Our Brains Beguil’d: Copyright Protection for AI Created Works
By VICENÇ FELIÚ
At a January 31 conference on “Artificial Intelligence: Intellectual Property Policy Considerations” the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) explored several challenges presented by Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) technologies in the creation of intellectual property (“IP”).1 The agenda for the conference covered the spectrum of IP topics as they relate to the intersection of the law and the creations of AI.2 In the copyright arena, several questions of interest came to the forefront, primarily the issues of authorship in AI-generated content, copyrightability of such works, and implications of usage of protectable works by AI.3 Following the January conference, on August 27, 2019, the USPTO published a request for public comments to questions related to the impact of AI inventions on patent law and policy.4 Shortly after, the USPTO followed with another set of questions specifically seeking comment on the impact of AI in the context of copyright law.5 This article seeks to examine the questions raised in this second Request for Comments on October 30, 2019, that deal with AI- created copyright protectable content and how to best address those questions. The discussion here is about the possible protectability for the work created by an AI and not for the protectability under copyright law of the AI itself. The article will focus on two specific areas: the state of protectability of AI-created content under the current legal framework and the potential changes necessary to the current system if AI-created content should become protectable.
* * * * * * *
Appropriation of Artisans’ Intellectual Property in Fashion Design Accessories: Piracy Disguised as Giving Back?
By Clovia Hamilton
IntroductionCreative industries are industries focused on the creation and exploitation of intellectual property, including art, fashion design, and related creative services, such as advertisement and sales. During a trip to Burkina Faso in West Africa, Keri Fosse was taught by an African woman how to wrap newborns with fabric in a manner that creates a strong bond and frees the mother’s hands for other tasks. Burkina Faso has a craft culture and is known for its woven cotton and the textile art of Bogolan. Bogolan is a technique original to Mali and involves the tradition of dyeing threads with bright colors, washing it skillfully, using coated and shiny Bazin, and using indigo from Benin.
After this trip, Fosse and her husband developed a shirt which copies the African lady’s, Lalabu’s, technique. They developed a product called Soothe Shirt; and created a business called Lalabu. Lalabu is also the name of the African woman that the Fosses met. They have been successful. The Fosses have stated that they got the idea from Lalabu, but redesigned it for production.8 The couple advertises that they “give back” by giving two percent of each purchase to help female African entrepreneurs through micro-financing.9 By offering micro-loans, the Fosses claim that when the African women repay the loan, they reinvest the money into the micro loan fund.
* * * * * * *
Blockchain and Intellectual Property Rights
By Seda Fabian
In 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto published a paper describing a form of digital money that he called ‘Bitcoin.’ His paper suggested the clever use of cryptography techniques to create a purely virtual, decentralized currency that operates without the need for an authority to confirm all transactions, thus sidestepping the middleman.
Eight years after its creation, Bitcoin’s price exploded in 2017, which led to widespread awareness of its existence and a proliferation of other digital coins that were also based on blockchain technology. Its boom added to discussions about blockchain and its weaknesses, particularly given blockchain’s widespread adoption in black markets. Regulators and thought leaders debated its dangers and the need for regulatory oversight. Without those protections, cryptocurrency markets took on the feel of the Wild West of the financial world, attracting individuals with nefarious intentions.
* * * * * * *
Legislating Big Tech: The Effects Amazon Rekognition Technology Has on Privacy Rights
By Crystal Godfrey
Today, privacy faces increased “threats from a growing surveillance apparatus that is often justified in the name of national security.” Numerous government agencies were employing Amazon’s facial recognition technology (“FRT”) to intrude upon the privacy of innocent citizens until June 2020, when Amazon announced a one-year moratorium against police using its FRT. Nearly half of Americans are currently in law enforcement facial recognition networks without their knowledge. Police with body- cameras can identify and save passersby in a facial-recognition database, even though the person may never speak with the police or be a suspect. This kind of technology enables officers to act as sophisticated surveillance mechanisms while unfairly transforming the civilian and officer dynamic. “The government’s collection of sensitive information is itself an invasion of privacy.” However, its use of this data, in conjunction with FRT, is “rife with abuse.” Historically, FRT disproportionately affects women and people of color and leads to mass surveillance of vulnerable communities. Integrating FRT with body-worn cameras presents the probability of chilling free speech in public spaces. While biometric surveillance has become normalized in policing, the legislature must not allow FRT to limit the Fourth, First, and Fifth Amendments’ powers.
This paper explores the privacy and policy concerns raised by Amazon’s Rekognition’s use by law enforcement agencies if Amazon lifts or does not extend the moratorium and its potential impact on the public’s privacy expectations. Part I details the history and current state of facial recognition. Part II analyzes how the use of FRT by law enforcement may implicate the Fourth, First, and Fifth Amendments and disproportionately impact women and minorities. Part III then explores the state and federal legislative approaches on how to regulate FRT. Lastly, Part IV concludes with a recommendation for lawmakers regarding the use of FRT by law enforcement.
* * * * * * *
