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
2020/09/03
EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2020/07/13
EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2020/07/08
EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2020/05/27
EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
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 opinion: PE648.351
- Committee opinion: PE648.605
- Committee opinion: PE648.600
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE652.449
- Committee draft report: PE650.527
- Committee draft report: PE650.527
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE652.449
- Committee opinion: PE648.600
- Committee opinion: PE648.605
- Committee opinion: PE648.351
| Amendments | Dossier |
| 312 |
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
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 Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Takes the view that consideration must be given to protecting technical and artistic creations generated
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10.
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
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
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Takes the view that consideration
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
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 #
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 Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 11 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 #
11. Looks forward to a review of the current policy on
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
Amendment 117 #
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 and of damage occasioned by AI technologies;
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;
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 Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 13 13. Notes, with regard to the use of
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;
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
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
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
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 14 14. Stresses the importance of
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.
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
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
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 16 16. Stresses the need for the Commission to
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) 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,
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas legal certainty fosters technological development
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
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
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas
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
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) 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
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
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Recital J J. whereas AI technologies
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Recital J J. whereas AI technologies, as computer programs, cannot be patented
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
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
Amendment 43 #
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
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
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.
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 58 #
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
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,
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
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
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
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Stresses the importance of a balanced IPR protection
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 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;
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
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
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Recommends that priority be given
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
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
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
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
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
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Suggests that assessment focus on the impact and implications of AI and related technolog
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 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Points out that mathematical methods are excluded from patentability, unless they
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
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
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 8. Notes that patent protection can be granted provided that the invention is new and not self-evident and involves an inventive step;
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
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
Amendment 93 #
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 a
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
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 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 source: 652.449
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2020-09-07Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/2/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE648.600New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE648.600&secondRef=02 |
| docs/4/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE648.351&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE648.351 |
2020-09-03Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/2/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE648.600&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE648.600 |
| docs/4 |
|
2020-09-02Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/2/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE648.600New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE648.600&secondRef=02 |
2020-08-28Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE648.605New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE648.605&secondRef=03 |
2020-08-24Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE648.605&secondRef=03New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE648.605 |
2020-07-16Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/2/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE648.600&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE648.600 |
| docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE648.605New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE648.605&secondRef=03 |
2020-07-15Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/2/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE648.600New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE648.600&secondRef=02 |
| docs/3 |
|
2020-07-14Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/2/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE648.600&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE648.600 |
2020-07-08Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/2 |
|
2020-06-16Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/1 |
|
| docs/1 |
|
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 |
|