2020/2015(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Draft opinion
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 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Stresses that before launching any new initiative on copyright, ongoing international negotiations should be unblocked at WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights focusing on limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives and limitations and exceptions for education;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
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; points out that the status of works protected by copyright and used by an artificial intelligence is already covered by Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright with the exceptions and limitations in force in Union legislation, and which should continue to apply in their present form, and to text and data mining in particular;

Amendment 12 #

Laurence FARRENG, Irena JOVEVA, Bernard GUETTA, Ilana CICUREL

Draft opinion
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 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 14 #

Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Marcos ROS SEMPERE, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses that the EU should play an essential role in laying down basic principles on the development, ~~programming~~deployment and use of AI, notably in its regulations and codes of conduct, in particular an ethical regulatory framework and a digital data strategy anchored in the respect of fundamental rights and European values;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
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;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Stresses the need for new legislation on legal liabilities, applicable to violations of copyright rules, accidents and damages generated by AI technologies, to be put in place in a harmonised manner across all EU Member States;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Highlights the need to ensure the human centric approach of AI development, as a means to observe public interest of its use, especially in areas of biomedical engineering, medicinal advancement and health;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that artificial intelligence (AI) ~~should serve humanity~~and 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 verification~~including, when reasonable, design systems with human-in-the-loop control and review processes of AI decision- making;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Calls for an AI education strategy at EU level in order to transform and update our educational systems, prepare our educational institutions at all levels and equip teachers and pupils with skills and abilities; stresses that educational classes on AI intellectual property rights should be promoted;

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2c. Underlines the importance of using AI in schools and universities, enabling them to adopt new, more efficient learning methods that will increase pupils' and students' success rates; stresses the importance of promoting an AI curricula designed to help pupils and students to get access to the know-how needed for future jobs; stresses that AI technologies should be openly available for education and research purposes;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)

2d. Stresses that open and equal access to AI across the EU and within Member States is of upmost importance; stresses that the EU support for AI innovation and research should be widely available across the EU; highlights that special support should be given to AI developers and beneficiaries from disadvantaged and disabilities groups;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 e (new)

2e. Considers that guidance and counselling for AI developers and users in protecting intellectual property rights should be widely available;

Amendment 24 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 f (new)

2f. Calls on the EU to develop an European system, potentially by using AI technology, designed to check AI intellectual property rights but also AI respect of copyright rules;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that AI cannot only perform activities which used to be exclusively human, but that it can also acquire and develop autonomous and cognitive features, through experience learning; stresses that AI systems 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;deleted

Amendment 26 #

Laurence FARRENG, Irena JOVEVA, Bernard GUETTA, Ilana CICUREL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that AI cannot only perform activities which used to be exclusively human, but that it can also acquire and develop autonomous and cognitive features, through experience learning or reinforcement learning; stresses that in certain cases, the designer can even find that learning systems of this kind become unpredictable; stresses the urgency arising from this fact of deliberations on the notion of responsibility in regard to IT systems capable of learning through reinforcement; stresses that AI systems 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 27 #

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 29 #

Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Marcos ROS SEMPERE, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that AI cannot only perform activities which used to be exclusively human, but that it can also acquire and develop autonomous and cognitive features, through experience learning; underlines the need to develop AI features for people with disabilities; stresses that AI systems 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 3 #

Draft opinion
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 therefo~~ leaving no one behind; stresses that, as AI is an ever-changing collection of technologies that are being developed at great speed, and as it is constantly gaining the ability to perform more tasks typically related to humans, it shall be required to establish safeguards such as a human centric design which allows for human control and verification of AI decision-making;

Amendment 30 #

Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Marcos ROS SEMPERE, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA

Draft opinion
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 lear~~increasingly 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 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that AI ~~cannot only perform activities which used to be exclusively~~is constantly gaining the ability to perform more tasks typically related to humans, b~~ut that it can also~~y acquireing and developing autonomous and cognitive features, through experience learning; stresses that AI systems ~~can autonomously create and generate cultural and creative works, with only minimum human input~~, although they are always developed, deployed and used by humans, can autonomously create and generate creative works; notes, moreover, that AI systems can evolve in an unpredictable way, by creating original works unknown to their initial programmers;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that AI cannot only perform activities which used to be exclusively human, but that it can also acquire and develop autonomous and cognitive features, through experience learning; stresses that trained AI systems 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 even to their initial programmers;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Recalls that AI cannot only perform activities which used to be exclusivel~~Observes that, in future, AI will acquire the capacity to take over more tasks that are typically carried out by human, b~~ut that it can also~~eings, 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 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Takes note that the AI systems are software based displaying intelligent behaviour based on an analysis of their environment; highlights that this analysis is based on statistical models of which errors form an inevitable part, sometimes with feedbacks loops that replicate, reinforce and prolong pre-existing biases, errors and assumptions; notes the need to ensure that systems and methods are in place to allow verification of the algorithm, explicability of the algorithm and access to remedies;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Considers that intellectual property rights for the development of artificial intelligence technologies should be distinguished from the IPR for content generated by AI; stresses the need to remove unnecessary legal barriers to AI development in order to unlock the potential of such technologies in culture and education;

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
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 as the basis for 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;deleted

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Emphasises the need to address copyright issues relating to AI-generated cultural and creative works; underlines~~, in~~ that c~~ontext, the need to assess whether the notion of the human creator as~~reation 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 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Emphasises the need to address copyright issues relating to ~~AI-generated~~production of cultural and creative ~~work~~outputs 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 4 #

Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO, Marcos ROS SEMPERE, Domènec RUIZ DEVESA

Draft opinion
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 human control and verification of AI decision-making; as in other fields, marketing authorisation procedures for products produced through AI need to be investigated;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
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~~art for AI-generated works, and recalls that the human as author and creator ais the basis for 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 as there is a need for a human intervention to be credited for being author of a new creative work;

Amendment 41 #

Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Sabine VERHEYEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Emphasises the need to address copyright issues relating to ~~AI-generated~~ cultural and creative works generated by AI or assisted by AI in their creation; 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 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;

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Recalls that Directive (EU) 2019/790 provides a legal framework for the use of copyright protected works in Text and Data Mining (TDM) processes, which are key in any AI-related processes; emphasises therefore the requirement that any work used must be accessed lawfully as well as the right guaranteed to rights holders to pre- emptively opt-out their works from being used in an AI-related process without their authorisation;

Amendment 43 #

Laurence FARRENG, Irena JOVEVA, Bernard GUETTA, Ilana CICUREL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Highlights the effect that AI may have on cultural creation and artistic expression , where a balance should be stricken offering priority to creators and allowing them to capture the value of their work; emphasises the need to have copyright and computational creativity and clearly distinct, in a transparent manner;

Amendment 44 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Expresses concern about the vacuum left between IPR and the development of AI, which could make cultural and creative industries and education sectors vulnerable to AI- generated copyright-protected works, and is concerned about possible infringement of intellectual property; calls on the Commission to support a horizontal and technologically neutral approach to IPR applicable to AI-generated works;

Amendment 45 #

5. Expresses concern about the vacuum left between IPR and the development of AI, which could make cultural and creative ~~industries~~sector 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 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Expresses concern about the 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~~n approach focusing on IPR protection that incentivises and promotes investment by businesses and institutions in the technological and economic development of the AI and robotics sector;

Amendment 47 #

Draft opinion
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 48 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Exp~~Stresses ~~concern about the vacuum left between IPR and the development of AI, which could make cultural and creative industries vulnerable to AI-generated copyright-protected work~~the need to monitor the evidence of substantial market failure or harm occurred due to the use of AI, in particular in cultural and creative industries; calls on the Commission to support a horizontal, evidence-based and technologically neutral approach to IPR ~~applicable to AI- generated works~~;

Amendment 49 #

Bernard GUETTA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Notes that certain AI functionalities have been developed to disseminate fake news and create deep fakes; is concerned by the many breaches in intellectual property legislation which may result from this and is, furthermore, extremely worried by the possibility of mass manipulation of citizens leading to attempts to destabilise democracies; calls in this regard for action to step up information and media literacy, with taking account of digital transformation an indispensable aspect thereof; calls for the development of software to verify facts and information to be a priority;

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that artificial intelligence (AI) should serve humanity and that its benefits should be widely ~~shared~~equally shared by all without any discrimination; stresses that, in the long-term, AI may surpass human intellectual capacity; stresses the need therefore to establish safeguards such as human control and verification of AI decision-making;

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Recalls that data is the central element of the development and training of any AI system; stresses that this includes structured data, such as databases, copyright protected works and other creations enjoying IP protection which may not be considered as data generally; stresses therefore that it is also important to address the notion of IP relevant uses carried out in relation to the functioning of AI technologies;

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Notes the appropriate levels of transparency about the public procurement, use, design and basic processing criteria and methods of AI implemented by and for them or by private sectors actors; underlines that the legislative frameworks for intellectual property or trade secrets should not preclude such transparency;

Amendment 52 #

Laurence FARRENG, Irena JOVEVA, Bernard GUETTA, Ilana CICUREL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Points out that the most efficient way of reducing bias in AI systems is by ensuring that the maximum of 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;

Amendment 53 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Notes the development of artificial intelligence capacities in the dissemination of fake news and the creation of deep fakes; is worried by the breaches of intellectual property rights that could result;

Amendment 54 #

Tomasz FRANKOWSKI, Sabine VERHEYEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Stresses that where AI is used only as a tool to assist an author in the process of creation, the current copyright framework remains applicable to the work created without consideration to the intervention of the AI;

Amendment 55 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Recommends special security features and rules to be introduced in order to protect privacy rights by AI technologies; stresses that privacy auditing of AI technologies should be compulsory;

Amendment 56 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Further recalls that the EU copyright reform introduced a text and data mining exception according to which scientific research may benefit from free data uses, and TDM carried out for other purposes will also be allowed under the new exception, if further requirements are met;

Amendment 57 #

Draft opinion
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.~~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; considers that the issue of data ownership goes against further enhancing data access and use of data;

Amendment 58 #

Draft opinion
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.; states that traceability should be an indispensable condition in allocating responsibility, in that it both acts as a basis for legal action and enables the diagnosis and correction of malfunctions;

Amendment 59 #

Draft opinion
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;

Amendment 6 #

Laurence FARRENG, Irena JOVEVA, Bernard GUETTA, Ilana CICUREL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that artificial intelligence (AI) should serve humanity and that its benefits should be widely shared; stresses th~~at, in the long-term, AI may surpass human intellectual capacity; stresses the need therefore~~e need to establish safeguards such as human control, transparency and verification of AI decision-making;

Amendment 60 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Emphasises that artificial intelligence can also be an effective tool for detecting and reporting the presence of copyright-protected content online; emphasises too the need to address the issue of liability for copyright infringements made by AI systems, as well as the issue of data ownership.

Amendment 61 #

Draft opinion
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;

Amendment 62 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Emphasises the need to address the issue of liability for copyright and other intellectual property infringements made by AI systems, as well as the issue of data ownership.;

Amendment 63 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Stresses that access to and use of data can equally be prevented by other type of protection measures protecting data as property, such as sui generis rights protection of data basis; reminds that according to the first evaluation of Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases, the introduction of new “sui generis right” has achieved a decrease in the production of European databases; therefore encourages the Commission to repeal the Directive in line with the Commission's one in, one out principle;

Amendment 64 #

Laurence FARRENG, Irena JOVEVA, Bernard GUETTA, Ilana CICUREL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Stresses the need for an IP scheme that would ensure full transparency and explainability and would not inhibit full auditing and understanding of their software, because such trade secrecy contributes to the black box effect and would render it impossible to assess bias, contest decisions or remedy errors;

Amendment 65 #

6a. Stresses the importance of streaming services being transparent and responsible in their use of algorithms, so access to cultural content in various forms and different languages and impartial access to European works may be better guaranteed;

Amendment 66 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Recalls the EU’s ethical duty to support development around the world by facilitating cross-border cooperation on AI, including through limitations and exceptions for cross-border research and text-and-data mining, and therefore urges the speeding up of international action at the World Intellectual Property Organization to achieve this;

Amendment 67 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Believes that in light of the uncertainty caused by the current IP regime in conjunction with the nature of the AI the platforms should bear the liability for hosting counterfeit or products of uncertain IP origin and should establish redress mechanisms to allow owners IP to effectively claim take- down and stay-down;

Amendment 68 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)

6c. Highlights the need to ensure that there are binding regulations laying down the rules for a whole spectrum of activity of AI , regulating all possible aspects and ensuring that principles of transparency, accountability and non-discrimination are preserved;

Amendment 69 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 d (new)

6d. Recognises that due to the technological advancement of certain States, there is an underpinning obligation of the EU to promote the sharing of the benefits of AI, utilising a number of tools, including investment in research in all Member States;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that artificial intelligence (AI) should serve humanity and that its benefits should be widely shared and accessible to everyone; stresses that, in the long-term, AI may surpass human intellectual capacity; stresses the need therefore to establish safeguards such as human control and verification of AI decision-making;

Amendment 70 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 e (new)

6e. Underlines that AI relies heavily on software and data and the current IP system is not equipped to cope with the AI technologies, as software is not patentable;

Amendment 8 #

Laurence FARRENG, Irena JOVEVA, Bernard GUETTA, Ilana CICUREL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls that artificial intelligence (AI) should ~~serve~~be at the service of 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 human control and verification of AI decision-making;

Amendment 9 #

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 regular human control and verification of AI decision-making;

source: 650.379

2020/05/07 IMCO 47 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Jordi CAÑAS, Svenja HAHN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls the potential that AI has to deliver innovative services to businesses, consumers and the public sector; stresses the key role that AI technologies can play in the digitisation of the economy in many sectors, such as industry, healthcare, construction and transport, leading to new business models; highlights that the Union must actively embrace developments in this area to advance the digital single market; underlines that the development and use of AI in the internal market will depend on a balanced and effective system of intellectual property rights (IPRs);

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Believes that disruptive technologies such as AI offer both small and large companies the opportunity to develop market-leading products; considers that all companies, developers and creators should benefit from equally efficient and effective IPR protection;

Amendment 11 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Believes that disruptive technologies such as AI offer both small and large companies the opportunity to develop market-leading products; considers that all companies, in particular SMEs, should benefit from equally efficient and effective IPR protection;

Amendment 12 #

Svenja HAHN, Karen MELCHIOR, Claudia GAMON, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Jordi CAÑAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Believes that disruptive technologies such as AI offer both small and large companies the opportunity to develop market-leading products; considers that all companies ~~should~~can benefit from equally efficient and effective IPR protection;

Amendment 13 #

Virginie JORON

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Points out that the pace of innovation is not necessarily comparable in all sectors; takes the view that measures to protect intellectual property rights have been excessively favourable to certain software providers (Word, Excel...); calls on the Commission and Member States to find legal solutions to ensure that consumers are not constantly and repeatedly being charged for the use of what has become a generic product or technical solution;

Amendment 14 #

Jean-Lin LACAPELLE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Points out that the pace of innovation is not necessarily comparable in all sectors; takes the view that measures to protect intellectual property rights have been excessively favourable to certain software providers (word, excel...); calls on the Commission and Member States to find legal solutions to ensure that consumers are not constantly and repeatedly being charged for the use of what has become a generic product or technical solution;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Calls the European Commission to ensure that data generated with public funds, when used in AI technologies also brings a public benefit in the form of compulsory open data results or conclusions of that AI processing.

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Calls that any modification of the IPRs system to face AI challenges should not impact on micro enterprises and SMEs in terms of increased administrative and economic burdens;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Calls for the European Commission to propose measures for data traceability, having in mind both the legality of data acquisition and the protection of consumer and fundamental rights.

Amendment 18 #

Jordi CAÑAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. CStresses the importance of measures and information channels to help small and medium-sized enterprises and start-ups to effectively use IPR protection in AI technologies; calls on the Commission and the Member States to offer support to start-ups and SMEs via the Single Market Programme and Digital Innovation Hubs to protect their products and thus enable them to fully develop their potential for growth and jobs in Europe;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to offer support to start-ups ~~and SME~~, SMEs and micro businesses via the Single Market Programme and Digital Innovation Hubs to protect their products, ensuring their ideas do not get swallowed up by international players; considers that the structure of DHIs already in place should not change in order to avoid jeopardising their business continuity;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls the potential that AI has to deliver innovative services to businesses, consumers and the public sector; underlines that the development and use of AI in the internal market will depend on a reliable, balanced and effective system of intellectual property rights (IPRs);

Amendment 20 #

Clara AGUILERA, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ, Marc ANGEL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to offer support to start-ups and SMEs via the Single Market Programme and Digital Innovation Hubs to protect their products; stresses the importance of coordination in IPR for the development of AI with other important global players in order to create a globally compatible approach to AI that would be beneficial for SMEs too.

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. CStresses that broad application of intellectual property rights protection can protect large market incumbents and calls on the Commission and the Member States to offer support to start-ups and SMEs via the Single Market Programme and Digital Innovation Hubs to protect their products;

Amendment 22 #

Svenja HAHN, Claudia GAMON, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to offer support to start-ups and SMEs via the Single Market Programme and Digital Innovation Hubs to protect their products and services;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to offer support to start-ups and SMEs via the Single Market Programme and Digital Innovation Hubs to develop and protect their products;

Amendment 24 #

Petra KAMMEREVERT, Evelyne GEBHARDT, Clara AGUILERA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Stresses the importance of protecting IPRs, including trade secrets, in any regulatory framework for AI, in particular as regards any detailed requirements for the narrow set of applications deemed ‘high-risk’; stresses, however, that the protection of intellectual property and trade secrets must always be reconciled with other fundamental rights and freedoms, in particular the right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press; urges, therefore, that the necessary protection be given to whistleblowers and investigative journalists uncovering AI- related irregularities with significant social and macro-economic implications;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Stresses the importance of protecting IPRs~~, including trade secrets,~~ in any regulatory framework for AI, in particular as regards any detailed requirements for the ~~narrow~~ set of applications deemed ‘high-risk’, stresses that the protection of trade secrets should in no way hinder whistleblowers in addressing the potential dangers of high- risk applications;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Stresses the importance of protecting IPRs, including trade secrets, in any regulatory framework for AI, in particular as regards any detailed requirements for the narrow set of applications deemed ‘high-risk’; underlines that trade secrets should never limit the ability of authorities to analyse algorithms and products, while transparency measures for consumers should always be foreseen.

Amendment 27 #

4. Stresses the importance of protecting IPRs, including trade secrets, in any regulatory framework for AI, in particular as regards any detailed requirements for the narrow set of applications deemed ‘high-risk’; stresses the importance of the proper interpretation of the EU General Data Protection Regulations provisions regarding profiling and automated decision-making;

Amendment 28 #

Svenja HAHN, Claudia GAMON, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN, Jordi CAÑAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Stresses that besides protecting IPRs, it is in the interest of consumers to have legal certainty about allowed uses of protected works, especially when it comes to complicated algorithmic products;

Amendment 29 #

Svenja HAHN, Karen MELCHIOR, Claudia GAMON, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Believes that to ensure the development of human-centric, trusted AI, a strong harmonized regime for whistle-blowers is needed to make sure that algorithms and data sets do not carry biases, are non-discriminatory and adhere to the ethical standards proclaimed; therefore calls on the Commission to assess in its report to the Parliament pursuant to article 27 (3) of the Directive (EU) 2019/1937 the need to revise its Annex in order to include any regulatory EU framework for AI;

Amendment 3 #

Svenja HAHN, Claudia GAMON, Karen MELCHIOR, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Recalls the potential that AI has to deliver innovative services to businesses, consumers and the public sector; underlines that the development and use of AI in the internal market will ~~depend on~~benefit from a balanced and effective system of intellectual property rights (IPRs);

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Believes that the challenge of assessing AI applications requires the development of new methods; notes, for instance, that adaptive learning systems may recalibrate following each input, making certain ex ante disclosures ineffective; could serve as an example of a software where algorithms optimise the content to adjust for the learners goals and current state of knowledge;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Believes that the challenge of assessing AI applications requires the development of new methods; notes, for instance, that adaptive learning systems may recalibrate following each input, ~~making certain ex ante disclosures ineffective~~requiring ex-post as well as ex ante disclosures and proper administrative capacity for the market surveillance authorities;

Amendment 32 #

Clara AGUILERA, Maria GRAPINI, Marc ANGEL, Alex AGIUS SALIBA, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 33 #

Svenja HAHN, Claudia GAMON, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Jordi CAÑAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Notes the debate surrounding questions of data ownership and exclusive access to data by platforms, considers that overly rigorous intellectual property rights protection of data can be harmful to consumers and markets, prevent the free flow of data and harm competitiveness of new enterprises;

Amendment 35 #

Clara AGUILERA, Maria GRAPINI, Marc ANGEL, Alex AGIUS SALIBA, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Stresses the importance of end- user licence agreements (EULAs) in transferring rights to data and calls for future legislative proposals that impose proportional and clear obligations on EULAs to protect consumers, such as optionality of clauses not vital to the functioning of services;

Amendment 36 #

Svenja HAHN, Karen MELCHIOR, Claudia GAMON, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Considers that where AI applications are certified, they should demonstrate t~~ransparency, explainability and adherence to ethical standards, but notes that this aim is~~heir adherence to ethical standards, their processes need to be transparent, and their decisions should be explainable to the extent possible, but notes that these objectives are not necessarily achieved ~~only, or at all,~~solely through simple disclosure of the algorithm or code;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Considers that where AI applications are certified, they should demonstrate ~~transparency, explainability and adherence to ethical standards, but notes that this aim is not necessarily achieved only, or at all, through simple disclosure of the algorithm or code~~ethical standards beyond legal obligations on data protection, transparency, non-discrimination and explainability; disclosure and understandable explanation of algorithm codes should be obligatory;

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Considers that where AI applications are certified, they should demonstrate transparency, explainability and adherence to ethical standards, but notes that this aim is not necessarily achieved only, or at all, through simple disclosure of the algorithm or code; calls, therefore, on the Commission to establish more stringent and effective criteria to be met by AI applications once certified;

Amendment 39 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Considers that where AI applications are certified, they should demonstrate transparency, explainability and adherence to ethical standards, but notes that this aim is not necessarily achieved only, or at all, through simple disclosure of the algorithm or code; reminds that data sets are as important in this process and that discrimination and bias could be present independent of the mere code;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Recalls that any regulatory intervention on IPRs on AI should be combined with initiatives aimed at promoting access to quality data for European start-ups and SMEs, which currently face severe challenges when compared to global actors;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Calls on the Commission to foresee the disclosure of the code or algorithm in specific cases; considers that IPRs should not stand in the way of businesses when it comes to defects related to AI generated inventions, in order to avoid deterring investments;

Amendment 41 #

Svenja HAHN, Claudia GAMON, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Sandro GOZI, Stéphanie YON-COURTIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission to consider how to assess products ~~in a modular way or with the use of verification tools that would allow products to be adequately tested without creating risks for IPR holders due to extensive disclosure of easily replicated product~~at every step of their life stage and establish a comprehensive complaint mechanisms.

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission to consider how to assess products in ~~a modular way or with the use of verification tool~~ways that would allow ~~products~~them to be adequately tested without creating ~~risks for IPR holders due to extensive disclosure of easily replicated product~~inappropriate risks of potential disclosure for IPR holders.

Amendment 43 #

Brando BENIFEI, Clara AGUILERA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Notes that intellectual property rights are a monopoly created in favour of a limited number of stakeholders in order to generate befits for the entire society and believes that the ongoing pandemic has shown that such monopolies should be always accompanied by the proper exceptions. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the future legislation will include additional IPR exceptions for emergency situations, in the interest of the public good.

Amendment 44 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Points out to the fact that creations made by AI, if marketed, could generate distortions in the cultural and creative sector, affecting pricing and remuneration to the detriment of human creators;

Amendment 45 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Stresses the importance of introducing up-to-date tools allowing companies to secure their IPRs, for example placing digital locks on their products and services;

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Calls on the Commission to continue analysing the legal framework and the technological developments, in order to determine if the current legal provisions properly cover the artificial intelligence technologies and respond appropriately.

Amendment 47 #

Clara AGUILERA, Maria GRAPINI, Marc ANGEL, Alex AGIUS SALIBA, Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)

7c. Calls for the establishment of an EU body tasked with monitoring and ensuring compliance with the legal provisions of artificial intelligence technologies implementations.

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Notes the importance of differentiating between AI applications or algorithms, AI-generated technology and products, databases and individual data, which require different forms of intellectual property rights;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Reiterates the importance of the open source model as this model provides for more consumer choice and can prevent lock-in by a single company;

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Believes that disruptive technologies such as AI offer both small and large companies the opportunity to develop market-leading products~~; considers that all companies should benefit from equally efficient and effective IPR protection;~~ provided that a balanced coexistence of different actors in the Digital Single Market is ensured; considers that all companies should benefit from equally efficient and effective IPR protection which safeguards and encourages innovation and creativity; underlines the importance of AI technologies in enabling a more transparent, efficient and reliable management of IP-related aspects of transactions, notably through AI-enabled smart contracts which are capable to speed up IP-related transactions and minimise transaction costs; underlines the necessity to always know the owner of the data given the ever-increasing volumes of data used by AI, stresses out that AI should be subjected to human oversight and human workers should always make final decisions.

Amendment 8 #

Jordi CAÑAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Believes that disruptive technologies such as AI offer both small and large companies the opportunity to develop market-leading products; considers that all companies should benefit from equally efficient and effective IPR protection for the development and application of AI technologies, in order to foster the emergence of European SMEs and result in a significant competitive advantage in the Union;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Believes that disruptive technologies such as AI offer both small and large companies the opportunity to develop market-leading products; considersing that all companies should benefit from equally efficient and effective IPR protection; calls for an analysis of the current costs to benefit from protection and in the abusive practices from patent trolls and strategic IPR litigations;

source: 650.629

2020/05/19 TRAN 53 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the ambitions affirmed by the Commission in its communications of 19 February 20201 in the area of AI artificial intelligence (AI) and data; notes, however, that the issue of the protection of intellectual property rights in the context of the development of AI technologies has not been addressed by the Commission; _________________ 1(COM(2020)0064, COM(2020)0065, COM(2020)0066 and COM(2020)0067).

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights the fact that the development of AI technologies in the transport sector has the potential to bring considerable economic, societal, public, environmental and safety benefits;

Amendment 11 #

Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Dominique RIQUET, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Nicola DANTI, Caroline NAGTEGAAL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Affirms that defining the appropriate legal framework for intellectual property rights for AI and connectivity innovations, as well as for access to and security of data will be key in the development and smooth, safe and wide dissemination of AI technologies in transport; highlights the need to ensure that EU rules on intellectual property do not hinder data accessibility, and thus the development of AI;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Affirms that defining the appropriate legal framework at EU level for intellectual property rights for AI and connectivity innovations, as well as for access to and security of data will be key in the development and smooth and wide dissemination of AI technologies in transport and for the creation of confidence and legal certainty in the sector;

Amendment 13 #

István UJHELYI, Sara CERDAS, Isabel GARCÍA MUÑOZ, Josianne CUTAJAR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Affirms that defining the appropriate legal framework for intellectual property rights for AI and connectivity innovations, as well as for access to and security of data will be key in the development and smooth and wide dissemination of AI technologies in transport in line with the General Data Protection Regulation;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

Amendment 15 #

Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Elsi KATAINEN, Dominique RIQUET, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Ondřej KOVAŘÍK, Caroline NAGTEGAAL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Considers that IP protection strategies will constantly evolve over time as AI evolves, and that it will be necessary to take account of issues such as flexible copyright, patent protection or even trade secrets rules, and to consider what route will provide innovators with the broadest and most robust means of IP protection that combine legal certainty and encourage new investment in private enterprises, universities, SMEs, clusters using public-private collaboration to support for research and development;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Considers that IP protection strategies will constantly evolve over time as AI evolves, and that it will be necessary to take account of issues such as flexible copyright, patent protection or even trade secrets rules, and to consider what route will provide innovators with the broadest and most robust means of IP protection while ensuring total protection for whistleblowers;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Considers that IP protection strategies will constantly evolve over time as AI evolves, and that it will be necessary to take account of issues such as flexible copyright~~, patent~~ and related rights, patent protection, trademark and design protection or even trade secrets and know- how rules, and to consider what route will provide innovators with the broadest and most robust means of IP protection;

Amendment 18 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Considers that IP ~~protection strategies will constantly~~will evolve over time as AI evolves, and that it will be necessary to ~~take account of issues such as flexible~~adapt to this changing environment with copyright, patent protection or even trade secrets rules, and to take this into account to consider what route will provide innovators with the broadest and most robust means of IP protection, fostering creativity and innovation;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Recalls that the freedom to warn and inform must take precedence over business secrecy;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcom~~Notes the ~~ambit~~Commission's a~~ffirmed by the Commiss~~mbitions in its communications of 19 February 20201 in the area of AI artificial intelligence (AI) and data; ~~_________________ 1(COM(2020)0064, COM(2020)0065, COM(2020)0066 and COM(2020)0067).~~hopes that the Commission will put itself in a position to fulfil its AI ambitions by opting for a European data strategy enabling complete sovereignty in this area;

Amendment 20 #

István UJHELYI, Sara CERDAS, Isabel GARCÍA MUÑOZ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Calls on the Commission to take into account the seven key requirements identified in the Guidelines of the High- Level Expert Group, as welcomed by it in its communication of 8 April 20192 and properly implement them in all legislation dealing with AI; _________________ 2 “Building trust in human-centric artificial intelligence (COM(2019)0168)”.

Amendment 21 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. Considers the increasing need for AI technologies in remote or biometric recognition technologies, such as tracing apps in transport and tourism sector, as a new way of dealing with Covid-19 and possible future sanitary and public health crisis, keeping the sight of the need to protect fundamental rights, privacy and personal data.

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Notes that the current fragmented legal framework of IP rights represents an obstacle for the development of AI technologies in transport; calls on the Commission, therefore, to evaluate the fitness of its intellectual property regime for the development of AI technologies and to put forward the legislative proposals it finds necessary in order to ensure the legal certainty and encourage investments in these technologies;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Notes that the current fragmented legal framework of IP rights represents an obstacle for the development of AI technologies in transport; calls on the Commission, therefore, to evaluate the fitness of its intellectual property regime for the development of AI road safety technologies and to put forward the legislative proposals it finds necessary;

Amendment 24 #

Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Dominique RIQUET, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Caroline NAGTEGAAL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Notes that the current fragmented legal framework of IP rights and the legal uncertainty regarding them, represents an obstacle for the development of AI technologies in transport; calls on the Commission, therefore, to evaluate the fitness of its intellectual property regime for the development of AI technologies and to put forward the legislative proposals it finds necessary;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Notes that the current fragmented legal framework of IP rights represents an obstacle for the development of AI technologies ~~in transport;~~and calls on the Commission, t~~herefore, to evaluate the fitness of its intellectual property regime for the development of AI technologies and to put forward the legislative proposals it finds necessary~~o review the current legislation and to put forward the legislative proposals it finds necessary in order to have a more transparent system and avoid fragmentation at European level by jeopardising the internal market;

Amendment 26 #

Henna VIRKKUNEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Notes that the ~~current fragmented~~ legal framework of IP rights ~~represents an obstacle for~~affects the development of AI technologies in transport; calls on the Commission, therefore, to evaluate the fitness of its intellectual property regime for the development of AI technologies and to put forward the legislative proposals it finds necessary;

Amendment 27 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6 a. Notes that although AI makes it possible to process a large quantity of data relating to IPRs, it cannot be a substitute for human verification in relation to the granting of IPRs and the determination of liability for infringements of IPRs;

Amendment 28 #

Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Elsi KATAINEN, Dominique RIQUET, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Ondřej KOVAŘÍK, Caroline NAGTEGAAL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6 b. 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, and in the light of all uses covered by limitations and exceptions to IPR protection;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission to evaluate the possibility and relevance for companies of obtaining patents based on software or algorithms with a view to ensuring both the protection of innovation and the need for transparency required for trustworthy AI; stresses the need of maintaining a level playing field between these companies, as well as the importance of remaining consistent with competition law. stresses the importance of addressing the AI and IP in the transport sector, in full compliance with the principle of technological neutrality;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the ambitions affirmed by the Commission in its communications of 19 February 20201 as well as in the Commission's White Paper on ‘Artificial Intelligence - A European approach to excellence and trust’ and in the European Data Strategy, in the area of AI artificial intelligence (AI) and data; _________________ 1(COM(2020)0064, COM(2020)0065, COM(2020)0066 and COM(2020)0067).

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission to ~~evaluate the possibility and relevance for companies of obtaining patents based on software or algorithms with a view to~~ ensuring both the protection of innovation and the ~~need for~~ transparency required for trustworthy AI;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

Amendment 32 #

Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Dominique RIQUET, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Nicola DANTI, Caroline NAGTEGAAL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission to evaluate the possibility and relevance for companies, including transport SMEs, of obtaining patents based on software or algorithms with a view to ensuring both the protection of innovation and the need for transparency required for trustworthy AI;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Is fully aware that progress in AI will have to be paired with public investment in infrastructure, training in digital skills, major improvements in connectivity in order to come to full fruition; takes note of the intensive patenting activity taking place in the transport sector when it comes to AI; expresses its concern that this may result in massive litigation that will be detrimental to the industry as a whole; if we do not legislate urgently at European level;

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Is fully aware that progress in AI will have to be paired with major improvements in connectivity in order to come to full fruition, highlights therefore the importance of 5G networks for the full deployment of AI technologies; takes note of the intensive patenting activity taking place in the transport sector when it comes to AI; expresses its concern that this may result in massive litigation that will be detrimental to the industry as a whole;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Is fully aware that progress in AI will have to be paired with major improvements in connectivity and interoperability in order to come to full fruition; takes note of the intensive patenting activity taking place in the transport sector when it comes to AI; ~~expresses its concern that this may result in massive litigation that will be detrimental to the industry as a whole~~is concerned about the effects on the already high safety risks pertaining from mixed traffic (featuring both traditional and autonomous vehicles);

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Points out that standard essential patents (SEPs) play a key role in the development and dissemination of new AI technologies and ensuring interoperability; calls on the Commission to encourage the emergence of cross-industry standards and formal standardisation; recalls in this regard the Commission’s communication of 29 November 2017 on SEP licensing and the key principles it set out for transparency in SEPs, namely fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing and enforcement; draws particular attention to SEPs that can improve road safety and safety of other modes of transport as well as security for transport users;

Amendment 37 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Points out that standard essential patents (SEPs) play a key role in the development and dissemination of new AI technologies and ensuring interoperability; calls on the Commission to encourage the emergence of cross-industry standards and formal standardisation; recalls in this regard the Commission’s communication of 29 November 2017 on SEP licensing and the key principles it set out for transparency in SEPs, namely fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing and enforcement; draws particular attention to SEPs that can improve security, safety and accessibility for transport users;

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Welcomes the Commission’s willingness to ensure that data will be collected and used and in full compliance with the EU’s strict data protection rules; however a right balance between data protection and IP rules is needed thus granting necessary flexibility to AI innovators while respecting personal data and privacy;

Amendment 39 #

Sara CERDAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Welcomes the Commission’s willingness to ensure that data will be collected and used and in full compliance with the EU’s strict ~~data protection rules;~~ rules; stresses the need to continue to safeguard the data of European citizens and to make continuous improvements and systematic updates in this area;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Stresses that the development and deployment of AI technologies make it necessary to address technical, social, economic, ethical and legal issues in a variety of policy areas, including IPRs and to provide answers and formulate policies on European level;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Welcomes the Commission’s willingness to ensure that data will be collected and used ~~and~~ in full compliance with the EU’s strict data protection rules;

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. Welcomes the Commission’s aim of creating a single European data space with investment in standards, tools and infrastructure; supports in particular the establishment of a common European mobility data space in line with the provisions of the General Data Protection Directive;

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

12. Calls on the Commission to ~~address~~take action on the question of ~~data and intellectual property protection~~protecting personal data and safeguarding intellectual property and whistleblowers; stresses the need to opt for an ambitious data relocation policy in Europe;

Amendment 44 #

Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Dominique RIQUET, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Caroline NAGTEGAAL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

12. Calls on the Commission to adequately address the question of data and intellectual property protection with sufficient flexibility and technologically neutrality while ensuring proper level of legal certainty;

Amendment 45 #

Sara CERDAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

12. Calls on the Commission to address the question of data and intellectual property protection by developing initiatives for the exchange of good practices and investing in research in this field;

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 12

12. Calls on the Commission to address ~~the question~~urgently the legislative proposals of data and intellectual property protection;

Amendment 47 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13

13. Welcomes the future establishment of an enabling ~~and flexible~~ legislative framework for the governance of common European data spaces, as well as the Commission’s willingness to foster business-to- government and business-to- business data sharing ~~and to limit mandatory access to data under FRAND conditions to the cases where specific circumstances so dictate~~;

Amendment 48 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 13

13. Welcomes the future establishment of an enabling and flexible legislative framework for the governance of common European data spaces, as well as the Commission’s willingness to foster business-to-government and business-to- business data sharing, which must be anonymised, and to limit mandatory access to data under FRAND conditions to the cases where specific circumstances so dictate;

Amendment 49 #

Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Elsi KATAINEN, Dominique RIQUET, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Ondřej KOVAŘÍK, Caroline NAGTEGAAL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 14

14. Calls on the Commission to pay special attention to access for SMEs to anonymised, GDPR-compliant data that could boost their activity; adds that such access should be limited to the sectors in which they operate;

Amendment 5 #

Henna VIRKKUNEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights the fact that the development of AI technologies in the transport sector has the potential to bring considerable economic, societal, environmental and safety benefits; takes note of the global competition between companies and economic regions in the development of AI solutions for the transport sector; highlights the need to strengthen the international competitiveness of European companies operating in the transport sector by establishing EU as an environment favourable for the development and application of AI solutions.

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 14

14. Calls on the Commission to pay special attention to access for SMEs and clusters to data that could boost their activity as well as to technology centres and universities to promote their research programmes;

Amendment 51 #

István UJHELYI, Sara CERDAS, Isabel GARCÍA MUÑOZ, Josianne CUTAJAR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 14

14. Calls on the Commission to pay special attention to access for SMEs to data that could boost their activity and give them a firmer foothold on the internal market;

Amendment 52 #

Henna VIRKKUNEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 15

15. Endorses the Commission’s willingness to invite the key players from the manufacturing sector - transport manufacturers, AI and connectivity innovators - to agree on the conditions under which they would be ready to share their data; highlights the importance of access to vehicle generated data for all mobility stakeholders in order to promote the development of innovative data-driven services.

Amendment 53 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 15

15. Endorses the Commission’s willingness to invite the key players from the manufacturing sector - transport manufacturers, service providers from Tourism sector, third players in the automotive value chain, AI and connectivity innovators - to agree on the conditions under which they would be ready to share their data.

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights the fact that the development of AI technologies in the transport sector , while taking into account the impact on the natural environment and human health, has the potential to bring considerable economic, societal, environmental and safety ~~benefits~~advantages, to the benefit of all citizens and society, by improving the quality of life, creating new employment opportunities and more sustainable business models and needs to be designed to be widely affordable;

Amendment 7 #

István UJHELYI, Sara CERDAS, Isabel GARCÍA MUÑOZ, Josianne CUTAJAR

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights the fact that the development of AI technologies in the transport sector has the potential to bring considerable economic, societal, environmental and safety benefits; underlines furthermore that AI should be equally deployed in all modes of transport, in the urban as well as rural areas, therefore a holistic, technologically neutral and flexible approach is needed to tackle adequately all challenges in the transport and mobility sector;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights the fact that the development of AI technologies in the transport and tourism sector has the potential to bring considerable economic, societal, environmental and safety benefits; societies should be prepared for the benefits and the challenges of AI; analyse that AI is applied correctly and no cause harm or damage to people or society.

Amendment 9 #

Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA, Dominique RIQUET, Jan-Christoph OETJEN, Ondřej KOVAŘÍK, Caroline NAGTEGAAL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Highlights the fact that the development of AI technologies in the transport sector ~~has the potential to bring considerable economic, societal, environmental and safety benefits;~~will bring innovation, research, creation of new jobs, mobilisation of investment, employment, economic, societal, environmental and safety benefits that can make the sector more attractive to new generations

source: 652.368

2020/05/27 JURI 142 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 a (new)

- Having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making (OJL 123, 12.5.2016) and the Better Regulations Guidelines;

Amendment 10 #

Motion for a resolution
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;~~deleted

Amendment 100 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Takes the view that consideration must be given to protecting technical and artistic creations generated ~~by AI~~with 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 101 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Takes the view that consideration must be given to protecting technical and art~~Recalls 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 way~~uld 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 102 #

Motion for a resolution
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 for AI-generated content derivative of underlying data protected by copyright ,authorisation of the copyright holders is required unless otherwise permitted by regulatory exceptions; 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;

Amendment 103 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Takes the view that consideration must be given to protecting technical and artistic creations generated by AI, where such protection is justified on the basis on the same or similar creative results, 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 person who creates, 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 104 #

Motion for a resolution
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 105 #

Motion for a resolution
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 generated by AI canould be regarded as equivalent to intellectual works and could therefore be protected by copyright;, and 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~~the issue of copyright on such works be carefully assessed;

Amendment 106 #

Motion for a resolution
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 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~~;

Amendment 107 #

Motion for a resolution
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 108 #

József SZÁJER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Suggest that an assessment should focus on whether certain works generated by AI may be regarded as equivalent to intellectual property works and could therefore be protected by copyright; recommends to assess to whom the ownership of rights could be assigned in this case;

Amendment 109 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Notes that creators and creative sectors are among the main users of AI technologies as a supporting tool to create and enrich their works; considers that copyright and authors' rights should be regarded to protect to protect human creators using that technologies;

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas the aim of making the European Union the world leader in AI technologies requires a strong degree of industrial reform and transatlantic cooperation which in turn must include efforts to safeguard the Union’s digital and industrial sovereignty;

Amendment 110 #

Motion for a resolution
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 111 #

Motion for a resolution
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;~~deleted

Amendment 112 #

Motion for a resolution
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;~~deleted

Amendment 113 #

Motion for a resolution
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 114 #

Jiří POSPÍŠIL

11. Looks forward to a review of the current policy on ~~trade marks and~~industrial designs, as these can be generated autonomously by AI applications;

Amendment 115 #

Motion for a resolution
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 116 #

Motion for a resolution
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 117 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

Amendment 118 #

Motion for a resolution
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 and related technologyies cannot be a substitute for human verification in relation to the granting of IPRs and the determination of liability for infringements of IPRs;

Amendment 119 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Highlights that establishing a legal requirement to maintain an auditable record of data used throughout the lifecycle of AI-enabled technologies upon a developer, deployer or user of such technologies will enable a more precise tracing process and ensure that AI- generated output containing or deriving from protected copyright respects the rights of copyrights holders;

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
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 120 #

Motion for a resolution
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 121 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)

12b. Recommends this legal requirement be extended to cover data containing or deriving from images and/or video containing biometric data of any individuals to ensure that the right to privacy is respected; stresses that such a legal requirement is central to enabling the establishment of a legal framework which encourages non-discriminatory and trustworthy AI-generated output with respect to third party rights of privacy and copyright;

Amendment 122 #

Motion for a resolution
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 on the basis of data which may be subject to copyright;deleted

Amendment 123 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Notes, with regard to the use of ~~data~~works 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 124 #

Motion for a resolution
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 of~~adds 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 125 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Notes, with regard to the use of data by AI, that the lawful 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 on the basis of data which may be subject to copyright;

Amendment 126 #

Motion for a resolution
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 t~~he basis of data which may be subject to copyright~~o IPR protection;

Amendment 127 #

Motion for a resolution
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 of protecting the data needed for the development of AI; points out that continued in-depth analysis is needed to legally establish the intellectual property of sectoral data not relating to 'inventions' in the generally accepted sense; 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 128 #

Motion for a resolution
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;

Amendment 129 #

Motion for a resolution
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 of~~an adequate tool to protect~~ing~~ 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 13 #

Motion for a resolution
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, as well as cultural diversity;

Amendment 130 #

Motion for a resolution
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 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 and respect for the GDPR;

Amendment 131 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Stresses the importance of full implementation of the Digital Single Market Strategy in order to improve data accessibility and interoperability in the EU; stresses 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~~risk to create unnecessary barriers to access to data; 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 132 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Stresses the importance of ~~full~~ implementation of the Digital Single Market Strategy in order to improve ~~data~~the 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 for~~ensure 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)

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)

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 135 #

Motion for a resolution
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 136 #

Motion for a resolution
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 data, one element in which is the evaluation of the IPR framework, includWelcomes the fact that the Commission is considering 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 137 #

Motion for a resolution
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 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 138 #

Motion for a resolution
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 139 #

Motion for a resolution
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 14 #

Motion for a resolution
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~~European Union must regain its industrial and digital sovereignty and, in order to do so, it must be at the forefront of AI technologies;

Amendment 140 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Stresses the need for the Commission to ~~continue to aim at the highest level of~~aim 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;

Amendment 141 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Stresses the need for strong safeguards to protect European AI developers from abusive patent practices, such as those deployed by Patent Assertion Entities, which are financial vehicles, not producing or selling any products, but which increasingly buy up patents with the aim of litigating against innovative companies, including SMEs, in order to obtain high settlement fees; calls on the Commission to assess its current guidance related to the application and enforcement of intellectual property rights with regards to such abusive practices;

Amendment 142 #

Motion for a resolution
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;

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas the Union as a whole and relevant law-makers at all levels, ought to act with foresight and ensure that the divide between market realities and legislation is mitigated to the minimum, considering the fast-paced advances of AI and AI-related technologies, i.e. quantum and edge computing, etc.;

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas the European Union's global leadership in AI calls for an effective intellectual property system which is fit for the digital age, enabling innovators to bring new products to the market;

Amendment 17 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)

Db. whereas strong safeguards are crucial to protect the European Union’s patent system against abuse to the detriment of innovative AI developers;

Amendment 18 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas a human-centred approach to AI is needed if the technology is to remain a tool that serves people and the common good, particularly in the field of biomedical engineering, medical advancement and health;

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas a human-centred approach to AI in compliance with the ethical principles and human rights, is needed if the technology is to remain a tool that serves people and the common good;

Amendment 2 #

Motion for a resolution
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 20 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas legal certainty fosters technological development, ~~and whereas public confidence~~technological and legislative foresight are essential for strengthening the Unions competitive advantage and whereas public confidence and a revised educational emphasis on computer science and advanced machine learning in new technologies is essential for the development of this sector;

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas legal certainty fosters technological development, and ~~whereas~~strengthens the international competitiveness of European industry and SMEs, as well as fostering public confidence in new technologies, which is essential for the development of this sector;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)

Fa. whereas the regulatory provisions governing artificial intelligence systems should underpin confidence in their safety, reliability and consistency, continuing to strike a balance between public protection on the one hand and business incentives for investment in innovation, specially AI, on the other;

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 ~~the~~a 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 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas the EU is the appropriate level at which to regulate AI technologies in order to avoid a mere sequence of national regulatory provisions with no common guidelines, leading to fragmentation of the single market; whereas the EU regulatory framework in the field of AI will have the potential to become a legislative benchmark at international level;

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas the EU is the appropriate level at which to regulate AI technologies ~~in order to avoid fragmentation of the single market~~, while taking due account of the varying levels of digitalisation of the Member States; whereas the EU regulatory framework in the field of AI will have the potential to become a legislative benchmark at international level;

Amendment 26 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas ~~the EU is the appropriate level at which~~Member States can work to regulate AI technologies in order to avoid fragmentation of the single market; whereas the EU regulatory framework in the field of AI will have the potential to become a legislative benchmark at international level;

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)

Ga. whereas any initiatives on European level will be preceded by adequate impact assessments, taking into account discrepancies between national infrastructures, capacity and market realities;

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
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 29 #

Motion for a resolution
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 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 18 a (new)

- having regard to the Resolution of the European Parliament on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (A8-0005/2017),

Amendment 30 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas AI and related technologies are regarded as mathematical methods within the meaning of the European Patent Convention;

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
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 32 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

I. whereas AI technologies are based on the creation and execution of computer programs which, as such, are ~~protected by copyright~~subject to a specific copyright protection regime;

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

I. whereas AI and related technologies are based on the creation and execution of computer programs which, as such, are protected by copyright;

Amendment 34 #

Motion for a resolution
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 35 #

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ

Motion for a resolution
Recital J

J. whereas AI technologies~~, as computer programs, cannot be patented, except under~~ may be protected by patents, except in the case of computer programs or mathematical methods claimed as such, Article 52(3) of the European Patent Convention;

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital J

J. whereas AI technologies, as computer programs, cannot be patented~~, except under Article 52(3) of the European Patent Convention~~;

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital J

J. whereas AI and related 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)

Ja. whereas the self-learning abilities of AI technologies always involve a certain level of human intervention;

Amendment 39 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)

Ja. whereas an increasing number of AI-related patents is being granted;

Amendment 4 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European legal framework for intellectual property aims to promote innovation, creativity and access to knowledge and information and that copyright in particular seeks to protect authors and their ability to earn a living from the proceeds of their works;

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
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 i~~t is sometimes difficul~~n this regard it is important to distinguish between assisted creation ~~and AI-generated creation~~s that are done with help of AI tools, and creations that are autonomously generated by AI;

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital K

K. whereas the development of AI and related technologies is raising questions about the protection of innovation itself and the application of IPRs to data generated by AI and related technologies, which can be industrial or artistic creations; whereas it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between assisted creation and AI-generated creation;

Amendment 42 #

Motion for a resolution
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 ~~creations~~nature; whereas it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between AI-assisted human creation and AI-generated c~~reation~~ontent;

Amendment 43 #

József SZÁJER

Motion for a resolution
Recital K

K. whereas the development of AI is raising questions about the protection of innovation itself and the application of IPRs to materials, content or data generated by AI technologies, which can be industrial or artistic creations; whereas it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between assisted creation and AI-generated creation;

Amendment 44 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)

Ka. whereas AI-generated output including but not limited to synthetic content can enable novel artistic genres and create various commercial opportunities in the creative industries;

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)

Ka. whereas the purpose of authors' rights is on the one hand to protect the economic and moral interest of authors and in the other to incentivise human creation;

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
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 access to certain data and databases in the European Union will play a crucial role in advancing the development of European AI; whereas specific rules regarding governance and transparency of data used in developing, deploying, training and using of AI technologies is needed to increase the quality of data throughout the entire lifecycle of an AI-enabled system;

Amendment 47 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital L

L. whereas AI and related 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 access to certain data and databases in the European Union will play a crucial role in advancing the development of European AI; whereas the generation of European data will be crucial for ensuring technological independence and competitive advantage, as well as contributing to strengthening of the security and defence sector;

Amendment 48 #

Motion for a resolution
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 49 #

Motion for a resolution
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 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European legal framework for intellectual property aims to promote and protect innovation, creativity and access to knowledge and information;

Amendment 50 #

Motion for a resolution
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 access to certain data and databases in the European Union, especially for SMEs and start-ups, will play a crucial role in advancing the development of European AI;

Amendment 51 #

Motion for a resolution
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 52 #

Motion for a resolution
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 tailoredgovernance; whereas increased access to certain data and databases in the European Union will play a crucial role inlarge volumes of data; whereas increased access to certain data and databases in the European Union as well as interoperability of data, which limits lock-in effects, will play a crucial role in ensuring fair market conditions in the Digital Single Market and advancing the development of European AI;

Amendment 53 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital L a (new)

La. whereas it is necessary to ensure that legislation takes account of the multidimensional nature of artificial intelligence and especially the need to stimulate investment in IA systems to ensure their long-term viability;

Amendment 54 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital L a (new)

La. whereas the collection of data, in particular personal data, must respect the fundamental rights of citizens and the GDPR and be carried out lawfully with their agreement;

Amendment 55 #

Motion for a resolution
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 does 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; notes further that other comparable emerging technologies are not addressed or hardly referenced, whereas they play an increasingly important role already and in the imminent future; recalls that correlating factors, i.e. the creation of European data and the use thereof will also have consequences for the European legislative framework with regards to intellectual property rights ought to also be a key aspect in these considerations;

Amendment 56 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcomes~~Takes 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 ~~doe~~has 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 57 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcomes~~Takes note of the Commission White Paper on ‘Artificial Intelligence - A European approach to excellence and trust’ and of the European Data Strategy; ~~stresses that~~considers the approaches outlined therein ~~are likely to contribute to~~to be a starting point for 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 does 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 58 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

Amendment 59 #

Motion for a resolution
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 6 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas Article 118 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union stipulates that the Union legislator must establish measures for the creation of European intellectual property rights (IPRs) to provide uniform protection of those rights throughout the Union; whereas the single market is conducive to the stronger economic growth needed to ensure the prosperity of European citizens; whereas the development of the digital single market will ensure a high degree of digitalisation in the Union after 2020, with the aim of making Europe a world leader in the field of artificial intelligence;

Amendment 60 #

Motion for a resolution
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 61 #

Motion for a resolution
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 62 #

Motion for a resolution
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 63 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses the importance of protecting IPRs in relation to AI technologies and their multidimensional character, in order to create the legal certainty and build the trust needed to encourage investment in these technologies; considers that the EU can be achieve its aim to become 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; reiterates the need, in this regard, to ensure sufficient leeway for the development of new technologies, products or services;

Amendment 64 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses the importance of protecting IPRs in relation to AI technologies, in order to create the legal certainty and build the trust needed to encourage investment in these technologies; considers that the EU can be a frontrunner in the creation of AI technologies if it adopts an operational regulatory framework ~~that is~~strengthens its industrial capacities, engages in public- private sector cooperation and embraces a financial model that will attract and retain the best minds in AI that are regularly assessed in the light of technological developments and implements proactive public policies, particularly as regards training programmes and financial support for research;

Amendment 65 #

Motion for a resolution
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 66 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses the importance of a balanced IPR protection~~g 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 67 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses the importance of protecting IPRs in relation to AI technologies, in order to create the legal certainty and build the trust needed to encourage investment in these technologies, in particular for SMEs and start-ups; 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 68 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Emphasises that creating an environment conducive to creativity and innovation by encouraging the use of AI technologies by creators must not come at the expense of the interests of human creators whose copyright work may be used during the developing, deploying, training and using of AI-enabled systems; recommends that efforts to encourage the use of AI technologies must be limited to those who comply with the Union’s ethical principles and the relevant regulatory framework underpinning the development, deployment and use of AI;

Amendment 69 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Takes the view that public financial support for innovations in the field of AI contributing to the general interest must be accompanied by a quid pro quo. Such a quid pro quo shall include, in particular, easier access and an affordable price for the innovation in question.

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

Amendment 70 #

Motion for a resolution
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 71 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Considers also that the Union must address the various aspects of AI by means of a definition that is technologically neutral and sufficiently flexible to encompass future technological developments; considers it necessary to continue to reflect on interactions between AI and intellectual property rights, from the perspective of both intellectual property offices and users;

Amendment 72 #

Motion for a resolution
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)

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 74 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Points out that IPR protection provisions must be consistent with algorithmic transparency requirements (especially in the case of high-risk AI) and, at the same time, the protection of trade secrets;

Amendment 75 #

Motion for a resolution
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 76 #

Motion for a resolution
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; takes the view that more thorough research is necessary for the purposes of evaluating human input regarding AI algorithmic data;

Amendment 77 #

Motion for a resolution
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 for example, the degree of human intervention, the autonomy of the AI and the importance of the role and the origin of the data used and the possible involvement of other factors, such as sectoral economic equilibria;

Amendment 78 #

Motion for a resolution
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 data~~and 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 79 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

Amendment 8 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas recent developments in artificial intelligence (AI) and similar emerging technologies represent a significant technological advance that is generating opportunities and challenges for European citizens, businesses ~~and creators~~, public administrations, creators and the defence sector;

Amendment 80 #

Motion for a resolution
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 ~~strengthened~~considered as a complement in order to create a more comprehensive legal framework for the economic sectors in which AI plays a part;

Amendment 81 #

Motion for a resolution
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 ~~ought~~need to be ~~strengthened in order to~~adapted 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 82 #

Motion for a resolution
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 ~~strengthen~~updated 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 83 #

Motion for a resolution
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~~ ; stresses, however, that the protection of intellectual property and trade secrets must always be reconciled with otheir fun~~lawful acquisition, use and disclosure;~~damental rights and freedoms emphasises, further, the need to assess whether contract law and competition rules ought to be strengthened in order to create a more comprehensive legal framework for the economic sectors in which AI plays a part;

Amendment 84 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Suggests that assessment focus on the impact and implications of AI and related technologyies 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 strengthened in order to create a more comprehensive legal framework for the economic sectors in which AI plays a part;

Amendment 85 #

Motion for a resolution
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 86 #

Motion for a resolution
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 87 #

Stéphane SÉJOURNÉ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Points out that mathematical methods are excluded from patentability, unless they ~~constitute inventions~~are used for a technical purpose in the context of a technical ~~nature~~inventions, 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;

Amendment 88 #

Motion for a resolution
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 ~~unless~~and that if they constitute inventions of a technical nature, ~~which are then~~they 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 89 #

Motion for a resolution
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 9 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. whereas AI technologies may render the traceability and application of IPRs to AI-generated output difficult thus hindering the fair remuneration of human creators whose original work is used to power such technologies;

Amendment 90 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

Amendment 91 #

Motion for a resolution
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 technologies~~the 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 92 #

Motion for a resolution
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-rela~~copyright protection on computedr pro~~blems in the context of the development of AI technologies~~grammes and to the protection of trade secrets that are of core importance for innovation and for research;

Amendment 93 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

Amendment 94 #

Motion for a resolution
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 95 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Notes that the autonomisation ofin the ~~creative process~~process 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 96 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Considers that intellectual property rights for the development of artificial intelligence technologies and intellectual property rights for content generated by AI should be kept separate; stresses that intellectual property rights protect human-generated work; warns that creations and inventions by AI, if marketed, could generate market distortions, affecting pricing and remuneration to the detriment of human creators and concentrating the market in favour of AI owners;

Amendment 97 #

Motion for a resolution
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 98 #