Copyright is author's life plus 70-odd years. What if the author is a machine? US patent applications have to be filed by the inventors. What if the inventor is a machine? If something has the capacity to invent or create, can it (think slaves) be property, with its creations automatically belonging to the machine owner? Do we grant copyrights and patents in order to encourage creation by humans who might otherwise go and drink another IPA? If so, since these machines don't drink stout, why give them IP rights?
An interesting starting point for discussion can be found by the EPO: https://www.epo.org/news-issues/news/2019/20191220.html or http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/01/29/epo-a-machine-cannot-be-an-inventor/
Thanks. The DABUS project was on my mind. The "inventor" was in the US interestingly so I wonder how they got a Foreign filing licence from the USPTO.
Only human can be considered an inventor or creator. In case of copyright there was an interesting monkey copyright issue. Monkey Naruto was an "author" of its selfie but the copyrights were granted to the camera owner (I simplify the story).
Dear Szymon. Yes, maybe. For copyright, the Chinese Courts have just accepted that a machine can be a creator for copyright purposes, while the EPO have likewise just decided that a machine cannot be an inventor. The question is "Why? Or Why not?" Clearly an alien being with human or higher level consciousness would have to be recognised as an inventor or creator. Any ideas?
Julian Cockbain well, I must say that I have some doubts concerning Chinese attitude to the intellectual property law. I suppose that such a conclusion was required so it was issued :( In my opinion the EPO and US court decisions are proper at this time. Copyrights are dedicated to human. He or she interprets feelings, has imagination, talent, intelligence and creates a work using these tools. An animal or machine don't have such skills (although of course sometimes a human work is created by accident, anyone could probably point out a lot of them :)). I believe that is why this regulation should have such a sense, just like for example protection of personal rights, personal data.
The issue of rights of an intelligent alien being would be completely out of the current, universal system of law. And not just the law :)
Unless there exists a law or laws that equate machines with humans I believe it is very strange to give them such statuses. A machine today is made up of large amounts of data and engineered algorithms to enable well calculated choices with lightning speed. But there is always an existing bias in the algorithms provided. These biases are attributable to the team or individual that provides the data. In that light, would any said invention not be a traceable to the creator of the machine or at least its database and algorithmic composition? I think it is wrong to (or many too early in the IT age) equate humans with machines. A farmer who requires 10 hands to harvest his crops invents a tractor and automated harvester that gets the job done faster. The harvester does not drink stout but I'm sure the farmer who invented would maintain and improve on said invention. To compare the farmers use oof the machine to slavery raises factors like dignity, pride, depression, morality, conscience etc. Machines do not have any of that and cannot therefore enjoy such status in my opinion. Any such invention would thus generally be the IP and patent of the machine's inventor unless facts to prove otherwise are brought forward.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Automotive Engineering
- Machines