HOME > ¾Ë¸²¸¶´ç > ¿µ¾îÀ¥Áø > °øÇÐ
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
¡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.
¢¸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 | 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 |