by Artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized numerous industries, including the creative field, challenging the traditional notion that inventions and ideas are solely the result of human effort. With the advent of generative AI tools like ChatGPT, the landscape of innovation and intellectual property (IP) has undergone a significant transformation. As an organization driven by innovation, CSIRO recognizes the importance of understanding the implications of AI advancements on inventors and their creations.
The introduction of AI tools has sparked diverse opinions on their impact on various aspects of work, business, and daily life. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that AI tools and their users are subject to IP laws. Familiarity with these laws can aid in safeguarding against any potential negative consequences. Copyright laws, for instance, play a vital role in protecting artists, creators, and authors by granting them the right to control the usage and exploitation of their works. These laws traditionally rely on the concept of individual intellectual effort, which involves demonstrating the addition of unique ingenuity and creativity that distinguishes one’s creation from existing works.
Nonetheless, some argue that the notion of human ingenuity as the singular source of invention is not accurate. They propose an alternative perspective that the works created by humans are merely the culmination of their lifetime experiences and sensory perceptions. Similarly, AI tools generate output based on the vast amounts of data they have been trained on. As these AI tools continue to evolve and acquire more sophisticated sensory inputs and experiences, there will come a point where they will surpass human capabilities in certain domains. For instance, AI has already outperformed humans in areas like chess and visual arts thanks to tools like Dall-E and Midjourney.
Many jurisdictions currently designate real humans as the sole authors, creators, or inventors under IP laws. However, the issue becomes complex when AI tools contribute to the creative process. In the current generation of prominent generative AI tools, specific text prompts serve as the input mechanism to generate desired outputs. The question arises as to whether the application of these prompts by humans qualifies as sufficient effort to be considered the author, inventor, or creator of the resulting work. If not, and if the work does not imitate any existing creation, the origin of the ingenuity and inventive effort becomes unclear.
These challenges have broader implications for the entire IP system, particularly in the context of patents. Patent systems typically require new inventions to exhibit inventiveness, non-obviousness, or an inventive step. The determination of whether an invention meets these criteria often relies on assessing whether a person skilled in a particular field of technology, using their usual tools, would consider the invention routine or obvious. However, when generative AI becomes a customary tool in a technological domain and can produce acceptable descriptions of inventions, the bar for patentability is significantly raised. The result is that few inventions may be deemed inventive unless the human inventor possesses exclusive data that has not been accessed by any other party, including AI tools.
These complexities illustrate the challenges faced by individuals and IP laws alike. With the anticipated technological advancements in the future, lawmakers will need to address these issues promptly. As no significant legal changes have been implemented thus far, inventors and innovators must strive to stay ahead of any potential changes.
Practical steps can be taken to protect one’s position as the creator, author, or inventor of works produced with the assistance of generative AI. Thorough documentation of interactions with AI tools, including the prompts used, the timeline, and the tool version, can serve as crucial evidence to demonstrate sufficient intellectual effort and establish rightful authorship or inventorship. For those developing new AI tools, ensuring proper rights to the datasets used for training is essential. This ensures that the AI model forming the foundation of the tool does not inadvertently infringe on others’ rights by creating copies or derivative works. It is probable that jurisdictions will increasingly require disclosure of training datasets in the future.
Lastly, it is imperative to be aware that when using an AI tool, one is accepting a license that impacts the rights to the works, ideas, or data generated by the AI. Reading and understanding the terms and conditions provided in the license is vital.
Despite the uncertainties and potential disruptions, individuals can continue to create, invent, and author with responsibility and the necessary precautions. By staying informed and proactive, innovators can navigate the evolving landscape of AI and IP.
*Note:
1. Source: Coherent Market Insights, Public sources, Desk research
2. We have leveraged AI tools to mine information and compile it
Money Singh is a seasoned content writer with over four years of experience in the market research sector. Her expertise spans various industries, including food and beverages, biotechnology, chemicals and materials, defense and aerospace, consumer goods, etc.
