In the past two years, with the explosive popularity of ChatGPT, various generative AI (AIGC) applications have emerged globally like mushrooms after a rain, appearing one after another.
Now, AI can not only beautify images but also write articles (generate text content), paint, compose music, and produce videos and animations. Likely, most of us have already used and experienced these applications.
As the saying goes, “Every coin has two sides,” and the same is true for AI. Generative AI applications provide an excellent and convenient experience, but they also bring numerous ethical, moral, and legal issues. For example, using famous artists’ literary, painting, and musical works for training – does this constitute infringement?
Additionally, do ordinary users own the copyright to the text, paintings, music, and animations generated by generative AI applications? Does the copyright belong to the user or the provider and operator of the generative AI application?
These questions are currently highly contentious and lack a global consensus, remaining in a gray area.
Below, I will introduce a real judicial case related to this topic for your reference:
This incident occurred in Japan. Unlike the previous examples, the plaintiff in this case generated not an artwork but a device using AI three years ago.
The plaintiff, currently residing in the United States, was very satisfied with his invention and eagerly applied for a patent at the Japan Patent Office (JPO). He initially thought the patent application would be easily approved, but that was not the case, and he was met with disappointment.
As part of the patent application process, many forms need to be filled out. In the inventor column, the plaintiff wrote “device invented using DABUS AI.” Unexpectedly, the JPO rejected the patent application, citing “patents can only be granted to human inventors.”
Note: DABUS is an AI system created by American scientist Stephen Thaler, applicable in the field of inventions.
This decision greatly dissatisfied the plaintiff, who then filed a lawsuit demanding the JPO to revoke their decision not to register the patent.
On May 16, the Tokyo District Court ruled on the case, dismissing the plaintiff’s claim and supporting the JPO’s decision, reaffirming that “patents can only be granted to human inventors,” meaning that inventions created entirely by AI cannot be patented and are not legally recognized.
Judge Motochika Nakajima of the Tokyo District Court pointed out, “The Basic Law on Intellectual Property defines inventions as creations made by humans. Globally, many countries are cautious about including AI as patent inventors.”
However, Nakajima did not entirely dismiss the act of using AI for inventions. He emphasized that current patent laws do not account for inventions generated by AI. “Now, AI has brought significant changes to societal and economic structures, and interpreting current laws will lead to many issues. Therefore, we should first discuss legislation and aim for a conclusion as soon as possible,” he urged relevant departments to start discussions.
The conclusion is: that at present, in Japan, inventions created entirely by AI are not recognized for patents, but there is room for discussion, and adjustments may be possible in the future.
Disclaimer: This article is created by the original author. The content of the article represents their personal opinions. Our reposting is for sharing and discussion purposes only and does not imply our endorsement or agreement. If you have any objections, please contact us through the provided channels.
