Activities of Dace MELBĀRDE related to 2020/2015(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on intellectual property rights for the development of artificial intelligence technologies
Amendments (6)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that artificial intelligence (AI) should serve humanityand technology, more broadly, should serve humanity, not the other way round, and that its benefits should be widely shared; stresses that, in the long-term, AI may in some areas even surpass human intellectual capacity; stresses the need therefore to establish adequate safeguards such as human control and verificationincluding, when reasonable, design systems with human-in-the-loop control and review processes of AI decision- making;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that the EU should play an essential role in laying down basic principles on the development, programming and use of AI, notably in its regulations and codes of conduct; is of the view, however, that such principles should not stifle the advancement of AI or impede competition;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that due to technological advances AI can not only perform some activities which used to be exclusively human, but that it can also acquire and develop autonomous and cognitive features, through experience learincreasingly mimic some cognitive human functions, notably learning, understanding and reasoning; stresses that AI systems can quasi-autonomously create and generate cultural and creative works, with only minimumal human input; notes, moreover, that AI systems can even evolve in an unpredictable way, by creating original works unknown to their initial programmers;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises the need to address copyright issues relating to AI-generatedproduction of cultural and creative workoutputs by autonomous creative robots or with the assistance of AI-generated technologies; underlines, in that context, the need to assess whether the notion of the human creator as the basis for the intellectual property rights (IPR) system is still adequate for AI-generated works; considers that thorough research is needed to understand whether automatically assigning the copyright of AI-generated works to the copyright holder of the AI software, algorithm or programme may not be the best way forward;is the best way forward; welcomes the Commission’s call for a study on copyright and new technologies;1a _________________ 1ahttps://ec.europa.eu/digital-single- market/en/news/call-tender-study- copyright-and-new-technologies- copyright-data-management-and-artificial
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. ECalls on the Commission to support a horizontal and technologically neutral approach to IPR applicable to AI- generated works; expresses concern about the potential vacuum left between IPR and the development of AI, which could make cultural and creative industries vulnerable to AI-generated copyright-protected works; calls on the Commission to support a horizontal and technologically neutral approach to IPR applicable to AI- generated works;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Emphasises the need to address the issue of liability for copyright infringements made by AI systems, as well as the issue of data ownership.; stresses, however, that a clear distinction has to be made between autonomous infringements and the copying of third party works that were facilitated or not prevented by the operator of the AI software;