As an accomplished intellectual property lawyer and managing partner of Square One Law, a Northern commercial law firm, Gill Hunter has spoken out about the difficulties associated with the burgeoning trend of AI-generated content and its effect on intellectual property (IP) rights.
Gill has emphasized the need for legal frameworks to keep up with rapidly developing technology, such as ChatGPT, Bard, and other AI engines, drawing parallels to the early days of the internet.
Gill talked about her early legal career in the 1990s and how the internet became a common business tool. At that point, there was an overall sense that the web looked like the ‘wild west’, where there was next to zero guideline and there appeared to be no response for encroachment.
When a person or business published content online, it was frequently interpreted as implicit consent to its endless reuse.
As Gill Hunter stated, The underlying issue was the same back then as it is now: the existing laws, particularly copyright law, were created in a time before technology existed.
“Those delivering the lawful structure for copyright around then could never have anticipated the progressions that were to come. Consequently, we find ourselves applying out-of-date laws to novel circumstances, a process that will unavoidably take time to catch up, by which time new technologies will already have emerged.
“The IP community and their customers are eagerly awaiting the flurry of test cases that will provide crucial guidance on the interpretation and application of existing laws. The legal landscape surrounding AI-generated content will be significantly influenced by these cases.
In the meantime, Gill has shared a few important illustrations gained from the 1990s.
She stated, It’s fundamental not to accept that the ongoing climate is similar to the new ‘Wild West’. Simply crediting content creation to simulated intelligence or declaring that a work draws in no security assuming that it is computer based intelligence produced are probably not going to be seen as legitimate protections against encroachment claims by either contenders or the courts.
Additionally, it is essential not to rely on the policies of other nations. The nature of intellectual property law is jurisdictional, and global harmonisation is limited. As a result, what is considered acceptable in the United States may not always adhere to the standards established in other nations or the United Kingdom.
“As the legal community grapples with the complexities of AI-generated content, Square One Law remains committed to helping clients navigate these emerging challenges with pragmatic advice,” says Gill in her conclusion. We will continue to advocate for intellectual property rights’ protection in the digital age, working toward a future where laws effectively, and hopefully, accommodate technological advancements while upholding the fundamental principles of creativity and fairness.
Source – Bdaily
