2023years10month30day, American President Joe．Biden (Joe Biden) An executive order was issued, Announced a series of new agency directives on risk management related to the use of artificial intelligence technologies. The executive order will deal with critical infrastructure, Risks related to cybersecurity and consumer privacy were prioritized, However, there is no clear directive on copyright issues related to generative AI platforms, These issues have been the subject of widespread debate in Congress in recent months.

The new executive order directs US federal agencies to take broad actions on AI policy, These actions are divided into8Main parts. In terms of AI safety and security standards, The executive order calls for new reporting requirements for certain federally funded bioengineering projects and content certification mechanisms, To prevent the use of deceptive AI. Directives on promoting innovation and competition include increased funding for AI projects in healthcare and climate change, And simplifying visa requirements to expand the skilled immigrant workforce. Other parts of the executive order include: Protecting Americans' privacy; Promote equity and civil rights; Safeguard consumers, The rights of patients and student groups; Support workers group; Promote American dominance abroad; And making sure that the United States government is responsible, Use artificial intelligence effectively.

The executive order No5. 2article (c) The paragraph does mention intellectual property issues. The first5. 2article (c) paragraph (iii) The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director general "On the date the order is issued270Within days or at the U. S. Copyright Office at the Library of Congress (USCO) After announcing its upcoming artificial intelligence research180Within days" , In connection withUSCOAfter consultation with the director, To advise the President on possible executive actions related to copyright and artificial intelligence. The first (i) Terms and ordinal (ii) Item requirementUSPTOThe director is in120Issue guidance to examiners on invention rights and AI issues within days, coexistence270Other questions within days (Including patent eligibility and artificial intelligence issues) Issuing supplementary guidance.

Intellectual property lawyer Angela．Carsi (Angela Kalsi) Point out, This item "Bold and broad" Executive order "Missed opportunity" , Unable to doUSPTOandUSCODevelop specific directives relating to intellectual property rights with respect to the ownership of intellectual property rights and human participation in works created by artificial intelligence. Karsi representation: "What is surprising, In an order from President Biden, Intellectual property is not a high priority, Especially given that the order advances a variety of actions aimed at protecting American workers and American innovation, And intellectual property is closely related to both. "

2022summer, The Intellectual Property Subcommittee of the US Senate and the US House of Representatives held hearings on generative artificial intelligence, Involves training generative AI models from the use of copyrighted material, To create a new federal disclosure authority to provide multiple aspects of the right against deep counterfeiters. In addition, How does the fair use principle apply to ingesting copyrighted material for AI training, Fundamental differences also emerged at the hearing.

This year5month, USCOAnnounced a public consultation on copyright law and policy issues related to generative artificial intelligence. The agency plans to use those public comments to conduct research on artificial intelligence issues, To propose legislation to Congress. 10month31day, The agency has received1600Several comments were posted to the official website of the United States Code of Federal RegulationsRegulations. govUp, Most of them come from anonymous or named individuals. Policy groups representing both sides of the debate also posted some comments on the site.

International Center for Law and Economics (ICLE) : Secondary use of the reproduced material may not be sufficient to constitute conversion for fair use

ICLEA comment was submitted, It is pointed out that the training of artificial intelligence models triggers several "The tricky issue of copyright law" , These issues may not be analyzed through fair use. ICLECompare the situation to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit1994Fair use issues that played a role in the decision of the American Geophysical Union v. Texaco. In the case, The court ruled that Texaco was liable for copyright infringement for photocopying all articles in the scientific journals to which it subscribed. Texaco defended its use as a conversion for the training of its scientists, But the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that, The photocopied copy is itself a non-converting copy, Its intrinsic purpose is the same as the original.

As for the infringement of the results of generative AI, ICLEconsider, Current copyright law is able to assess whether it is substantially similar to a copyrighted work, Or whether the AI developer should take vicarious responsibility. Although it may not be necessary to create a federal right of disclosure, butICLEexpression, This could facilitate more economic cooperation between AI companies and copyright owners.

RStreet institute: The licensing system is too cumbersome for AI companies

On the contrary, Think tank for policy researchRStreet institute (R Street Institute) A review was published, Argues that training a machine learning system on a comprehensive data set that includes copyrighted content should be considered fair use. RStreet institute believes, Ai model training should be understood as "Rational learning" . As for market impact, RStreet institute representation, Ai training is unlikely to hurt an artist's target market, "Because AI learning models have never been the target audience or consumers. "

RStreet Institute also believes, It is difficult to establish a licensing system for AI model training, This will cause "To ensure a large number of data sets caused by regulation 'An organizational nightmare' (logistical nightmare) " . Although Congress should not consider special rights to protect AI achievements, butRStreet institute believes, Humans should be seen as the sole authors of outcomes that AI platforms cannot generate on their own.

Some comments highlighted the Biden administration's failure to address copyright theft

Most of the comments submitted by individuals agree, Under copyright law, Ai platforms should not be considered authors, Ai developers should not use copyrighted content in their training models. Millette．Mary (Millette Marie) He wrote in a comment: "Artificial intelligence steals the work of real artists. " She says, Production companies are using artificial intelligence to use artists' portraits and voices for free. Megan．Kenny (Megan Kenney) On the other hand, think, "Generative AI means the death of human creativity" , And worry about their own "Skills have become useless in this capitalist hell" . Jennifer．Raki (Jennifer Lackey) NoriharaUSCOExpressed her concern "Large language model... Crawls copyrighted content without permission" Concern of, She called it stealing, And urged the agency "Such a precedent must not be set" . (Be compiled fromipwatchdog. com)

TRANSLATORS: Wang Dan　proofread: Rason group



　　disclaimer: This network reprint or compile the original articles are from the network, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact us, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.