Current Copyright Law Research Articles

On the Copyright Analysis of Artificial Intelligence Products

With the gradual maturity of artificial intelligence technology, artificial intelligence products continue to emerge in the market, which poses new challenges to the current copyright law system. In particular, whether artificial intelligence products are copyrightable is a hot and difficult issue in the current theoretical and practical circles. Based on this, there are two mainstream viewpoints in the current theoretical circle, that is, the viewpoint that supports copyright protection for artificial intelligence products from the perspective of "reader-centered", and the viewpoint that opposes copyright protection for artificial intelligence products from the perspective of author-centered". However, the question of whether artificial intelligence products can be protected by copyright involves verifying the reasonableness and forward-looking nature of the "open" regulation of copyright objects in China on one hand. On the other hand, it is also relates to determining the future legislative direction of high-level artificial intelligence. Therefore, by comparing the similarities and differences in originality between the copyright law system and the copyright law system, the conclusion is drawn that artificial intelligence products should be protected by copyright. The evaluation criteria of subject-object separation established by "reader-centered doctrine" should be adopted.

How to Regulate Platforms Through a Non-Exploitative User-Generated-Content Levy

The democratization of technology to re-create content and make that content publicly available has spurred a wave of user-generated content (UGC), which has produced remarkable social and economic benefits. However, under current copyright law, UGC creators face the dilemma of being deterred from creating UGC because of the risk of copyright infringement, copyright owners can rarely obtain remuneration from UGC, and UGC platforms profit from UGC without being held liable for copyright infringement. Recent proposals to extend fair use and compulsory licenses to UGC creators and impose direct liability on UGC platforms cannot solve the UGC dilemma due to the inadequate or unreasonable regulation of UGC platforms. This study aims to solve the UGC dilemma by proposing a non-exploitative UGC levy on UGC platforms. We demonstrate the necessity of the non-exploitative UGC levy by conducting a comparative study of existing proposals and illustrate the feasibility of the non-exploitative UGC levy through an institutional analysis of its framework and enforcement mechanisms. Justification of the proposed levy and responses to possible criticism are also provided. The levy scheme also provides inspiration for how copyright law can address burgeoning artificial intelligence-generated content (AIGC).

The legal protection of artificial intelligence-generated work: The argument for sui generis over copyright

Artificial intelligence (AI) is the simulation of human intelligence processes by machines, especially computer systems. As with other elements of society, the modern economy has become more reliant on AI, indicating the potentially great influence it has on innovation. Many previous studies on the status of AI-generated work have focused on its connection to intellectual property (IP) law, mainly under copyright and regulations, and whether this type of work could be protected within the legal framework of copyright. Therefore, an all-inclusive assessment of the fitness of the existing copyright law framework is necessary. While recent discussions have mostly considered AI-generated works. In this paper, we examine AI within the context of the international legal framework of IP rights, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), and national legislation. We conclude that current copyright law is unsuitable for the protection of AI-generated works and that sui generis is a better option. However, the future legislative path should be specialized legislation addressing not only AI-generated works but also the prohibited acts that might create certain risks for industries. The research adopted a comparative analytical in-depth examination of the international legal framework of intellectual property law.

저작재산권의 보호기간이 만료된 저작물의 저작인격권에 관한 쟁점

Recently, as the copyright protection period of famous characters who have been loved and popular around the world has expired, anyone can use them freely. For example, as the copyright of the character “Winnie-the-Pooh”expired in 2022, a startup film company created a low-budget film called “Winnie-the-Poo: Blood and Honey”, transforming the cute and friendly Pooh into the wild killer bear. As can be seen in this case, even if the first character is changed to the opposite to the extent that it undermines the reputation of the author, it is not possible to claim copyright infringement because the copyright protection period has already expired. However, if malicious distortions or variations that can continue to undermine the author's personal interests after the expiration of the copyright protection period are left unprotected, it may confuse the general public's trust in the character's unique character that the original work has held for more than decades, so it is necessary to consider ways to prevent it.
 Author’s Moral Right is inalienable, and in comparative law, each French and Chinese IP-related Act legislates that moral right is permanently maintained, but Korea does not have such a legislation as to the protection period of moral right.
 In this study, the possibility of civil damages or criminal punishment for moral right infringement after author’s death, especially the current copyright law stipulates offense indictable without complaint in relation to criminal punishment for violations against moral right after author’s death, and it is proposed to revise to delete offense indictable without complaint under the copyright law by comparing it with the crime of defamation of a deceased person under the criminal law.

Informal downloading of copyrighted content in the perception of contemporary youth

The informal circulation of copyrighted content has been observed for a long time, but only the development of new technologies and widespread access to the Internet have contributed to the evolution of this phenomenon on a global scale. The aim of the research was to learn the opinions of contemporary youth regarding both the reasons for downloading copyrighted content and the extent of this phenomenon. The article presents the results of research on the attitude of contemporary youth towards issues related to the informal content sharing on the Internet, which is an integral part of young people’s online life and is rarely considered in terms of theft and law violation. The research results confirm that informal downloading of files and programmes, despite the fact that it is a very common phenomenon in our society, is not subject to clear assessments from social, economic, and even legal perspective. The article also draws attention to the inadequacy of the current copyright law to rapidly evolving digital technologies and changing ways of consuming cultural content.

Discuss on the Distinguishing Standard of Serial Images and Their Copyright Protection

Under the provisions of China's current copyright law, audiovisual works and video recordings as two separate objects with different degrees of protection. This article attempts to explain the ambiguity of the criteria for distinguishing the audiovisual works and video recordings in judicial practice and proposes the following solutions: when distinguishing audiovisual works and video recordings by the presence or absence of originality, serial images that faithfully record existing images should be excluded, and according to the dichotomy of image and content, the three links of visualization of process events, raw image shooting and editing production should be refined in the judgment criteria. Since it is difficult to make direct distinctions within audiovisual works, this paper converts them into distinctions of producers according to the different situations of claimants as an aid.

AI 자동 생성작품에 대한 저작권 부여 한계와 대안적 보호방법론

With the development of generative artificial intelligence technology, AI is emerging as a complete creative subject throughout the creative process. Therefore, in this paper, the concept of artificial intelligence-generated works (AGW) with minimal human intervention among AI-related creations is clearly defined through comparison with adjacent concepts, and then comprehensively summarizes the limitations of AGW protection in the interpretation of the current copyright law, and the international trend and overseas trends are briefly checked. Second, if it is difficult to protect by granting copyrights to AGW, first, consider how to leave it as a public domain, but also review the theoretical grounds for the theory of putting public domain and specific implementation methods thereof. Furthermore, we examine the limitations and problems of the theory of public domains, such as concerns about the possibility of abuse and false registration, as well as alternative solutions, to see what problems neglecting AGW, which is difficult to distinguish from human creation, can cause. Third, as a concrete protection methodology that has been discussed as an alternative solution, we look at the unification/dualization method and the method of subsuming within the copyright normative system or enacting a special law. In either way, the protection of AGW is premised on discriminatory protection, so this paper focuses on the theory of so-called ‘thin copyright protection’ and examines the key points that need to be reviewed in case of discriminatory protection.

Research on "Impeding" in Pre-litigation conduct preservation provision of the Copyright Law

Article 56 of the current Copyright Law provides for the preservation of pre-litigation acts. Compared with Article 50 of the Copyright Law before the amendment, the main modification lies in the increase of the applicable circumstances of "Impeding the realization of its rights". This amendment extends the scope of application of pre-litigation copyright protection to the acts that impeding copyright owners from realizing their rights. However, the current law, relevant regulations and judicial interpretations do not provide for the meaning of "Impeding", and there is little discussion in the academic community. The vagueness of the term may create difficulties in its application. Therefore, the author analyses the meaning of the term "Impeding", taking into account the content and characteristics of the Civil Code and the Copyright Law. In the author's view, "Impeding the realization of its rights" shall mean that the actor has committed an act that endangers the copyright owner or the relevant right holder's enjoyment of both full ownership and the limited carrier of the copyrighted work. The judicial interpretation or relevant regulations should be made to further explain the provisions of the act of preservation.

Key Issues of NFT (Non-Fungible Token): How Transfer of Copyright Should Adapt?

Non-fungible tokens, also known as NFTs, are a special kind of digital record of ownership that is utilized in a certain manner to guarantee validity and uniqueness of intangible goods. Due to its features, NFTs become interesting among art creators and even asset collector. Transactions on NFT create incredible values, which raises a number of legal issues, particularly in the realm of intellectual property rights related to copyright. This research aims to explains the connection between the existence of NFT and current copyright law in Indonesia focusing on the ownership and transfer of rights from the purchasing of NFTs. The author will try to compare on other jurisdictions (Ireland & Germany) concerning the copyright legal framework. Furthermore, the practice by licensing method in current NFTs marketplace will also be demonstrate through this paper. The research methodology employed is a normative juridical approach with an analytical and descriptive research design. Based on the research conducted, there is still a legal gap in Indonesian copyright law, particularly in the realm of NFTs and the idea of droit de suite, which has existed in intellectual property right concept globally. Finally, this paper will present several recommendations for the government and other relevant stakeholders upon NFTs transactions.

데이터 공정이용

Data collection and use are the beginning and end of machine learning. Looking at ChatGPT, data is making machines comparable to human capabilities. Commercial purposes are not naturally rejected in the judgment of fair use of the process of producing or securing data for system learning. The UK, Germany, and the EU are also introducing copyright restrictions for data mining for non-profit purposes such as research studies, and Japan is more active. Japan’s active legislation is the reason why there are no comprehensive fair use regulations like Korea and the United States, but it shows its willingness to lead the artificial intelligence industry. In 2020, a revision to the Copyright Act was proposed in Korea to introduce restrictions for information analysis. It will be able to increase the predictability for operators. However, the legislation of the amendment is expected to be opposed by the right holder and may take time. Therefore, it was examined whether machine learning such as data crawling and TDM corresponds to fair use through fair use under the current copyright law. In conclusion, it was considered that it may correspond to fair use, citing that it is different from human use behavior. However, it is questionable whether it is reasonable to attribute all exclusive negligence to the business operator by using the works of others according to fair use. The reason why the compensation system for profits earned by operators through the use of machine works generated by TDM or machine learning cannot be excluded from the possibility of serious consequences for a fair competitive environment.

데이터 공정이용

Data collection and use are the beginning and end of machine learning. Looking at ChatGPT, data is making machines comparable to human capabilities. Commercial purposes are not naturally rejected in the judgment of fair use of the process of producing or securing data for system learning. The UK, Germany, and the EU are also introducing copyright restrictions for data mining for non-profit purposes such as research studies, and Japan is more active. Japan’s active legislation is the reason why there are no comprehensive fair use regulations like Korea and the United States, but it shows its willingness to lead the artificial intelligence industry. In 2020, a revision to the Copyright Act was proposed in Korea to introduce restrictions for information analysis. It will be able to increase the predictability for operators. However, the legislation of the amendment is expected to be opposed by the right holder and may take time. Therefore, it was examined whether machine learning such as data crawling and TDM corresponds to fair use through fair use under the current copyright law. In conclusion, it was considered that it may correspond to fair use, citing that it is different from human use behavior. However, it is questionable whether it is reasonable to attribute all exclusive negligence to the business operator by using the works of others according to fair use. The reason why the compensation system for profits earned by operators through the use of machine works generated by TDM or machine learning cannot be excluded from the possibility of serious consequences for a fair competitive environment.

Should ChatGPT and Bard Share Revenue with Their Data Providers? A New Business Model for the AI Era

With various AI tools such as ChatGPT becoming increasingly convenient and popular, we are entering a true AI era. We can foresee that exceptional AI tools will soon reap considerable profits. A crucial question arise: should AI tools share revenue with their training data providers in additional to traditional stakeholders and shareholders? The answer is Yes. Large AI tools, such as large language models, always require more and better quality data to continuously improve, but current copyright laws limit their access to various types of data. Sharing revenue between AI tools and their data providers could transform the current hostile zero-sum game relationship between AI tools and a majority of copyrighted data owners into a collaborative and mutually beneficial one, which is necessary to facilitate the development of a virtuous cycle among AI tools, their users and data providers that drives forward AI technology and builds a healthy AI ecosystem. However, current revenue-sharing business models do not work for AI tools in the forthcoming AI era, since the most widely used metrics for website-based traffic and action, such as clicks, will be replaced by new metrics such as prompts and cost per prompt for generative AI tools. Therefore, a completely new revenue-sharing business model must be established. This new business model, which must be independent of AI tools and be easily explained to data providers, needs to establish a prompt-based scoring system to measure data engagement of each data provider. This paper systematically discusses how to build such a scoring system for all data providers for AI tools based on classification and content similarity models, and outlines the requirements for AI tools or third parties to build it. AI tools can share revenue with data providers using such a scoring system, which would encourage more data owners to participate in the revenuesharing program. This will be a utilitarian AI era where all parties benefit.

On the Copyright of Content Generated by Artificial Intelligence

While generative artificial intelligence participates in human creative activities on a large scale, it cannot be a natural human subject or an anthropomorphic subject because of its lack of rationality. However, copyright law encourages the creation of works, and under certain conditions, artificial intelligence generated content is conducive to the realization of the legislative purpose of copyright law and satisfies the objective criteria of originality of works, and therefore, such content has copyrightability. Under this premise, the attribution of artificial intelligence generated content copyright needs to be discussed. At present, there are designer’s, user’s and owner’s views on its attribution. According to the current copyright law, in principle, the copyright of artificial intelligence generated content belongs to the user, but in special cases, it belongs to legal persons, employers, trustees and other subjects, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.

디지털 시대 저작권법상 저작재산권 제한 내용 검토

Copyright law continues to change its contents according to the process of the development of media technologies, which have also been changing the form of use of works protected by copyright law. This is results from the digital transformation; most of the content including copyrighted works are changed into digital forms. Just as the Printing Revolution in the past brought the era of reproduction, it leads to the era of transition to the ‘Digital’ Revolution. As one of phenomena of transformation, the form of using copyrighted works is changing from downloading for the long-term use to streaming for temporary use. Of course, while digitized works are mainly used online rather than offline, the current copyright law has a large number of provisions based on the traditional/classical use of works. Copyright infringement in online space can bring more complex problems than expected due to the development of digital technologies. Despite the new technologies used in the online space, our copyright law does not provide an appropriate answer to whether the use of copyrighted works constitutes an infringement or whether the interests of copyright holders and users are reasonably balanced. There is a gap between reality and law, where various uses of digitized works matter, and this paper will look at copyright limitations in consideration of using digital content, which has become common due to the development of digital technology. The Korean Copyright Act basically stipulates the rights conferred on copyright holders, while exercising those rights of copyright holders is restricted for securing rights of users who use works. The history of copyright law is nothing but a history of constant tug-of-war between rights holders and users, and we should examine whether the current copyright limiations are undertaking appropriate functions in the digital era for the purpose of balancing between rights holders and users. Although they are largely divided into limitations for the public interest and limitations for user convenience (private interest), the purpose of the user convenience will eventually contribute to promote access and use of works and lead to the improvement of the cultural industry. On the other hand, as a result of reviewing fair use (Article 35-5 of the Copyright Act), copyright law is ultimately characterized as a law for cultural development, and it is on its way to adapt itself to the rapidly changed environment of content consumption in response to technological development. Rather than simply adjusting profits on the premise of the conventional confrontation structure of ‘rightsholder versus user’, it is necessary to keep in mind that the complex relationship between various subjects surrounding the efficient use of digital works is well understood and controlled. In the reality in which the possibility of copyright infringement is increasing when using digital works, copyright limitations do not seem to balance users and rightsholders. Ultimately, when digital content users use works, it will be necessary for copyright limitations to make clear the scope and contents of practically permissible use in more details.

저작권법상 데이터베이스제작자 권리 침해에 관한 연구 – 대법원 2022. 5. 12. 선고 2021도1533 판결을 중심으로 -

Considering that excessive protection of the database may lead to a reduction in database use or restrictions on information exchange, which in turn may hinder the development of science and technology based on sharing information, it is necessary to interpret the current copyright law that protects the database by granting exclusive rights so as not to cause excessive restrictions on the distribution and use of information. Similar concerns have been raised about the issue of information monopoly in the same way as for the EU Database directive which protects databases in a similar way to ours, and the European Court of Justice tries to reduce this risk by narrowly interpreting the scope of the rights of database producers in the British Horseracing Board judgement. The materials of the database can be protected by misappropriation clause of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. And the fact that the recent revision of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act has added illegal data acquisition to unfair competition is also a change in the environment to be considered in protecting the rights of database producers. Recently, Supreme Court of Korea Decision of 12 May 2022 2021Do1533 has ruled on whether data collection by data crawling constitutes a violation of the rights of database producers according to Copyright Law Article 93. In this judgment, the Supreme Court presented a clear standard of judgment regarding ‘a substantial part of the contents of Database’ and ‘repeated and systematic coping’ which are the requirements for infringement of the rights of database producers, taking into account the above concerns and changes in the environment.

On the protection of intellectual property rights in variety show templates

China's variety show industry is growing rapidly, but there have been repeated plagiarism controversies. The protection of variety show templates under both the current copyright law and the anti-unfair competition law has some shortcomings. This article suggests that variety show templates should be included in the scope of intellectual property protection by analyzing the criteria of "works" under copyright law and some inspiring cases at home and abroad. In addition, by analyzing the characteristics of variety show templates, it is suggested that the principle of overall protection of intellectual property rights for variety show templates should be adopted, and that the general audience test should be used to determine whether the works in question are substantially similar to each other, with the aim of better protecting variety show templates as a whole.

PARALLEL IMPORT OF COPYRIGHTED WORK IN PAKISTAN

Parallel import can be defined as importing goods through parallel means. Imported goods are genuine and original but importing mean is not authorized one. This piece of research analyzes the current copyright law of Pakistan to find out that whether parallel imported goods are legally allowed in Pakistan or not? It also throws some light on internationally adopted laws for this matter. Furthermore, it will give some important recommendation according to the finding based on this analysis. It will recommend the solutions keeping in view the developing status of country. Keywords: Copyrights, Parallel Import, Doctrine of Exhaustion.

NFT — the latest digital copyright object or form of expression

Keywords: NFT, copyright, work, token, blockchain, digital environment, judicialexpertise
 The article is dedicated to current issues of NFT legal protection. There wereanalysed the legal nature of NFT as an object of copyright, the legal regime of NFT —the work, and some proposals for improving the legal regulation of these relations aresubstantiated. It has been proven that in a separate group of copyright objects it is expedientto allocate new digital objects that appear recently — NFT, multimediaworks, video games (computer games), Internet site, blockchain, and others. The legalnature of new digital copyright objects has been found to be controversial. It is establishedthat in the scientific literature NFT is interpreted as an independent object ofcopyright, as a way to use the object of copyright (for example, conversion of art into adigital token form), as an objective form of expression (digital token form), as securitydigital document, as a way of technical protection of the copyright object from encroachmenton it. It has been proven that converting a work into an NFT form is away to commercialize a copyright object. Furthermore, it is substantiated that NFT isa form of expression (existence) of the object of copyright, and NFT-work (photography,video, painting, drawing, music etc.) in the presence of originality (creative nature)is the object of copyright, which is fixed in specific digital tokenized form.It has been established that tokenization of works provides additional opportunitiesfor copyright protection of such objects due to blockchain — the technology onwhich NFT operates.It has been proven that NFT as a digital certificate certifies the uniqueness of thework, which allows increasing its value and avoid illegal distribution in the digital environmentin the future (which is typical of almost all digital and digitized copyrightobjects). Likewise, it has been proven that most NFT disputes should be resolvedbased on the findings of judicial intellectual property and computer science expertise.It has been established that copyright law is not adapted to regulate the use of worksin the digital environment, so NFT works have an undefined legal regime as objects ofcopyright. It has been proven that the current copyright law, which is imperfect in regulatingrelations in the digital environment in general, should be applied to the relationsrelated to the creation, use, exercise, and protection of NFT works.

Introducing a Levy Scheme to Online Educational Use of Copyrighted Works

It is common for teachers to use others' copyrighted works for the purpose of teaching. The current copyright law in many nations only exempts educational use in the context of offline classroom teaching. The use of others’ copyrighted material in online teaching may still constitute copyright infringement. To protect teachers from the chilling effect of copyright infringement, to safeguard the public's freedom to obtain knowledge, and to ensure the commensurability of the profits and responsibilities of online teaching platforms, this paper proposes a levy scheme for online teaching. Under the levy scheme, teachers are free to use others’ published work for the purpose of online teaching, provided that such use does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interest of the copyright owner. Online teaching platforms should remunerate the copyright owner of the work used in the platform according to the number of participants of the course that uses such work.

Perma.cc and Web Archival Dissonance with Copyright Law

This is a preprint. Please review and cite LRSQ published version. Harvard’s Perma.cc offers the solution to linkrot—the phenomenon that citations in academic journals to web materials disappears with the passage of time, resulting in “broken links” and disappearance of material from the Web. This article will describe Perma.cc and outline the kinds of copyright issues that may arise, including heavy use of copyright statutes and caselaw. It will examine the kind of preservation use of copyrighted materials, with reference to fair use, and the library prerogatives as exceptions to the exclusive rights of authors of materials found on the Web. This analysis includes detailed analysis of “transformative use” and the four factors of 17 U.S.C. § 107. It will consider the liability of Perma.cc and participating libraries and institutions under theories of contributory infringement and vicarious liability, including as modified by 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) and (d), governing takedown notices. The article concludes that Perma.cc’s archival use is neither firmly grounded in existing fair use nor library exemptions, that Perma.cc, its “registrar” library and institutional affiliates, and its contributors have some (at least theoretical) exposure to risk, and that current copyright doctrines and law do not adequately address web archival storage for scholarly purposes. In doing so, it will question what the role of the scholarly Perma.cc citation ought to play—confirmation of scholarly propositions or preservation of and access to web materials. The material and conclusions in this article are important for legal authors, law review editors, and librarians (especially those who use, support, or are considering partnering with Perma.cc); so that they might better assess copyright compliance, especially when selecting materials for archiving, such as articles from news sites, blogs, and professional and scholarly papers, articles or books.