[vc_row][vc_column][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Everyone has been excited about AI lately (including Tangibly with its impressive “Patent X-Ray” analysis tool).
As usual, the legal system struggles to keep up with technology. AI is no different – many interesting and difficult questions are emerging at breakneck speed this year.
The US Supreme Court recently refused to review a CAFC holding that ruled that patents must have a human inventor, and cannot be awarded to inventions created by AI. A neural network AI created new prototypes for a beverage holder and emergency beacon light on its own without a human “co-inventor”.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][us_image image=”310″ has_ratio=”1″ ratio=”16×9″ css=”%7B%22default%22%3A%7B%22margin-bottom%22%3A%222rem%22%7D%7D”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]Similarly on the copyright front, the US copyright office recently rejected an AI-created image as lacking “human authorship”. This is actually similar to the famous “monkey selfie” litigation from a few years ago, that said that animals cannot copyright and litigate.
So where do these cases leave us regarding creative outputs and inventions made by AI? This should be an active and interesting field to watch over the next few years.
Sources:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-919.html
https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/a-recent-entrance-to-paradise.pdf[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
