17 Amendments of Tiemo WÖLKEN related to 2020/2015(INI)
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas AI technologies are heavily dependent on pre-existing content and data, a blanket term for information falling into a range of categories that is suitable for communication, interpretation or processing and requires protection and tailored governance, namely in terms of data management; whereas increased access to certain content, data, metadata and databases in the European Union will play a crucial role in advancing the development of European AI;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that the development and deployment of AI technologies and the growth of the global data economy make it necessary to address significant technical, social, economic, ethical and legal issues in a variety of policy areas, including IPRs; underlines that policy choices in this context should be flexible so as to not hamper the growth or innovation of the Union’s still developing data economy;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Affirms, at the same time, the importance of data sharing and access to data as well as open standards and open source technology while calling for an approach to IPRs that encourages investment and boosts innovation;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recommends that priority be given to assessment by sector and type of IPR implications of AI technologies; considers that such an approach should take into account the degree of human intervention, the importance of the role of the data used and the possible involvement of other factors, such as sectoral economic equilibria; reminds that any approach must strike the right balance between the need to protect investment of both resources and effort and the need to incentivise creation and sharing;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Suggests that this assessment focus on the impact and implications of AI technology under the current system of patent law, trade mark and design protection, copyright and related rights, including the applicability of the legal protection of databases and computer programs, and the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (‘trade secrets’) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure; acknowledges the potential of AI technologies for improving the enforcement of IPRs, notwithstanding the need for human verification and review especially where legal consequences are concerned; emphasises, further, the need to assess whether contract law and competition rules ought to be strengthenedconsidered as a complement in order to create a more comprehensive legal framework for the economic sectors in which AI plays a part;
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Points out that mathematical methods are excluded from patentability unless they constitute inventions of a technical nature, which are then patentable if the applicable criteria relating to inventions are met; points out, further, that if a claim relates either to a method involving technical means or to a device, its purpose, considered as a whole, is technical in nature and it is therefore not excluded from patentability; consequently, notes that innovations in AI are patentable if the criteria relating to inventions are met; underlines, in this regard, the role of patent protection in incentivising new inventions and promoting their dissemination;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Notes that patent protection can be granted provided that the invention is new and not self-evident and involves an inventive step; notes, further, that patent law requires a comprehensive description of the underlying technology, which may pose challenges for certain AI technologies in view of the complexity of the reasoning; stresses also that reverse engineering is an exception to the trade secrets rule that may pose IPR-related problems in the context of the development of AI technologiesthe benefits as well as legal challenges of reverse engineering should be taken into account in the context of the development of AI technologies; notes, lastly, that the threshold of patentability for AI inventions could be lowered regarding socially beneficial areas, such as healthcare the environment, criminal justice, culture and education;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes that the autonomisation of the creative process raises issues relating to the ownership of IPRs; considers, in this connection, that it would not be appropriate to seek to impart legal personality to AI technologies and points out the negative impact of such possibility on the incentives for human creators;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Takes the view that consideration must be given to protecting technical and artistic creations generated by AIwith the assistance of AI technology, in order to encourage investment in this form of creation; considers that certain works generated by AI can be regarded as equivalent to intellectual works and could therefore be protected by copyright; recommends that ownership of rights be assigned to the person who prepares and publishes a work lawfully, provided that the technology designer has not expressly reserved the right to use the work in that way; and improve legal certainty for creators, businesses and citizens; considers that certain works or other protected subject-matter generated with the assistance of AI technology can be regarded as equivalent to intellectual works and could therefore be protected by copyright, in line with the notion rooted in European law that originality is directly linked to natural persons or human attributes; recommends that ownership of rights be assigned to the person who prepares and publishes a work lawfully, provided that the technology designer has not expressly reserved the right to use the work in that way; calls on the Commission to set clear and strict requirements when it comes to assigning ownership of rights to the technology designer instead of the person who prepares and publishes a work lawfully; defends that this approach would also prevent that any copyright protection afforded to certain works generated with the assistance of AI technology could result in a monopoly of a handful of businesses;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Advises caution as regards the protection of creations generated autonomously and entirely by AI technology, as this could undermine the principle of originality and stand indirect competition with the intellectual output of human authors and creators;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Looks forward to a review of the current policy on trade marks and designs, as these can be generated autonomously by AI applications; calls on the Commission to clarify the legal status of in terms of IP rights of trade marks generated by AI applications;
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Notes that AI makes it possible to process a large quantity of data relating to the state of the art or the existence of IPRs; notes, at the same time, that the use of AI technology cannot be a substitute for human verification and review, on a case- by-case basis and taking into account all relevant circumstances, in relation to the granting of IPRs and the determination of liability for infringements of IPRs, in order to ensure the quality and fairness of decisions;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Notes, with regard to the use of data by AI, that the use of copyrighted works and other subject-matter and associated data, datasets and metadata needs to be assessed in the light of the text and data mining exceptions provided for by the Directive on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market; highlights the IPR issues arising from the creation of deep fakes on the basis ofadds that, despite the exceptions it provides for, the Directive does not fully clarify the protection of data under copyright law; highlights the IPR issues arising from the creation of deep fakes on the basis of misleading, manipulated or simply low quality data, irrespective of such deep fakes being data which may be subject to copyright;
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Stresses the importance of full implementation of the Digital Single Market Strategy in order to improve data accessibility in the EU; stresses the need to assess in that connection whether EU rules on intellectual property are capable ofan adequate tool to protecting the data needed for the development of AI and welcomes the Commission’s efforts in this regard; considers that comprehensive information should be provided on the use of data protected by IPRs, in particular in the context of platform-to-business relationships;
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Notes that the Commission is considering the desirability of legislation on issues that have an impact on relationships between economic operators whose purpose is to make ethical use of data, including pre-existing content and high quality datasets, one element in which is the evaluation of the IPR framework, including a possible revision of the Database Directive and a possible clarification of the application of the directive on the protection of trade secrets as a generic framework; highlights the potential of existing copyright, trade secret or database protection regarding data, provided the necessary criteria is met and without prejudice to possible future legislative action improving legal certainty for creators, businesses and citizens alike; looks forward to the results of the public consultation procedure launched by the Commission on the European Data Strategy and proposes that the Union’s regulatory focus should be on facilitating access to data and data sharing;
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Stresses the need for the Commission to continue to aim at the highest level of protection of intellectual property for European AI developers and the maximum legal certainty for users in international negotiations, in particular as regards the ongoing discussions on AI and the data revolution under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO); encourages the Commission to engage in discussions on exemptions and limitations where useful; welcomes the Commission’s active engagement in this context, as exemplified by the submission of the Union’s views to the WIPO public consultation on the WIPO Draft Issues Paper on Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence on 13December 2019;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Affirms that intellectual property regimes applicable to artificial intelligence should not be used for, lead to or serve the purpose of limiting the transparency of AI-driven decision- making systems, undermining the control of AI-driven decision-making systems by supervisory bodies, circumventing possible requirements for open source technology in public tenders or preventing any efforts to ensure the interconnectivity of digital services;