Activities of Hannes HEIDE related to 2020/2015(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on intellectual property rights for the development of artificial intelligence technologies
Amendments (6)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that artificial intelligence (AI) should serve humanity and that its benefits should be widely shared; stresses that, in the long-term, AI may surpass human intellectual capacity; stresses the need therefore to establish safeguards such as, without anyone being left behind; recognises that, in the creative sector, creators already make extensive use of new AI technologies as tools in support of their artistic endeavours to produce their works; stresses that AI is an ever- increasing collection of technologies which are being developed at high speed. These technologies are constantly developing the ability to take on more tasks typically performed by humans. Safeguards such as human-centred design must therefore be established, which facilitate human control and verification of AI decision-making;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that the EU should play an essential role in laying down basic principles on the development, deployment, programming and use of AI, notably in its regulations and codes of conduct; stresses the need for an ethical legal framework and a strategy for digital data, in which fundamental rights and European values must be enshrined;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that AI cannot only perform activities which used to be exclusivelObserves that, in future, AI will acquire the capacity to take over more tasks that are typically carried out by human, but that it can alsoeings, by acquireing and developing autonomous and cognitive features, through experience learning; stresses that, although AI systems are always developed, deployed and used by people, they can autonomously create and generate cultural and creative works, with only minimum human input; notes, moreover, that AI systems can evolve in an unpredictable way, by creating original works unknown to their initial programmers;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises the need to address copyright issues relating to AI-generated cultural and creative works; underlines, in that context, the need to assess whether the notion of the human creator asreation by human beings as authors and producers of works must form the basis ofor the intellectual property rights (IPR) system is still adequate for AI- generated works; considers that 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; notes, furthermore, that the question of the extent to which a work created by AI can be traced back to a human creator is of key importance; draws attention to the need to assess whether the concept of ‘art’ applies to works produced by AI; considers that 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, as human intervention in a work produced with the aid of AI must be recognised as authorship; observes that it needs to be debated whether there is such a thing as 'original creation' which does not entail any human intervention, and it is necessary to take such creations into account in the rules governing intellectual property;
Amendment 45 #
5. Expresses concern about the vacuum left between IPR and the development of AI, which could make cultural and creative industriessector 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; stresses that uniform copyright provisions with reference to AI are needed in the EU;
Amendment 61 #
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 that issues of patent law must also be taken into account in this context;