Report on Artificial intelligence creativity under copyright section 9 (3) in the UK

Abstract of Artificial intelligence creativity under copyright section 9 (3) in the UK

The copyright protection is for the intellectual creations and section 9(3) of the UK protects the rights of artist interests, stimulation of creation of the artwork and prevent illegal exploitation. Generally, the copyright protection is granted only to human beings at the initial phases and still, it is accepted in many legal systems. section 9(3) ensure the prohibition on copying the work for the social benefits. The aim of the work is to conduct in-depth text-based research that is conducted for the legislation and copyright conditions for the artificial intelligence under section 9(3) of the UK. Previously, different works have been done for the sake of completeness and to illustrate the big picture of the legal conditions for the copyright conditions.

Introduction of Artificial intelligence creativity under copyright section 9 (3) in the UK

In April 2018, the court of the United States of appeals ruled about the monkey selfie copyright dispute and it was about non-human cannot have the copyright to their works. The ruling was settled with the controversy including the owner of the equipment, PETA claims and nobody ownership. According to Section 1(1), the copyright designs and the Patent Act 1988 (CDPA) was introduced to copyright issues for the original. The question here is if artificial intelligence (AI) cannot own the copyright or only humans can. In the subsequent conditions, UK copyright law is pretty clear for this that is unlike many jurisdictions (Asquith, 2018; Maggiore, 2020). The section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (CDPA) states that “In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken". The law states that the computer-generated work in circumstances has no human author of the work (section 178) (Bently, 2020; Guadamuz, 2017). The new legal framework provides copyright protection for the artwork that can be created by artificial intelligence. The aim of the present work is to analyze the copyright protection for intellectual work and how section 9(3) is in favour of the creator of AIs.     

Methodology of Artificial intelligence creativity under copyright section 9 (3) in the UK

The analysis and survey results are published in legal books, websites, journal articles, and by the official publication of legislative bodies. The cases are different from jurisprudences and can be examined by interpretation of rules and copyrights. The survey analysis is used to find how many legislative bodies are found the section 9(3) aligned with the basic rights. In this work, a questionnaire is distributed among 300 respondents. The questions in the questionnaire are about the essence of copyright protection and traditional components (Kumar & Lavery, 2019). For consideration, the rationale is between protection that can be examined under the collaboration on the traditional components. The research examines the copyright disputes that arise from the different working principles of the machine and how section 9(3) support the copyrights in the UK (Bond & Blair, 2019). The questionnaire consists of some invoking sub-research questions that are listed below,

1. What do you think about the essence of intellectual property rights? What are the possible components for the artwork that enable to qualify the protection of copyright?

2. What are the differences between creating artwork and artificial work that is done by the owner on the machines?

3. What traditional components of machines can protect the copyrights of the machines?

4. What software and devices can be used for the creation of the artwork and how the copyright can be applied to these works under section 9(3) the UK?

5. Do the present legislative frameworks of UK are protecting the copyright and evaluates the conformability of the artwork?

6. Do you think, if copyright protection allows protection of artwork under the intelligent machines artificially? 

Literature review of Artificial intelligence creativity under copyright section 9 (3) in the UK

Kapulluoglu et al. (2018) worked on the parallel conditions of present work, in their work they claimed that artificial intelligence machines are capable to generate the automated artwork. Hence the case law, literature, and legislation all are lacking copyright. The technology is often dependent on the sources and it is necessary to provide copyright protection under section 9(3) that comes to the traditional components and threshold of originality is necessary for the creative artificial intelligence (Kapulluoğlu, 2018).  

Hristov et al. (2017) analyzed the conditions that are applicable to the authorship to be awarded for the human owners and employers of the machine. The work considered disputable work conditions for the copyrights of physical makers. The research concluded that initial mental and spiritual essence is necessary for the protection of the work (Hristov, 2017). the type of artwork that is creative by using artificial intelligence cannot be accepted as employees because they do not possess human quality and machines cannot be considered as labourers. The property rights of the creator are for the owners of the machines as they used them for the creation of work. however, the researcher argued that the authorship could be awarded to the workers, owners, and employees of the machine instead of the machine itself (Hristov, 2017). 

Aleksander et al. (2011) considered the designs for the first neural pattern recognition system by using artificial intelligence. The research accomplished the goal of artificial imagination with the consideration of self-awareness, intuition, imagination, and inspiration. To have the copyright of the work under section 9(3) work must be a creative piece of art, high-quality function, and it is intractable problems (Aleksander, 2001). 

Haugeland et al. (2017) measured the differences between the deep learning from the machine learning and artificial system that work under the rational cognition used by GOFAI. The classical AI system is developed under the logical basis of cognition and deep learning systems operate in the area of cognitive intuition. The researcher concluded that different learning skills and systematics can answer to the traditional components of copyright machines. The biological learning behaviour can demonstrate the originality of skills by using skills therefore the right of ownership under section 9(3) is for the user of artificial intelligence (Haugeland, 2000). 

LeCun et al. (2015) research was dealing with the copyright conditions for the supervised learning that corresponds to the initial phase of machine learning and training phase. The goal of work was to detect how the machine produces the output categorically and the difference is considered between the input of the user with anticipated output. The use of the machine under the adjustable internal parameters reduces the error rate. Therefore, the copyright protection under section 9(3) must be for the machine and artificial intelligence used by the owner (LeCun, Bengio, & Hinton, 2015).  

Samuelson (2017) analyzed the machines who think independently and concluded that such machines can be considered as intelligent without interacting with the human party. The machines can tell the difference between the interaction process, testing process, and challenges of the idea under which the machine could be programmed. The machines that work independently can be attributed to intelligent machines. The argument is different for the intelligence about how the machines are different from human beings. On the other hand, the second argument was the common ground conditions of these two groups. The difference comes to the creations as well as copyright eligibility (Samuelson, 2017). 

Results and discussion of Artificial intelligence creativity under copyright section 9 (3) in the UK

The ultimate goal of the present work as to answer the question, how the copyright can be created for artificial intelligence and how it should be allocated. In other words, the main research question was answered by considering artificial intelligence computers. Based on the data collected from the survey, questionnaire and published literature the work analyzed the eligibility of creative artificial intelligence work for the copyrights under section 9(3) of UK. The diverse examples of artwork are considered to examine the copyright disputes that differ on the basis of different working principles. The analysis measure purpose and soul of the predecessor legislation. The research explains different technologies that are applied to intelligent creations, deep learning, and machine learning practices (Kapulluoğlu, 2018). The results of the present work finalize the significant and recent examples that are creating artificial intelligence in the working places. End of the results measures eligible creations of artificial intelligence for copyright protection. The legislation and copyrights conclude the developed argument about copyright protection. The questionnaire reports that to whom the majority is in favour of section 9(3) regarding artificial intelligence and copyrights. The conclusion concludes with arguments and possible solutions to the legal challenges in the creation of artificial intelligence. The questions are defined in the questionnaire and answers from the respondents are analyzed under the defined conditions. The response provides valuable insight about the copyright issues and how it can be resolved under the defined section 9(3) of United Kingdom. There are different components of the copyrights and detailed analysis extract solutions that are listed below, 

1. Copyright subject matters of Artificial intelligence creativity under copyright section 9 (3) in the UK

The results of the analysis show that work is under the title of "Protected works" if it is artistic and literary work. The work and interpretation do not constitute any obstacle then the machines qualify for the copyright protection (LeCun, Bengio, & Hinton, 2015).

2. Originality (sequence, choice, any combination)

The originality cannot be interpreted as the novelty and the requirements of creation are under the conditions of usefulness, novelty, value or quality, inventiveness, and aesthetic merit. The creative choices show the individuality of work with the personal, technical and functional choices. The creative work is eligible for the copyright protection (Bond & Blair, 2019).

3. Rightsholders and authorship 

The requirement of authorship must be under the legal persons that include companies and entities. It is capable to practice the rights under the physical creator and copyrights are for the evolution of new work. the rightsholders may be maker, employers, designers, and employers of the legal entity that publishes the work. Analyzing different components for the copyright protection the creative artwork can differ significantly from the technology. different types of work with the applicability of copyrights are considered. The analysis proceeds to explain learning technology, creativity, and qualification of artificially intelligent machines for the protection of copyrights (Haugeland, 2000).  

Conclusion of Artificial intelligence creativity under copyright section 9 (3) in the UK

Based on the research, copyright protection laws are developed under section 9(3) in the UK for creative artwork. There are two significant conclusions of the present work for intellectual creators. The first conclusion is that granting copyright to the creator of the artwork is to have intellectual and financial benefits to the work from the unauthorized use of work. the legal conditions prevent third parties from the unauthorized use of work. Similarly, it provides the right to create, right to respond, right to reproduce, right to derivate the work, public display, distribution of work, and right to perform digital audio transmission. The second condition is to stand for transferability of rights under the licenses and economical aspects are protected under section 9(3) of the UK.

References of Artificial intelligence creativity under copyright section 9 (3) in the UK

Aleksander I, 'How To Build A Mind: Towards Machines With Imagination' (2001) 01 Phoenix

Asquith A, 'Artificial Intelligence And Copyright Law: Who (Or What) Owns What? | Alston Asquith' (2018) <https://www.alstonasquith.com/artificial-intelligence-copyright-law> accessed 3 May 2020

Bently L, 'The UK’S Provisions On Computer‐Generated Works: A Solution For AI Creations?' (2020) <https://europeancopyrightsocietydotorg.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/lionel-the-uk-provisions-on-computer-generated-works.pdf> accessed 3 May 2020

Bond T, and Blair S, 'Artificial Intelligence & Copyright: Section 9(3) Or Authorship Without An Author' (2019) 14 Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice

Guadamuz A, 'Artificial Intelligence And Copyright' (2017) <https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2017/05/article_0003.html> accessed 3 May 2020

Hristov K, 'Artificial Intelligence And The Copyright Dilemma' (2017) 57 IDEA: The IP Law Review

Kapulluoğlu I, '“The Emerging Need To Allocate Copyright Ownership And Authorship Over Computer Generated Musical Compositions”' (2018) <http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=144801> accessed 3 May 2020

Kumar S, and Lavery N, 'Does AI Generated Work Give Rise To A Copyright Claim?' (2019) <https://www.natlawreview.com/article/does-ai-generated-work-give-rise-to-copyright-claim> accessed 3 May 2020

LeCun Y, Bengio Y, and Hinton G, 'Deep Learning' (2015) 521 Nature

Maggiore M, 'ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, COMPUTER GENERATED WORKS AND DISPERSED AUTHORSHIP: SPECTRES THAT ARE HAUNTING COPYRIGHT' (2020) <https://www.mmlex.it/magazine/artificial-intelligence-computer-generated-works-and-dispersed-authorship-spectres-are-haunting-copyright> accessed 3 May 2020

Samuelson P, 'Allocating Ownership Rights In Computer-Generated Works' (2017) 47 Pitt. L. Rev.