Written evidence: Copyright and Related Rights - Dr Hayleigh Bosher

The UK Intellectual Property Office sought views on the implications artificial intelligence might have for IP policy. We publish the response by Dr Hayleigh Bosher, of Brunel Law School & Centre for Artificial Intelligence.

Dr Bosher's evidence argues that: 

• The analogy of copying someone’s work inside a human brain, is not an appropriate way of considering whether copyright protected works are infringed by AI.
• The test for copyright infringement in these circumstances needs to be adapted, in that it focuses on the AI ‘Producers’ (meaning the person responsible) activities (such as data input) rather than the output.
• It should be clarified in what circumstances the current copyright exceptions apply to AI processes.
• It needs to be considered whether or not private agreements could or should be made above or below any policy decision as to the ownership of copyright in AI-generated works.
• There should be a distinction between AI-assisted works and AI-generated works.
• Additional rights should be considered such as performance and moral rights. 

Read the full written evidence here.

December 2020