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
Amendments | Dossier |
170 |
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
2020/05/07
IMCO
47 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
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
Amendment 12 #
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
Amendment 13 #
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 #
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to offer support to start-ups
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 #
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
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 22 #
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 #
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
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 #
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 b (new) Amendment 3 #
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
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
Amendment 32 #
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
Amendment 33 #
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 alone ineffective;
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 #
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Considers that where AI applications are certified, they should demonstrate t
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Considers that where AI applications are certified, they should demonstrate
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Commission to consider how to assess products
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Commission to consider how to assess products in
Amendment 43 #
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 #
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
Amendment 8 #
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; consider
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 #
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
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 #
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
Amendment 14 #
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 and tourism;
Amendment 15 #
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
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Considers that IP
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.
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the Commission to take into account the seven key requirements identified in the Guidelines of the High-
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
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Notes that the current fragmented legal framework of IP rights and the legal uncertainty regarding them, represent
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
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Notes that the
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 #
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
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Calls on the Commission to evaluate the possibility and relevance for companies of obtaining patents based on
Amendment 32 #
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
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;
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
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 #
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
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
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 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 strict compliance with European GDPR rules;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 12 12. Calls on the Commission to
Amendment 44 #
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 #
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
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 13 13. Welcomes the future establishment of an enabling
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 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 15 15. Endorses the Commission’s willingness to invite the key players from the manufacturing sector - transport
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
Amendment 7 #
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 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Highlights the fact that the development of AI technologies in the transport sector
source: 652.368
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2020-05-26Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
docs/1 |
|
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 |
|