23 Amendments of Andrzej HALICKI related to 2020/2015(INI)
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 3
Citation 3
— having regard to the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Copyright Treaty, the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Performances and Phonograms Treaty and the draft Issues Paper on intellectual property policy and artificial intelligence Policies (WIPO/IP/AI/2/GE/20/1) of 13 December 2019,
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the aim of making the European Union the world leader in AI technologies must include efforts to safeguard the Union’s digital and industrial sovereignty, ensure the EU’s competitiveness as well as promote and protect innovation;
Amendment 23 #
G. whereas the EU is the appropriate level at which to regulate AI technologies in order to avoid fragmentation of the single market; whereas thea fully harmonised EU regulatory framework in the field of AI will have the potential to become a legislative benchmark at international level; whereas new common rules for AI- systems should only take the form of Regulations to establish equal standards across the Union;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas AI technologies ar, according to the Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office, AI technologies are based on computational models and algorithms, which are per se regarded as mathematical methods within the meaning of the European Patent Convention;
Amendment 31 #
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 copyright; whereas, under the current rules, the ideas, methods and principles which underlie any element of a computer program, are not protected, but only the expression of the computer program; whereas, considering the limited scope of copyright protection for computer programs, consideration should also be given to the protection granted to AI technologies under patent law and the Trade Secrets Directive;
Amendment 34 #
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, although pure mathematical methods and computer programs are not patentable as such, they can be patentable under Article 52(3) of the European Patent Convention when used as part of an AI system that contributes to producing a ‘further technical effect’;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)
Recital J a (new)
Ja. whereas an increasing number of AI-related patents is being granted;
Amendment 40 #
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 industrial or artistic creations; whereas it is sometimes difficuln this regard it is important to distinguish between assisted creation and AI-generated creations that are done with help of AI tools, and creations that are autonomously generated by AI;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas AI technologies are heavily dependent on data, often extracted from pre-existing content, a blanket term for information falling into a range of categories that requires protection and tailored governance; whereas increased access to certain data and databases in the European Union will play a crucial role in advancing the development of European AI and supporting the competitiveness of European companies on global markets;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes 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 key importance of these rights and the role played by innovation and creativity in the EU economy;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Stresses the importance of the creation of an operational and fully harmonised regulatory framework in the area of AI technologies; suggests that such a framework takes the form of a Regulation rather than a Directive in order to avoid fragmentation of the European Digital Single Market and promote innovation;
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Calls for an assessment to be conducted regarding the protection of IPRs in the context of the development of AI technologies in order to evaluate whether adjustments are needed and ensure that the current legal framework is adequate to promote investment, create opportunities for European companies and start-ups and foster the development and uptake of AI in Europe;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses the key importance of protecting IPRs in relation to AI technologies, in order to ensure high level of protection of IPRs, to create the legal certainty and to build the trust needed to encourage investment in these technologies; considers that the EU can, due to little regulation at national level, the EU has the potential to be athe 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 78 #
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, autonomy of AI, the importance of the role of the dataand origin of the data, or in case of copyright, the protected works and subject matter used, and the possible involvement of other factors, such as sectoral economic equilibria;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Suggests that assessment should 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 oughtneed to be strengthened in order toadapted in order to address market failure or abuses in the digital economy and create a more comprehensive legal framework for the economic sectors in which AI plays a part, thus enabling European companies to scale up;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Points out that innovations in AI are patentable if the criteria relating to technical inventions are met; notes that only mathematical methods as such are excluded from patentability unlessand that if they constitute inventions of a technical nature, which are thenthey are 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 in fact 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;
Amendment 93 #
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 controversial exception to the trade secrets rule that may pose IPR-related problems in the context of the development of AI technologies;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Points out that there is a need to distinguish between the AI assisted creations and AI-generated creations, as only the latter ones create new regulatory challenges in terms of IPR protection, in particular for copyright and patent law; stresses in this regard the importance of addressing the issue of ownership and inventorship;
Amendment 104 #
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 AI, in order to encourage this form of creation; considers that certain works or other protected subject-matter generated by AI can be regarded as equivalent to intellectual works or inventions and could therefore be protected by copyright or patents; recommends that ownership of rights should only be assigned to the person who, legal entity or company who/that prepares and publishes a work lawfully, provided that the technology designer has not expressly reserved the right to use the work in that way;
Amendment 115 #
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 in relation to the granting of IPRs and the determination of liability for infringements of IPRs; stresses the importance for the registration procedures using AI to always be reviewed by individuals able to judge situations on a case-by-case basis in order to ensure the quality and fairness of decisions;
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Stresses the importance to use artificial intelligence in assisting brand owners and practitioners, but also public authorities, in the enforcement of their intellectual property rights (IPRs) in the online environment; notes that any use of AI with regards the enforcement of IPRs shall nonetheless include a human intervention when legal consequences are involved;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Notes, with regard to the use of dataworks by AI, that the use of copyrighted data needs to be assessed in the light of the need to ensure high level of protection of copyright and 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 of data which may be subject to copyright and that no new exceptions should be created in this regard; notes that the copyright-protected works used as input to train AI process/software do not require any new policy consideration and should remain under the current copyright framework, which is fit for purpose; considers that voluntary data sharing between businesses and sectors based on fair contractual arrangements should be promoted and that, in this context, use of data subsisting in copyright works should be managed through licensing agreements; notes the legal problems arising from the creation of deep fakes on the basis of misleading, manipulated, low quality and/or unauthorised use of copyright-protected data; stresses that concerns regarding this technology need to be addressed in terms of IPR, credibility, fraud, and privacy aspects;
Amendment 128 #
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 that the European Data Strategy must ensure the balance between the promotion of the flow and wider use and sharing of data and the protection of the IPR, privacy and trade secrets; highlights the need to assess in that connection whether EU rules on intellectual property are capable of protecting the data needed for 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;