Forum grapples with AI's impact on IP

A forum on intellectual property in the age of artificial intelligence convened in Beijing on Wednesday, grappling with the legal and regulatory challenges in the rapidly evolving field.

The event, held as part of the Global Digital Economy Conference 2024, brought together legal professionals, prosecutors and representatives from technology companies and academia.

Beijing prosecutors warned of criminal risks related to IP protection, personal information security, computing system security and data security in the AI industry, aiming to guide its healthy development.

Qi Zhiguo, deputy chief prosecutor of the People's Procuratorate of Beijing, emphasized the importance of building Beijing into a global leader in AI innovation.

The forum also witnessed a collaborative effort between the Beijing Intellectual Property Office, the Beijing Internet Court and the Beijing International Data Exchange. Their online platforms were linked, facilitating the streamlined registration, application and protection of IP data.

The collaboration aims to ensure that data flows are secure, while also reducing the cost of protecting intellectual property rights.

A central theme of the forum was the question of authorship in AI-generated works. Experts debated whether AI should be recognized as a legal author or creator.

Guo He, a professor at the IP School of Renmin University of China, said AI systems can currently only be defined as tools for human creativity and it is not appropriate to recognize them as legal authors or creators. "AI-generated content, even if it has originality, can only be considered a human creation, not a machine creation," he said.

Kiran Patel, senior director of the China-Britain Business Council, said that in the United Kingdom, AI is recognized as playing a crucial role in both technological innovation and artistic creativity. AI can serve as a tool for scientists, entrepreneurs and artists, enabling new human inventions and creations, he said.

"If or when inventive and creative AI exists, the IP system must be appropriate to deliver the benefits to society — the human benefits of this innovation," Patel said. "Meanwhile, the UK must ensure that patents and copyright work where AI supports invention and creativity but is not the sole author or inventor."

Feng Gang, chief judge of the Judicial Supervision Division of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, said that AI-generated content should be protected by law. He emphasized that such content should be protected by the Copyright Law when identified as works.

To protect the public's right to make informed decisions, AI-generated information should be clearly marked, Feng added.