2020/2015(INI) Intellectual property rights for the development of artificial intelligence technologies
Lead committee dossier:
Progress: Awaiting committee decision
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | JURI | SÉJOURNÉ Stéphane ( Renew) | HALICKI Andrzej ( EPP), WÖLKEN Tiemo ( S&D), REGIMENTI Luisa ( ID), BREYER Patrick ( Verts/ALE), DZHAMBAZKI Angel ( ECR), MAUREL Emmanuel ( GUE/NGL) |
Committee Opinion | IMCO | BIELAN Adam ( ECR) | Clara AGUILERA ( S&D), Ivan ŠTEFANEC ( PPE), Marco CAMPOMENOSI ( ID), Anne-Sophie PELLETIER ( GUE/NGL), Svenja HAHN ( RE), David CORMAND ( Verts/ALE) |
Committee Opinion | TRAN | DELI Andor ( EPP) | Izaskun BILBAO BARANDICA ( RE), Angel DZHAMBAZKI ( ECR), Tilly METZ ( Verts/ALE), István UJHELYI ( S&D), Marco CAMPOMENOSI ( ID), Anne-Sophie PELLETIER ( GUE/NGL) |
Committee Opinion | CULT | VERHEYEN Sabine ( EPP) | Christine ANDERSON ( ID), Laurence FARRENG ( RE), Marcel KOLAJA ( Verts/ALE), Alexis GEORGOULIS ( GUE/NGL), Dace MELBĀRDE ( ECR), Hannes HEIDE ( S&D) |
Committee Opinion | AFCO |
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54
Legal Basis:
RoP 54Subjects
Events
2020/04/24
EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2020/02/28
EP - BIELAN Adam (ECR) appointed as rapporteur in IMCO
2020/01/16
EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2020/01/16
EP - SÉJOURNÉ Stéphane (Renew) appointed as rapporteur in JURI
2020/01/15
EP - DELI Andor (EPP) appointed as rapporteur in TRAN
2019/11/18
EP - VERHEYEN Sabine (EPP) appointed as rapporteur in CULT
Documents
- Committee draft report: PE650.527
- Committee draft report: PE650.527
Amendments | Dossier |
70 |
2020/2015(INI)
2020/04/08
CULT
70 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that artificial intelligence (AI) should serve humanity and that its benefits should be widely shared
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,
Amendment 12 #
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 2. Stresses that the EU should play an essential role in laying down basic principles on the development,
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses that the EU should play an essential role in laying down basic principles on the development,
Amendment 15 #
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; is of the view, however, that such principles should not stifle the advancement of AI or impede competition;
Amendment 16 #
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; taking into account and as reference the values of Judeo-Christian humanism underpinning Europe;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Stresses that the EU should play an essential role in laying down basic principles on the development,
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)
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 Amendment 26 #
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 #
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; reiterates, nevertheless, that in the field of culture, artificial intelligence should assist and not replace the creative human mind;
Amendment 28 #
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; a fact which should be taken into account in establishing the framework for the protection of the media, promotion and exploitation rights derived from said works;
Amendment 29 #
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
Amendment 30 #
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
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Recalls that AI
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
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
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 Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Emphasises the need to address copyright issues relating to AI-generated cultural and creative works; underlines
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Emphasises the need to address copyright issues relating to AI-generated cultural and creative works;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Emphasises the need to address copyright issues relating to
Amendment 4 #
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
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Emphasises the need to address copyright issues relating to
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 #
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
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
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5.
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that artificial intelligence (AI) should serve humanity and that its benefits should be widely
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 #
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 #
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
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
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Emphasises the need to address the issue of liability for copyright infringements made by AI systems
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that artificial intelligence (AI) should serve humanity and that its benefits should be widely shared; stresses th
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
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 #
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) 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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Recalls that artificial intelligence (AI) should
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
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2020-04-28Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
docs/0/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE650.527
|
2020-04-27Show (3) Changes | Timetravel
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
docs |
|
2020-03-05Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
committees/0/shadows/1 |
|
2020-02-28Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
committees/1/rapporteur |
|
2020-02-19Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
committees/0/shadows/0 |
|
2020-02-18Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
2020-01-29Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
committees/4/opinion |
False
|
2020-01-22Show (1) Changes
committees/3/rapporteur |
|