2018.05.027 
  19. Naruto v. Slater, No. 16-15469 (9th Cir. 2018), Available at: https://www.wakeforestlawreview.com/2020/02/naruto-v-slater-one-small-step-for-a-monkey-one-giant-lawsuit-for-animal-kind/
  20. Open AI, Europe Terms of Use, 2024, Available at: https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-.
  21. Ueno, Tatsuhiro(2021). The Flexible Copyright Exception for ‘Non-Enjoyment’ Purposes Recent Amendment in Japan and Its Implication, GRUR International. 70 (2). February 2021. 145-152.https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikaa184 
  22. Senftleben, Matin. (2020). The Copyright/Trademark Interface – How the Expansion of Trademark
  23. Protection Is Stifling Cultural Creativity. Information Law Series. 44., Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International. 1-639
  24. Latifzadeh, M. (2024). Legal Consequences of Benefiting from the Creativity of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Creation of Literary and Artistic Works. Private Law, 21(1), 139-153. doi: 10.22059/jolt.2024.374825.1007290 [Persian]
  25. Lindberg, Van(2023). Recognizing AI-Assisted Art: The Copyright Office is Using the Wrong Legal Standard, Available at: https://ipwatchdog.com/2023/02/25/recognizing-ai-assisted-art-copyright-office-using-wrong-legal-standard/id=157072/.
  26. Picht, P.G., Thouvenin, F(2023). AI and IP: Theory to Policy and Back Again – Policy and Research Recommendations at the Intersection of Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property. IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and competition Law .54, 916–940. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-023-01344-5
  27. Rahmatian, A.(2024).European Originality in Copyright Law in the English Case of THJ Systems Ltd. v. Sheridan. IIC- International Review of Intellectual Property and competition Law. 55. 1166–1173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-024-01476-2
  28. Roholt,Tiger C(2022).Key Terms in Philosophy of Art.(Translated by Soltandoost, Sahand), Tehran:Qoqnoos. [Persian]
  29. Tresise, Annabel and Goldenfein, Jake and Hunter, Dan(2018). What Blockchain Can and Can't Do for Copyright (August 6, 2018). Australian Intellectual Property Journal.28(144), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3227381 .
  30. Savelyev, Alexander Ivanovitch(2017). Copyright in the Blockchain Era: Promises and Challenges (November 21, 2017). Higher School of Economics Research Paper No. WP BRP 77/LAW/2017,1-23. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3075246
  31. Senftleben, Martin(2024), AI Act and Author Remuneration - A Model for Other Regions? (February 24, 2024). 1-29.Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4740268or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4740268.
  32. Shakeri, Zahra (2021 ). Copyright Infringement in the light of Adaptation and Appropriation. Journal of Legal Studies, 13(4), 171-204. doi: 10.22099/jls.2021.38720.4109.[Persian]
  33. Lewitt ,Sol (1967). Paragraphs on Conceptual Art, the MIT press. Cambridge, Massachusetts . London. edited by alexander alberro and blake stimson. conceptual art: a critical anthology.12-18.Avalibe at: www.corner-college.com/udb/cproVozeFxParagraphs_on_Conceptual_Art._Sol_leWitt.pdf.
  34. Yang, S. Alex and Zhang, Angela Huyue)2024). Generative AI and Copyright: A Dynamic Perspective (February 4, 2024).1-36. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4716233or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4716233,pp.26-25.
  35. Zhang, Angela Huyue(2024), The Promise and Perils of China's Regulation of Artificial Intelligence (January 28, 2024). Columbia Journal of Transnational Law (forthcoming),
    Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4708676or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4708676.
سیاستگذاری عمومی
دوره 11، شماره 1
فروردین 1404
صفحه 41-55

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار