Washington, DC – October 30: US President Joe Biden hands over the pen to Vice President Kamala Harris. … [+]
The world’s two biggest artificial intelligence powers—the United States and China—are trying to address domestic intellectual property concerns about AI-generated content, as they seek to effectively cooperate in regulating AI. Their potential is hampered by the dismal state of bilateral relations.
But whether they can achieve a degree of agreement on AI governance, including IP, will make a big difference to companies. Firms hope that there is as little variation in legislation between countries as possible.
That’s one reason Sam Altman went on his AI world tour last summer: as he pitched his version of AI safety to world leaders like Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol. Of, he was also pushing to create one more globally. livable environment for its products. He even presented a video at a Chinese AI conference advocating “global cooperation” and exchange between Chinese and American researchers.
In the US, lawsuits over intellectual property and AI-generated content will often hinge on “fair use” limitations. AIGC introduces an unprecedented challenge to the current boundaries of IP protection, primarily at two levels: input (what data goes into training models) and output (what creations users use AIGC-enabled tools for). make it).
In the state, the issue of information has become the subject of ongoing court cases: a notable example is The New York TimesThe decision to sue OpenAI for copyright infringement on the grounds that the AI company used newspaper articles as training data. In China, however, the focus so far has been on production. In November, the Beijing Internet Court ruled in favor of providing protection to AIGC in the first case of its kind. The court ruled that the plaintiff met the threshold of “originality” by sufficiently enhancing the AI-generated image, warranting protection.
As Keiheng Chen, a fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute’s Center for China Analysis, pointed out in a recent paper, the Beijing court’s decision departs from decisions by the US Copyright Office, which has until now granted copyright to the AIGC. Have chosen not to give reservations. . In an interview, Chen explained that the Beijing Internet Court’s decision shows that the court is not completely independent.
“The court cannot be immune from high-level policy directives,” he said. “Opinions reflect the political climate and priorities of the moment.” Amid China’s current economic downturn, the central government’s priorities are focused on stimulus and industrial development — a currency judges are no doubt familiar with.
Beijing Internet Court Judge Jie Zhu said this while speaking at a conference organized by the University of Hong Kong late last month. Reflecting on the AIGC case, he said, the purpose of copyright law is to encourage creativity, adding that offering copyright protection would help keep creators honest and further develop the market for AIGC. can help He also noted that failure to protect art created by AI could create negative incentives for people to hide how they created the work.
China’s environment of relatively high interconnection between courts and regulators (with central regulators as tone-setters) indicates greater centralization in determining the scope of IP rights related to AIGC. Centralization does not guarantee predictability, but Chinese firms are probably closer than their American counterparts to hearing from the central government that they can expect to move forward without calculating a change in strategy or direction after the presidential election. . .
This has implications for the business side of AI. As ongoing court cases, executive orders and regulations continue to be issued in both countries, the forms of potential competition are coming into greater focus.
AI and IP rights are the most at stake for creators, who want to use the tools to enhance and speed up their work—but, as Judge Zhu pointed out, they need to know Their work will be protected before we can expect widespread commercial adoption. AIGC—and all the economic growth that can come with it.
Chen also pointed out the urgency of the AIGC and IP, which is clearly with artists. “Creators working in comics, illustration and film need some sort of protection for their creations so they can market and monetize them,” he said, adding that such protections “a More downstream use of i-systems will encourage more innovation.”
China’s advantage, Chen said, is rooted in factors such as “its large consumer base and consumer demand, which promote the development of new applications.” To some extent, this is different from the US, where basic model developers are mostly bottom-up.”
Ironically, the United States’ stance on technology regulation has always been motivated by support for innovation. China’s recent AIGC-based regulations—such as the Interim Measures for AIGC Measurement, released in July—and the Beijing Internet Court’s November ruling are directly in line with boosting the AI industry.
The two countries have charted contrasting paths to the conclusion that both put innovation first – at least for now. This should facilitate cooperation: companies from both countries have international ambitions. But in lieu of solid global agreements on how to handle IPAI products, Chinese and American firms — and consumers — are minding the gap. They may or may not fill them responsibly.