Can an Artificial Intelligence having created an original work of art or an invention obtain its intellectual property in its name? No, ruled the United States Federal Court of Appeals. Explanations.
You may also be interested
[EN VIDÉO] A graphene scanner reveals the hidden side of works of art Some works of art, such as paintings for example, are often made up of several layers of paint, or even preparatory drawings. During this episode of Futuris, Euronews presents a new scanner capable of revealing the secrets of these objects.
Can an AI hold the patent, or at least the intellectual property, of one of his creations? Faced with this original question, the United States Federal Court of Appeals ruled, and it’s no! But, above all, why this request? Three years ago, in 2019, in the United States, the computer scientist Stephan Thaler created an AI dedicated to the arts which was called “Creativity Machine”.
The AI has designed several works of art around the near-death experience (IME). For the creator of the AI, one of these works deserved to obtain an act of intellectual property. This is how Stephan Thaler tried to patent it with US Patent Office (USPTO). From the outset, the legislation stood in the way, since copyright is supposed to protect a creation emanating from a human being, which is not the case for a Artificial intelligence as talented as she is. The computer specialist appealed this decision considering that it is unconstitutional. He then tried his luck with other jurisdictions, and even the Supreme Court, to finally obtain the same negative response.
AI is not a physical person
During the hearings of the federal court of the court of appeal, however, the judge questioned, emphasizing that such a case should require a more thorough investigation into the status of an AI and its inventions. However, he was content to strictly apply the patent law which indicates that a holder is necessarily an individual and that an individual remains a person. physical.
Stephan Thaler also created another AI called Dabu, which would have created a shape-shifting food container, as well as a flashlight. He also sought to patent these inventions in South Africa and Australia and it worked, at least initially. Australia has indeed invalidated this patent quite quickly.
In other countries, such as the United Kingdom or with the Office ofEuropean Union, the request was not granted. Still, with ever more efficient AIs, it will become increasingly difficult to differentiate between a creation generated by a human or an AI. The question of intellectual property will certainly remain in suspense in the coming years.
Interested in what you just read?