Remove 2017 Remove Artistic Work Remove Copyright Law Remove Ownership
article thumbnail

Conundrum Involving The Ownership Of The Work Created By Ai

IP and Legal Filings

Introduction Any literally or artistic work that is original and creative i.e.; not copied from anywhere by the owner is protected under Copyright Act, 1957. Thus, most would agree that AI-created work does not have the component of originality. Issues There are many issues in granting ownership to AI.

article thumbnail

AI Generated Art and its conflict with IPR

IIPRD

This article delves into the ongoing debate around the issue of right of ownership of copyright by AI generators for their novel artwork. This is a major point of contention in the realm IP laws today whether or not AI can be given the said rights and protections under law.

Art 52
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Interaction Between Ai And Copyright : Who Has The Copyright In Ai?

IP and Legal Filings

In this article I will look into two main questions, firstly, who owns/ who should own the copyright in AI (ii) whether AI satisfies the criteria of human element in AI. Works covered by copyright range from books, music, paintings, sculpture and films, to computer programs, databases, advertisements, maps and technical drawings.

article thumbnail

The Choice Of Law Debate In Copyright Infringement

IP and Legal Filings

Since copyright is “universal”, some argue that the lex originis should be utilised to determine who owns works that have been plagiarised. Since copyright in whatever form (even first ownership) is subject to the territoriality principle, many argue that lex loci protectionis is the appropriate course of action. [10]

article thumbnail

Artificial intelligence and intellectual property rights: the USPTO DABUS decision

Barry Sookman

2017) (quoting Torah Soft Ltd. Nonetheless, the selection of the contents by the creating group met the requirement of creation under the copyright law. EnCana Corporation , 2016 ABQB 230, affirmed 2017 ABCA 125. This case involved whether copyright could subsist in seismic data. Unigate Enter., Drosnin, 136 F.