Document Actions
Citation and metadata
Recommended citation
Anthoula Papadopoulou, Creativity in crisis: are the creations of artificial intelligence worth protecting?, 12 (2021) JIPITEC 408 para 1.
Download Citation
Endnote
%0 Journal Article %T Creativity in crisis: are the creations of artificial intelligence worth protecting? %A Papadopoulou, Anthoula %J JIPITEC %D 2021 %V 12 %N 3 %@ 2190-3387 %F papadopoulou2021 %X Up until recently, intellectual creation and inventiveness were purely human activities, and their protection systems, that is, copyright law and patent law, have been built on the basis of motivating and enhancing human creativity. This ancient and self-evident assumption is being challenged due to AI technology today. This article explores the concept of creativity in the field of law from a legal point of view, as well as the impending serious moral and social consequences.In the field of copyright law, intellectual creation is inextricably linked with humans and cannot be replaced by any advanced AI system. This results from the legal definition of work, and in particular from the element of “originality”. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in its rich case law validates this position. In the field of patent law, ingenuity is also associated with a natural person through the moral right of inventorship. Here, however, the inventor's intellectual endeavor derives from the field of cognition, while fields of human intellect concerning personality in general are not involved in the inventive activity nor are crucial for obtaining a patent. However, it is doubtful whether AI-generated inventions can be protected under patent law for other reasons.Furthermore, decoupling the question of creativity stresses the need for specific legal protection of AI-generated works and inventions. Legislating a sui generis right in order to boost innovation, protect competition and maintain a healthy market for intellectual creations is suggested as the best option. %L 340 %K AI output %K copyright law %K creativity %K legal protection %K patent law %U http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-53526 %P 408-NoneDownload
Bibtex
@Article{papadopoulou2021,
author = "Papadopoulou, Anthoula",
title = "Creativity in crisis: are the creations of artificial intelligence worth protecting?",
journal = "JIPITEC",
year = "2021",
volume = "12",
number = "3",
pages = "408--None",
keywords = "AI output; copyright law; creativity; legal protection; patent law",
abstract = "Up until recently, intellectual creation and inventiveness were purely human activities, and their protection systems, that is, copyright law and patent law, have been built on the basis of motivating and enhancing human creativity. This ancient and self-evident assumption is being challenged due to AI technology today. This article explores the concept of creativity in the field of law from a legal point of view, as well as the impending serious moral and social consequences.In the field of copyright law, intellectual creation is inextricably linked with humans and cannot be replaced by any advanced AI system. This results from the legal definition of work, and in particular from the element of ``originality''. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in its rich case law validates this position. In the field of patent law, ingenuity is also associated with a natural person through the moral right of inventorship. Here, however, the inventor's intellectual endeavor derives from the field of cognition, while fields of human intellect concerning personality in general are not involved in the inventive activity nor are crucial for obtaining a patent. However, it is doubtful whether AI-generated inventions can be protected under patent law for other reasons.Furthermore, decoupling the question of creativity stresses the need for specific legal protection of AI-generated works and inventions. Legislating a sui generis right in order to boost innovation, protect competition and maintain a healthy market for intellectual creations is suggested as the best option.",
issn = "2190-3387",
url = "http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-53526"
}
Download
RIS
TY - JOUR AU - Papadopoulou, Anthoula PY - 2021 DA - 2021// TI - Creativity in crisis: are the creations of artificial intelligence worth protecting? JO - JIPITEC SP - 408 EP - None VL - 12 IS - 3 KW - AI output KW - copyright law KW - creativity KW - legal protection KW - patent law AB - Up until recently, intellectual creation and inventiveness were purely human activities, and their protection systems, that is, copyright law and patent law, have been built on the basis of motivating and enhancing human creativity. This ancient and self-evident assumption is being challenged due to AI technology today. This article explores the concept of creativity in the field of law from a legal point of view, as well as the impending serious moral and social consequences.In the field of copyright law, intellectual creation is inextricably linked with humans and cannot be replaced by any advanced AI system. This results from the legal definition of work, and in particular from the element of “originality”. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in its rich case law validates this position. In the field of patent law, ingenuity is also associated with a natural person through the moral right of inventorship. Here, however, the inventor's intellectual endeavor derives from the field of cognition, while fields of human intellect concerning personality in general are not involved in the inventive activity nor are crucial for obtaining a patent. However, it is doubtful whether AI-generated inventions can be protected under patent law for other reasons.Furthermore, decoupling the question of creativity stresses the need for specific legal protection of AI-generated works and inventions. Legislating a sui generis right in order to boost innovation, protect competition and maintain a healthy market for intellectual creations is suggested as the best option. SN - 2190-3387 UR - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-53526 ID - papadopoulou2021 ER -Download
Wordbib
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <b:Sources SelectedStyle="" xmlns:b="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" > <b:Source> <b:Tag>papadopoulou2021</b:Tag> <b:SourceType>ArticleInAPeriodical</b:SourceType> <b:Year>2021</b:Year> <b:PeriodicalTitle>JIPITEC</b:PeriodicalTitle> <b:Volume>12</b:Volume> <b:Issue>3</b:Issue> <b:Url>http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-53526</b:Url> <b:Pages>408-None</b:Pages> <b:Author> <b:Author><b:NameList> <b:Person><b:Last>Papadopoulou</b:Last><b:First>Anthoula</b:First></b:Person> </b:NameList></b:Author> </b:Author> <b:Title>Creativity in crisis: are the creations of artificial intelligence worth protecting?</b:Title> <b:Comments>Up until recently, intellectual creation and inventiveness were purely human activities, and their protection systems, that is, copyright law and patent law, have been built on the basis of motivating and enhancing human creativity. This ancient and self-evident assumption is being challenged due to AI technology today. This article explores the concept of creativity in the field of law from a legal point of view, as well as the impending serious moral and social consequences.In the field of copyright law, intellectual creation is inextricably linked with humans and cannot be replaced by any advanced AI system. This results from the legal definition of work, and in particular from the element of “originality”. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in its rich case law validates this position. In the field of patent law, ingenuity is also associated with a natural person through the moral right of inventorship. Here, however, the inventor's intellectual endeavor derives from the field of cognition, while fields of human intellect concerning personality in general are not involved in the inventive activity nor are crucial for obtaining a patent. However, it is doubtful whether AI-generated inventions can be protected under patent law for other reasons.Furthermore, decoupling the question of creativity stresses the need for specific legal protection of AI-generated works and inventions. Legislating a sui generis right in order to boost innovation, protect competition and maintain a healthy market for intellectual creations is suggested as the best option.</b:Comments> </b:Source> </b:Sources>Download
ISI
PT Journal AU Papadopoulou, A TI Creativity in crisis: are the creations of artificial intelligence worth protecting? SO JIPITEC PY 2021 BP 408 EP None VL 12 IS 3 DE AI output; copyright law; creativity; legal protection; patent law AB Up until recently, intellectual creation and inventiveness were purely human activities, and their protection systems, that is, copyright law and patent law, have been built on the basis of motivating and enhancing human creativity. This ancient and self-evident assumption is being challenged due to AI technology today. This article explores the concept of creativity in the field of law from a legal point of view, as well as the impending serious moral and social consequences.In the field of copyright law, intellectual creation is inextricably linked with humans and cannot be replaced by any advanced AI system. This results from the legal definition of work, and in particular from the element of “originality”. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in its rich case law validates this position. In the field of patent law, ingenuity is also associated with a natural person through the moral right of inventorship. Here, however, the inventor's intellectual endeavor derives from the field of cognition, while fields of human intellect concerning personality in general are not involved in the inventive activity nor are crucial for obtaining a patent. However, it is doubtful whether AI-generated inventions can be protected under patent law for other reasons.Furthermore, decoupling the question of creativity stresses the need for specific legal protection of AI-generated works and inventions. Legislating a sui generis right in order to boost innovation, protect competition and maintain a healthy market for intellectual creations is suggested as the best option. ERDownload
Mods
<mods>
<titleInfo>
<title>Creativity in crisis: are the creations of artificial intelligence worth protecting?</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="family">Papadopoulou</namePart>
<namePart type="given">Anthoula</namePart>
</name>
<abstract>Up until recently, intellectual creation and inventiveness were purely human activities, and their protection systems, that is, copyright law and patent law, have been built on the basis of motivating and enhancing human creativity. This ancient and self-evident assumption is being challenged due to AI technology today. This article explores the concept of creativity in the field of law from a legal point of view, as well as the impending serious moral and social consequences.
In the field of copyright law, intellectual creation is inextricably linked with humans and cannot be replaced by any advanced AI system. This results from the legal definition of work, and in particular from the element of “originality”. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in its rich case law validates this position. In the field of patent law, ingenuity is also associated with a natural person through the moral right of inventorship. Here, however, the inventor's intellectual endeavor derives from the field of cognition, while fields of human intellect concerning personality in general are not involved in the inventive activity nor are crucial for obtaining a patent. However, it is doubtful whether AI-generated inventions can be protected under patent law for other reasons.
Furthermore, decoupling the question of creativity stresses the need for specific legal protection of AI-generated works and inventions. Legislating a sui generis right in order to boost innovation, protect competition and maintain a healthy market for intellectual creations is suggested as the best option.</abstract>
<subject>
<topic>AI output</topic>
<topic>copyright law</topic>
<topic>creativity</topic>
<topic>legal protection</topic>
<topic>patent law</topic>
</subject>
<classification authority="ddc">340</classification>
<relatedItem type="host">
<genre authority="marcgt">periodical</genre>
<genre>academic journal</genre>
<titleInfo>
<title>JIPITEC</title>
</titleInfo>
<part>
<detail type="volume">
<number>12</number>
</detail>
<detail type="issue">
<number>3</number>
</detail>
<date>2021</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>408</start>
<end>None</end>
</extent>
</part>
</relatedItem>
<identifier type="issn">2190-3387</identifier>
<identifier type="urn">urn:nbn:de:0009-29-53526</identifier>
<identifier type="uri">http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-53526</identifier>
<identifier type="citekey">papadopoulou2021</identifier>
</mods>
Download
Full Metadata
| Bibliographic Citation | Journal of intellectual property, information technology and electronic commerce law 12 (2021) 3 |
|---|---|
| Title |
Creativity in crisis: are the creations of artificial intelligence worth protecting? (eng) |
| Author | Anthoula Papadopoulou |
| Language | eng |
| Abstract | Up until recently, intellectual creation and inventiveness were purely human activities, and their protection systems, that is, copyright law and patent law, have been built on the basis of motivating and enhancing human creativity. This ancient and self-evident assumption is being challenged due to AI technology today. This article explores the concept of creativity in the field of law from a legal point of view, as well as the impending serious moral and social consequences. In the field of copyright law, intellectual creation is inextricably linked with humans and cannot be replaced by any advanced AI system. This results from the legal definition of work, and in particular from the element of “originality”. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in its rich case law validates this position. In the field of patent law, ingenuity is also associated with a natural person through the moral right of inventorship. Here, however, the inventor's intellectual endeavor derives from the field of cognition, while fields of human intellect concerning personality in general are not involved in the inventive activity nor are crucial for obtaining a patent. However, it is doubtful whether AI-generated inventions can be protected under patent law for other reasons. Furthermore, decoupling the question of creativity stresses the need for specific legal protection of AI-generated works and inventions. Legislating a sui generis right in order to boost innovation, protect competition and maintain a healthy market for intellectual creations is suggested as the best option. |
| Subject | AI output, copyright law, creativity, legal protection, patent law |
| DDC | 340 |
| Rights | DPPL |
| URN: | urn:nbn:de:0009-29-53526 |
