¸ÞÀλçÁø1
¸ÞÀλçÁø2
¸ÞÀλçÁø3
¸ÞÀλçÁø4
¸ÞÀλçÁø5
¸ÞÀλçÁø6
¸ÞÀλçÁø7
¸ÞÀλçÁø8
¸ÞÀλçÁø9
¸ÞÀλçÁø10

°øÇÐ

HOME > ¾Ë¸²¸¶´ç > ¿µ¾îÀ¥Áø > °øÇÐ

º» »çÀÌÆ®´Â ´ëÇѹα¹ ÀúÀ۱ǹýÀ» ÁؼöÇÕ´Ï´Ù. [»ó¼¼³»¿ëº¸±â]
°Ô½ÃÆÇ¿¡ ±Û¾²±â¸¦ ÇÏ´Â °æ¿ì, º»¹® ¶Ç´Â ÷ºÎÆÄÀϳ»¿¡ °³ÀÎÁ¤º¸(Áֹεî·Ï¹øÈ£, ¼º¸í, ¿¬¶ôó µî)°¡ Æ÷ÇÔµÇ¾î °Ô½ÃµÇÁö ¾Êµµ·Ï À¯ÀÇÇϽñ⠹ٶø´Ï´Ù.
°³ÀÎÁ¤º¸¸¦ Æ÷ÇÔÇÏ¿© °Ô½ÃÇÏ´Â °æ¿ì¿¡´Â ºÒƯÁ¤ ´Ù¼ö¿¡°Ô °³ÀÎÁ¤º¸°¡ ³ëÃâµÇ¾î ¾Ç¿ëµÉ ¼ö ÀÖÀ¸¸ç, ƯÈ÷ ŸÀÎÀÇ °³ÀÎÁ¤º¸°¡ ³ëÃâµÇ´Â °æ¿ì¿¡´Â °³ÀÎÁ¤º¸º¸È£¹ý¿¡ µû¶ó ó¹úÀ» ¹ÞÀ» ¼ö ÀÖÀ½À» ¾Ë·Áµå¸³´Ï´Ù.
°Ô½ÃÆÇ How is AIs judgment of copyright infringement reasonable?
How is AIs judgment of copyright infringement reasonable?
ÀÛ ¼º ÀÚ °í½ÂÇÑ
µî·ÏÀÏ 2024-12-27 (HIT : 13)
÷ºÎÆÄÀÏ

How is AIs judgment of copyright infringement reasonable?


100101°í½ÂÇÑ

I. Motivation for selecting a topic

As Generative AI is increasingly used in the fields of art and content creation, the copyright issue of AI works is attracting attention. Artistic creations are considered to be the result of human originality and emotions, but legal and ethical controversies can arise if AI imitates or replaces them. In particular, it is a very complex problem to determine whether AI infringes copyright in the process of learning based on existing creations.




¡ãAIs copyright issues (ÇÑ°Ü·Ê)



I chose this topic because I thought it was important to understand the legal and social problems surrounding AI along with the technological innovations it will bring and to find solutions. As AI technology advances, these problems will occur more frequently, so I felt that legal standards and regulations should be discussed.



II. Current AI Copyright Problems

i) an expression, not an idea

Legally, copyright is not just an idea, but only protects the original results in which the idea is specifically expressed. In the ³²ºÎÇÜ case in 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that the photograph of Ham didn¡¯t meet copyright protection standards. The photograph is not simply a record of facts, but a position that can be protected only with creativity.


Works of art created by AI are also subject to legal controversy at the boundary between ideas and expressions. If AI creates a picture by imitating a certain artists painting style, it is unclear whether this work is simply a learning result or can be recognized as an original creation.


ii) AI learning data and copyright infringement

AI learns vast datasets and generates new results. However, the use of original works included in the learning data can be considered copyright infringement. In 2022, several artists sued the AI image generation program. They claimed their work was used for AI learning without permission and that the resulting images copied their style.

Meanwhile, the court has not yet clearly established the criteria for whether AI learning itself is a copyright infringement or whether similarity is a problem in the outcome of creation.


iii) Difficulty in proving the relationship of the cause

To judge copyright infringement, it is necessary to prove that the AI results were based on the original work beyond simple similarities. However, because AIs learning method is complex and not transparent, it is difficult to determine whether it has been influenced by a specific work. If the music composed by an AI after learning classical music data is similar to that of a specific composer, this may be a simple coincidence.



III. Conclusions and Feelings

The copyright issue of AI is a clear example of the conflict between technological development and law. Copyright protection of creations is an important device to guarantee creators rights and encourage new creative activities. However, now that AI is blurring this boundary, I think it is necessary to establish legal standards and new regulations. As I write this report, I would like to make some suggestions regarding AI copyright.


First of all, I think it is necessary to clearly disclose the source and method of use of AI learning data and check whether the original work is approved for use. For example, AI models such as Stable Diffusion have been controversial for training image generation models by using artists paintings as learning data. In this process, if the AI development company had transparently disclosed the source of the data and sought consent to use the learning data from the original author, such legal and ethical controversy could have been reduced.



An Introduction to Diffusion Models and Stable Diffusion - Marvik



¢¸Illustrated by Stable Diffusion Model


Next, I think that AI products should be clearly defined by establishing a separate new legal system rather than conforming to the existing copyright law framework. For example, even if the music generated by AI is similar to the existing music, it is difficult to determine whether it is infringed by copyright law alone. Therefore, I think that if a new legal system is introduced, the creativity of AI products can be independently judged and the relationship with the original work can be clearly defined.

Finally, I think it is necessary to develop a technical tool that can analyze the similarity between AI-generated content and the original work and determine the relationship between them. For example, I think that legal judgment would be easier if an algorithm that analyzes the similarity between AI and the original work could be developed to quantitatively evaluate the creative elements and structural similarities between the two works. This is an example that is already being tried in the music field, and Spotify introduced a system to evaluate plagiarism using a technology that analyzes the similarity between sound sources.


While writing this report, I realized that the copyright issue of AI was not limited to the technical or legal domain, but a complex issue of the nature of human creation and the availability of AI technology. As AI became a creative tool, I realized that the definition of creation was changing, and I thought that this change could be a new opportunity or a threat to creators.


In particular, I felt the importance of transparency and ethical responsibility in data use, especially in that AI has copyright problems in the process of learning existing creations. I realized that the development of AI technology is not an unconditional affirmation, but that social values can be exercised only when appropriate regulations and management are combined. In addition, I felt that it was essential to clarify legal and ethical standards for AI and human creative activities to coexist. The fact that existing copyright laws no longer cover the current situation was a clear example of the confusion that can occur when laws and institutions cannot keep up with technological advances. Above all, I think that efforts to solve AI and copyright problems should not stop at simply finding technical solutions, but a multi-faceted approach to maintaining a balance between protecting creators rights and technological development is needed. To this end, we emphasize the need for companies, governments, legal professions, and creators to cooperate.


To conclude, AI can be a tool that can open a new era of creation, but in the process, I felt that fairness and transparency must be secured in a way that does not infringe on the rights of existing creators. Of course, Im looking forward to AIs technological advancement, but looking at its problems related to copyright issues, I thought that AI still has a long way to go.



IV. reference

https://www.ftoday.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=322324

https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/culture/culture_general/1148026.html

https://brunch.co.kr/@9535e65c2e824ba/59

https://steemit.com/kr/@lawyergt/3dj3k5https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/LawFirm-NewsLetter/185810

https://www.clien.net/service/board/cm_iphonien/17873316


ÀÌÀü±Û °Ô½Ã±Û, ´ÙÀ½ °Ô½Ã¹°
ÀÌÀü±Û Urban Air Mobility (UAM): A New Chapter for South Korea's Mechanical Engineering ¿À½½¾Æ 2024-12-26 20
´ÙÀ½±Û New Materials for the Environment - Bioplastics ÀÓ°¡ºó 2024-12-27 15
¸ñ·Ï