Despite the massive growth of creative industries, 92.37% of creative industry players in Indonesia are independently self‐funded and have not received any outside funding such as banking credit. The government then issued Law Number 24 of 2019 concerning the Creative Economy (“Creative Economy Law”) where Article 16 verse (1) states that the government facilitates the development of Intellectual Property (IP)‐Based Financing for Creative Economy actors. The “Creative Economy Law” was then followed by the issuance of Government Regulation Number 24 of 2022 concerning the Implementing R egulations of Law Number 24 of 2019 concerning the Creative Economy (“Indonesian Government Regulation of Creative Economy”) as the regulatory framework. Using the normative juridical and comparative approach, this article examines the implementation of those regulations in establishing the IP‐based financing scheme for the creative industry in Indonesia, the progress, challenges, and potential solutions. This study shows that there's still a lack of political willingness from Indonesian banking institutions to accept and implement IP assets as collateral, therefore, concrete steps need to be taken for the formulation of IP‐based financing and IP‐based collateral through coordination and synergy between state holders and stakeholders for example by formulating pilot project led by the government.
{"title":"Intellectual property‐based financing scheme for creative industry in Indonesia: Policy, progress, challenges and potential solutions","authors":"R. F. Mayana, Tisni Santika","doi":"10.1111/jwip.12322","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12322","url":null,"abstract":"Despite the massive growth of creative industries, 92.37% of creative industry players in Indonesia are independently self‐funded and have not received any outside funding such as banking credit. The government then issued Law Number 24 of 2019 concerning the Creative Economy (“Creative Economy Law”) where Article 16 verse (1) states that the government facilitates the development of Intellectual Property (IP)‐Based Financing for Creative Economy actors. The “Creative Economy Law” was then followed by the issuance of Government Regulation Number 24 of 2022 concerning the Implementing R egulations of Law Number 24 of 2019 concerning the Creative Economy (“Indonesian Government Regulation of Creative Economy”) as the regulatory framework. Using the normative juridical and comparative approach, this article examines the implementation of those regulations in establishing the IP‐based financing scheme for the creative industry in Indonesia, the progress, challenges, and potential solutions. This study shows that there's still a lack of political willingness from Indonesian banking institutions to accept and implement IP assets as collateral, therefore, concrete steps need to be taken for the formulation of IP‐based financing and IP‐based collateral through coordination and synergy between state holders and stakeholders for example by formulating pilot project led by the government.","PeriodicalId":513120,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of World Intellectual Property","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141925562","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The US affirmed patent protection for genetically modified plant traits in 1985, asserting that firms could patent new hybrid plant varieties when formerly plant variety protection was the primary means to protect hybrid varieties. This paper examines how firms' intellectual property choices have changed for new corn varieties created during the years 1985–2012. The data suggests that firms increasingly rely on patent protection as their only form of intellectual property protection for new varieties. For varieties with patent protection, low‐valued varieties, as determined by low patent renewal rates, receive less net benefit from obtaining plant variety protection compared to high‐valued varieties.
{"title":"Evolving intellectual property protection for new corn varieties in the United States: An empirical analysis","authors":"H. P. Chan","doi":"10.1111/jwip.12319","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12319","url":null,"abstract":"The US affirmed patent protection for genetically modified plant traits in 1985, asserting that firms could patent new hybrid plant varieties when formerly plant variety protection was the primary means to protect hybrid varieties. This paper examines how firms' intellectual property choices have changed for new corn varieties created during the years 1985–2012. The data suggests that firms increasingly rely on patent protection as their only form of intellectual property protection for new varieties. For varieties with patent protection, low‐valued varieties, as determined by low patent renewal rates, receive less net benefit from obtaining plant variety protection compared to high‐valued varieties.","PeriodicalId":513120,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of World Intellectual Property","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141808299","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Soviet Union was a productive and technologically developed economy. It achieved a remarkable transformation from a feudalistic society to an advanced industrial society. How was it able to do this? This article argues that such rapid industrialisation was possible because the Soviets invested in legal institutions that created a special kind of open and highly coordinated innovation system confined to national borders. These legal institutions remain underappreciated in Western intellectual property scholarship. The article reassesses the Soviet legal institutions, by explaining their functions and effects on knowledge flows. It also conceptualises the Soviet reward system as having elements of an ‘economy of esteem’. The article is informative not only as a revisited historical account on the Soviet regulation of innovation, but also as one that teaches much about the modern models of innovation in market economies.
{"title":"Open innovation under authoritarianism: The case of the Soviet Union","authors":"S. Lebedenko","doi":"10.1111/jwip.12318","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12318","url":null,"abstract":"The Soviet Union was a productive and technologically developed economy. It achieved a remarkable transformation from a feudalistic society to an advanced industrial society. How was it able to do this? This article argues that such rapid industrialisation was possible because the Soviets invested in legal institutions that created a special kind of open and highly coordinated innovation system confined to national borders. These legal institutions remain underappreciated in Western intellectual property scholarship. The article reassesses the Soviet legal institutions, by explaining their functions and effects on knowledge flows. It also conceptualises the Soviet reward system as having elements of an ‘economy of esteem’. The article is informative not only as a revisited historical account on the Soviet regulation of innovation, but also as one that teaches much about the modern models of innovation in market economies.","PeriodicalId":513120,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of World Intellectual Property","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141654492","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Miranda Risang Ayu Palar, Laina Rafianti, Wina Puspitasari, Isti Novianti
This paper tries to examine the role and function of the National Collective Management Organization (NCMO) and Collective Management Organizations (CMOs) for songs and music authors along with their related rights based on the existing law and implementing regulations in Indonesia. The discussion specifically revolves around controversies, challenges, advantages, and disadvantages that occurred from the centralized management system in songs and music conducted by NCMO to ease the royalties payment process for commercial users. The research was made by analyzing qualitative data on the laws and their implementing regulations in Indonesia, and also formal reports, it is supported by in‐depth observation and interviews with selected sources in the fields. Results show that to perform its task as the centralized management body for royalties of copyrights in Indonesia, the NCMO has to transform the way they operate. There are three practicable and acceptable options of transformation which all shall require a structural change, transparency, and reasonable operational costs shared in terms of NCMO's and CMOs' operation. It must also involve improvement in consistency to NCMO, CMOs, and other related agencies to act as trustee bodies.
{"title":"Centralized management of copyright royalties: A case study on the National Collective Management Organization for songs and music in Indonesia","authors":"Miranda Risang Ayu Palar, Laina Rafianti, Wina Puspitasari, Isti Novianti","doi":"10.1111/jwip.12320","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12320","url":null,"abstract":"This paper tries to examine the role and function of the National Collective Management Organization (NCMO) and Collective Management Organizations (CMOs) for songs and music authors along with their related rights based on the existing law and implementing regulations in Indonesia. The discussion specifically revolves around controversies, challenges, advantages, and disadvantages that occurred from the centralized management system in songs and music conducted by NCMO to ease the royalties payment process for commercial users. The research was made by analyzing qualitative data on the laws and their implementing regulations in Indonesia, and also formal reports, it is supported by in‐depth observation and interviews with selected sources in the fields. Results show that to perform its task as the centralized management body for royalties of copyrights in Indonesia, the NCMO has to transform the way they operate. There are three practicable and acceptable options of transformation which all shall require a structural change, transparency, and reasonable operational costs shared in terms of NCMO's and CMOs' operation. It must also involve improvement in consistency to NCMO, CMOs, and other related agencies to act as trustee bodies.","PeriodicalId":513120,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of World Intellectual Property","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141654838","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The entering into force of Europe's Unified Patent Court (UPC) on 1 June 2023 shifts the question on whether and how a specialised and unified court should be designed to the question on how the already conceived court shall function to meet the set institutional and substantive goals for the European patent adjudication. Despite the contextual legal and economic differences, the examples of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and the Tokyo Intellectual Property High Court (IPHC) can serve as guidance for the new European court, especially in its early days of operation. This article, outlining both the differences and similarities in the origins of the three courts, articulates upon the challenges as well as the achievements of the United States and Japanese examples to shed light on the future perspectives of the UPC and wherever relevant, provide policy‐oriented and practical recommendations for those in charge of shaping the UPC's jurisprudence. To this end, it is submitted that particular attention should be paid to ensuring the wide range of competences of the UPC judges; the interinstitutional dialogue between the UPC and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as well as the dialogue among the UPC judges, including the encouragement of dissenting opinions; consultation of public, if possible in the form of amicus curiae briefs; and international cooperation with existing specialised IP courts worldwide. Based on evidenced foreign practices, these mechanisms are argued to serve the objectives of avoiding ‘overspecialisation’, achieving uniformity while maintaining accuracy, securing the new court's legitimacy and, finally, fostering global judicial harmonisation.
{"title":"The future perspectives of the European Unified Patent Court in the light of the existing intellectual property courts in the United States and Japan","authors":"T. Khuchua","doi":"10.1111/jwip.12314","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12314","url":null,"abstract":"The entering into force of Europe's Unified Patent Court (UPC) on 1 June 2023 shifts the question on whether and how a specialised and unified court should be designed to the question on how the already conceived court shall function to meet the set institutional and substantive goals for the European patent adjudication. Despite the contextual legal and economic differences, the examples of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and the Tokyo Intellectual Property High Court (IPHC) can serve as guidance for the new European court, especially in its early days of operation. This article, outlining both the differences and similarities in the origins of the three courts, articulates upon the challenges as well as the achievements of the United States and Japanese examples to shed light on the future perspectives of the UPC and wherever relevant, provide policy‐oriented and practical recommendations for those in charge of shaping the UPC's jurisprudence. To this end, it is submitted that particular attention should be paid to ensuring the wide range of competences of the UPC judges; the interinstitutional dialogue between the UPC and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as well as the dialogue among the UPC judges, including the encouragement of dissenting opinions; consultation of public, if possible in the form of amicus curiae briefs; and international cooperation with existing specialised IP courts worldwide. Based on evidenced foreign practices, these mechanisms are argued to serve the objectives of avoiding ‘overspecialisation’, achieving uniformity while maintaining accuracy, securing the new court's legitimacy and, finally, fostering global judicial harmonisation.","PeriodicalId":513120,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of World Intellectual Property","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141369239","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Stuart J. Smyth, Peter W B Phillips, Diego M. Macall, David Castle
On February 27, 2015, as part of the Agricultural Growth Act, amendments to the Canada's Plant Breeders' Rights (PBRs) Act came into force, making Canada compliant with Union for the Protection of the New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) 91. One objective of adopting UPOV 91 was that it would encourage increased investment in plant breeding, giving Canadian farmers greater access to new and innovative plant varieties that enable them to be more globally competitive. To assess whether the adoption of UPOV 91 impacted crop variety investments, a survey of Canadian public and private plant breeders was undertaken in 2021–2022. Results indicate that the length of research grants play a significant role in plant breeders' perspectives. Previous research indicated that the adoption of UPOV 91 provided minimal incentives to increase investments. Results of this survey indicate that 52% of respondents, either agree or strongly agree, that the amendments to the PBR Act have provided an incentive to increase plant breeding investments.
{"title":"Impacts of changes to Canada's Plant Breeders' Rights Act","authors":"Stuart J. Smyth, Peter W B Phillips, Diego M. Macall, David Castle","doi":"10.1111/jwip.12303","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12303","url":null,"abstract":"On February 27, 2015, as part of the Agricultural Growth Act, amendments to the Canada's Plant Breeders' Rights (PBRs) Act came into force, making Canada compliant with Union for the Protection of the New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) 91. One objective of adopting UPOV 91 was that it would encourage increased investment in plant breeding, giving Canadian farmers greater access to new and innovative plant varieties that enable them to be more globally competitive. To assess whether the adoption of UPOV 91 impacted crop variety investments, a survey of Canadian public and private plant breeders was undertaken in 2021–2022. Results indicate that the length of research grants play a significant role in plant breeders' perspectives. Previous research indicated that the adoption of UPOV 91 provided minimal incentives to increase investments. Results of this survey indicate that 52% of respondents, either agree or strongly agree, that the amendments to the PBR Act have provided an incentive to increase plant breeding investments.","PeriodicalId":513120,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of World Intellectual Property","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140976155","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) platforms that allow copyright owners to reach a large number of users and increase their economic fortune, contritely; enable the potential infringers preferring free‐riding to upload and distribute copyrighted materials. Under various theories of direct and secondary copyright infringement, the platforms now loosely called intermediaries are likely to become liable for copyright infringement. Like other jurisdictions, Indian law contains specific provisions to protect the intermediaries from such unanticipated liability. However, this intermediary liability and immunity law got muddied by inconsistent interpretations of the two operating statutes. Taking clues from the cross‐jurisdictional insights, this paper looks at the interpretative conundrum. Furthermore, the paper contends how the preferred interpretation is incompatible with the Berne Convention and Agreement on Trade‐Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights recommended three‐step doctrine for creating copyright exceptions. Ultimately, this paper advocates for a legislative intervention to clear the clouds of confusion in view of India's endeavour to enact a new law on ICT.
{"title":"Intermediary safe harbour from copyright infringement in India—Alternative to the interpretative conundrum","authors":"Sumeet Guha, Shreya Matilal","doi":"10.1111/jwip.12305","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12305","url":null,"abstract":"The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) platforms that allow copyright owners to reach a large number of users and increase their economic fortune, contritely; enable the potential infringers preferring free‐riding to upload and distribute copyrighted materials. Under various theories of direct and secondary copyright infringement, the platforms now loosely called intermediaries are likely to become liable for copyright infringement. Like other jurisdictions, Indian law contains specific provisions to protect the intermediaries from such unanticipated liability. However, this intermediary liability and immunity law got muddied by inconsistent interpretations of the two operating statutes. Taking clues from the cross‐jurisdictional insights, this paper looks at the interpretative conundrum. Furthermore, the paper contends how the preferred interpretation is incompatible with the Berne Convention and Agreement on Trade‐Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights recommended three‐step doctrine for creating copyright exceptions. Ultimately, this paper advocates for a legislative intervention to clear the clouds of confusion in view of India's endeavour to enact a new law on ICT.","PeriodicalId":513120,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of World Intellectual Property","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140981383","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In Iraq, plants and biological processes for their production and plant varieties are patentable Under Order (81/2004) in Iraq and later its amendment Law (58/2015). This paper attempts to critically review patent rules related to agricultural biotechnology. It specifically questions the extent to which Iraq's developmental needs were considered when far‐reaching plant related patent protection was granted, The motivation for this study lies in its aim to examine the shift to restrictive exclusionary rights over plant genetic resources, and the implications this shift could have on sustainable agriculture and food security in the country, particularly Iraq lacks technological, institutional and financial capacities that can be directed towards the development of the biotechnology industry in the country.
{"title":"Patenting of agriculture biotechnology in Iraq: Widening the gap between the country's development needs and food security","authors":"Nihaya Khalaf","doi":"10.1111/jwip.12306","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12306","url":null,"abstract":"In Iraq, plants and biological processes for their production and plant varieties are patentable Under Order (81/2004) in Iraq and later its amendment Law (58/2015). This paper attempts to critically review patent rules related to agricultural biotechnology. It specifically questions the extent to which Iraq's developmental needs were considered when far‐reaching plant related patent protection was granted, The motivation for this study lies in its aim to examine the shift to restrictive exclusionary rights over plant genetic resources, and the implications this shift could have on sustainable agriculture and food security in the country, particularly Iraq lacks technological, institutional and financial capacities that can be directed towards the development of the biotechnology industry in the country.","PeriodicalId":513120,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of World Intellectual Property","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140986341","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article contributes to the dynamic debate surrounding the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and copyright law, offering a fresh perspective that builds upon interdisciplinary analyses. Focusing on the cognitive processes underpinning creativity in both human and AI contexts, the study draws a detailed parallel between Vincent Van Gogh's iconic “Starry Night” and its AI‐generated counterpart generated through DeepDream technology. Central to the investigation is the application of psychological and neuroscientific theories to understand and compare the creative processes in humans and AI. Based on such exercise, the article first examines whether art generated with AI, devoid of human emotions and motivations yet capable of mimicking human creative cognitive processes, qualifies for copyright protection. The analysis suggests that the similarities between human and AI creativity, particularly in their cognitive structuring, could render the work “original” according to different jurisdictional standards and interpretation of copyright law. Second, the article investigates whether AI infringes copyright if protected material is used for its training and processing. This question becomes particularly relevant in light of recent legal actions against AI‐artwork generators in California, which raise issues of potential infringement by AI using latent diffusion techniques on existing artworks. The discussion provides an original perspective that can advance the ongoing debate on the use of copyrighted material for AI training. The paper aims to contribute to the ongoing debate about AI and copyright by challenging the traditional human‐centric view of authorship in copyright law. The article argues for a nuanced understanding that acknowledges the complex nature of creativity, transcending the binary division between human and artificial sources. This approach is critical in redefining legal frameworks, ensuring they are adaptive to the evolving landscape of AI capabilities. At the same time, the article addresses the implications of AI drawing inspiration from existing art, recognizing the need to balance different stakeholders' interests when drawing policy considerations. Ultimately, the goal is to provide a layered perspective that not only deepens the legal discourse but also respects and fosters the coexistence and mutual advancement of both human and artificial creativity in the digital age, in line with the purpose of copyright.
{"title":"Video kills the radio star: Copyright and the human versus artificial creativity war","authors":"Francesca Mazzi, Salvatore Fasciana","doi":"10.1111/jwip.12304","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12304","url":null,"abstract":"This article contributes to the dynamic debate surrounding the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and copyright law, offering a fresh perspective that builds upon interdisciplinary analyses. Focusing on the cognitive processes underpinning creativity in both human and AI contexts, the study draws a detailed parallel between Vincent Van Gogh's iconic “Starry Night” and its AI‐generated counterpart generated through DeepDream technology. Central to the investigation is the application of psychological and neuroscientific theories to understand and compare the creative processes in humans and AI. Based on such exercise, the article first examines whether art generated with AI, devoid of human emotions and motivations yet capable of mimicking human creative cognitive processes, qualifies for copyright protection. The analysis suggests that the similarities between human and AI creativity, particularly in their cognitive structuring, could render the work “original” according to different jurisdictional standards and interpretation of copyright law. Second, the article investigates whether AI infringes copyright if protected material is used for its training and processing. This question becomes particularly relevant in light of recent legal actions against AI‐artwork generators in California, which raise issues of potential infringement by AI using latent diffusion techniques on existing artworks. The discussion provides an original perspective that can advance the ongoing debate on the use of copyrighted material for AI training. The paper aims to contribute to the ongoing debate about AI and copyright by challenging the traditional human‐centric view of authorship in copyright law. The article argues for a nuanced understanding that acknowledges the complex nature of creativity, transcending the binary division between human and artificial sources. This approach is critical in redefining legal frameworks, ensuring they are adaptive to the evolving landscape of AI capabilities. At the same time, the article addresses the implications of AI drawing inspiration from existing art, recognizing the need to balance different stakeholders' interests when drawing policy considerations. Ultimately, the goal is to provide a layered perspective that not only deepens the legal discourse but also respects and fosters the coexistence and mutual advancement of both human and artificial creativity in the digital age, in line with the purpose of copyright.","PeriodicalId":513120,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of World Intellectual Property","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140996575","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：