Activities of Patrick BREYER related to 2020/2015(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on intellectual property rights for the development of artificial intelligence technologies
Amendments (28)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 18 a (new)
Citation 18 a (new)
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas AI technologies are regarded as mathematical methods within the meaning of the European Patent Convention, and are therefore not subject to patent protection;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas AI technologies are based on the creation and execution of computer programs which, as such, are protected by copyrightsubject to a specific copyright protection regime;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas AI technologies, as computer programs, cannot be patented, except under Article 52(3) of the European Patent Convention;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)
Recital J a (new)
Ja. whereas the self-learning abilities of AI technologies always involve a certain level of human intervention;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas the development of AI is raising questions about the protection of innovation itself and the application of IPRs to data generated by AI technologies, which can be of industrial or artistic creationsnature; whereas it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between AI-assisted human creation and AI-generated creationontent;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas AI technologies are heavily dependent on data, a blanket term for information falling into a range of categories that requires protection and tailored governance; whereas increased, transparent and open access to certain non-personal data and databases in the European Union will play a crucial role in advancing the development of European AI;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomesTakes note of the Commission White Paper on ‘Artificial Intelligence - A European approach to excellence and trust’ and the European Data Strategy; stresses that the approaches outlined therein are likely to contribute to the deployment of the potential of human-centered AI in the EU; notes, however, that the issue of the protection of IPRs in the context of the development of AI technologies doehas not seem to have been addressed by the Commission, despite the importance of these rights and the role played by innovation and creativity in the EU economy;
Amendment 61 #
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 and their impact on the latter policy areas; highlights that in order to unlock the potential of AI technologies, removing unnecessary legal barriers to their development and to their use is necessary;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses the importance of a balanced IPR protectiong IPRs in relation to AI technologies, in order to create the legal certainty and build the trust needed to encourage investment in these technologies, but also the use of these technologies by consumers; considers that the EU can be a frontrunner in the creation of AI technologies if it adopts an operational regulatory framework that is regularly assessed in the light of technological developments and implements proactive public policies, particularly as regards training programmes and financial support for research;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Considers also that the Union must address the various aspects of AI by means of a definitions that isare technologically neutral and sufficiently flexible to encompass future technological developments, as well as subsequent uses;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Stresses that implementing and enforcing the proposed new framework on trustworthy and ethical AI requires access to code and data by competent authorities and, in case of certain high-risk technologies such as applications used by government authorities on citizens, by the public; considers that IPR shall not obstruct such access;
Amendment 79 #
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 and social equilibria;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Suggests that 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; emphasises, further, the need to assess whether contract law and competition rules ought to be strengthenupdated in order to create a more comprehensive legal framework for the economic sectors in which AI plays a part, along with other stakeholders, including citizens and consumers;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Reminds that according to the first evaluation of Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases1a, the introduction of a new “sui generis right” has led to a decrease in the production of European produced databases; therefore encourages the Commission to repeal Directive 96/9/EC; _________________ 1aCommission evaluation of 12 December 2005 (https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/docu ment.cfm?doc_id=57136).
Amendment 89 #
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 only if the criteria relating to inventions are met;
Amendment 92 #
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-relacopyright protection on computedr problems in the context of the development of AI technologiesgrammes and to the protection of trade secrets that are of core importance for innovation and for research;
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Notes that the autonomisation ofin the creative processprocess of generating content of artistic nature can raises issues relating to the ownership of IPRs on such content; considers, in this connection, that it would not be appropriate to seek to impart legal personality to AI technologies;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Takes the view that consideration must be given to protecting technical and artRecalls that in the Continental European understanding of authorship, the concept of 'intellectual creation' is tic creations generated by AI, in order to encourage 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 persed to the author's personality, meant to apply to natural persons, and therefore artificial agents such as robots and artificial intelligence shall not be considered as authors, and information produced by them shall not be eligible to copyright protection; considers that the authors’ fragile position and often low remuneration wsho prepares and publishes a work lawfully, provided that the technology designer has not expressly reserved the right to use the work in that wayuld not be further accentuated by new categories of copyrightable works generated by Artificial Intelligence technologies which would compete with human artistic creation; rejects the concept of data ownership and stresses the need for enhancing access to and use of non- personal data;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Stresses that in the data economy context, better copyright data management is achievable, for the purpose of better remunerating authors and performer, notably in enabling the swift identification of the authorship and right ownership of content, thus contributing to lowering the number of orphan works; further highlights that AI technological solutions should be used to improve copyright data infrastructure and the interconnection of metadata in works, but also to facilitate the transparency obligation provided in Article 19 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market for up to date, relevant and comprehensive information on the exploitation of authors’ and performers’ works and performances, particularly in the presence of a plurality of rightholders and of complex licensing schemes;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Notes, with regard to the use of data by AI, that the use of copyrighted data 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 , and in the light of all uses covered by limitations and exceptions the basis of data which may be subject to copyrighto IPR protection;
Amendment 132 #
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 datathe accessibility of non-personal data in the EU; stresses the need to assess in that connection whether EU rules on intellectual property are capable of protecting the data needed forensure that EU rules on intellectual property do not hinder data accessibility, and thus the development of AI; 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 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Points out that the most efficient way of reducing bias in AI systems is by ensuring that the maximum of non- personal data is available to train them, for which it is necessary to limit any unnecessary barrier to text-and-data mining, and to facilitate cross-border uses; notes in addition that public domain or freely licensed data are often used by AI and machine learning developers when selecting training data, both for ease of access and to avoid potential infringement liability exposure, which creates a particular form of selection bias in training data, which can often lead to other forms of more harmful bias in results, such a situation calling for increased flexibility for the use of IPR protected data in order to make AI and machine learning less biased, more in line with ethical standards, with the ultimate goal of better serving humanity.
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 b (new)
Paragraph 14 b (new)
14b. Emphasises the need to address remaining uncertainties related to the legal performance of text and data mining that developers of AI may still face following the adoption of Directive (EU) 2019/790; calls on the Commission to issue guidance on how reserving the rights other than by machine readable means shall be made publicly available for all in a centralised way.
Amendment 138 #
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 use of non- personal data, 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; looks forward to the results of the public consultation procedure launched by the Commission on the European Data Strategy;
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Stresses the need for the Commission to continue to aim at the highest level ofaim at a balanced and innovation-driven protection of intellectual property, for the benefit of European AI developers and theowards a maximum legal certainty for users, notably 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); emphasizes that the ongoing WIPO negotiations on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives and limitations and exceptions for education should first be unblocked;