Whether it comes to imitating in the mainstream; or the DATA on the Internet which is being used against the provisions of every single reciprocal treaties or TRIPS agreement; which was ought to have been restricted for personal & private use, R&D, academic only; YET, that has been used to train from AIs for 'commercial usage' (against Article 10 & 10bis, 11 ter, 12 of BERNE Convention), to, someone’s ancient knowledge been projected as someone else’s, as the latter being the architect of the same; or, whether the natural habitat & the presence of its steroidal compounds in lab being extracted (albeit that would come under the ambit of Patents again), and then being claimed as the originator & inventor of the same.
Whether the lyrics, music, scripts being taken from the least known individuals and then using the help of PR being marketed as being the originator of that (un)original themes and plots, or even the personality rights (albeit that is only restricted to the only known people), yet, that can’t be an excuse that only the person who uses IPHONE would be eligible for more privacy rights and not the person who is using the handset on Androids. And recently in the EU AI Acts, which I’ve summarized in the previous blog, has tried to act on the same features, that the DATA used for training of the tools or systems, would now be made available with the documentations, which would be a mammoth task for the companies, as they would now have to disclose, every Author’s/Link name, on whom the DATA has been trained! My proposition is, at least give the credit to the original / originators, even if the money is not being distributed.
And further, as in my books, and also in my several blogs, how I’ve elucidated and demonstrated that the present International filing system under the WIPO, especially w.r.t. PCT isn’t serving the purpose. How & why? Just check my earlier blogs. But when it comes to w.r.t. BERNE Convention that can easily be achieved. As honestly, there’s nothing needs to be done. As everything is there. But it seems, the suo-moto implementation is the only issue. Again, it isn’t about compensations, but, the credit not being given.
Seems, Article 17 has only been used in the Critics Laundering Program, especially on the whims made by modern liberal leftists. Whereas, Article 6bis has been misused, albeit I love, enjoy and support memes.
Furthermore, how the search engines can actually hide the original DATA, that I’ve already demonstrated in the earlier blogs, as not everyone can afford to run Turnitin, and rely on the quote-unquote testing technique to measure the similarity index; YET, if the original data is not being shown in the search results, then, there’re some real problems with the algorithms, or, with the person who is sitting behind that engine making the policies.
And furthermore, what is copyrightable, not necessarily becomes original, which I’ve already explained in my earlier blogs, You can’t call the work of journalism an original work. You can’t call memes and roasting original work. You can’t call criticism work of ART. You can’t call social media apps original work as that’s not original. But what was/is used to make them were/are original (eg. JAVASCRIPT). Thus, albeit they’re Copyrightable, BUT, not Original. Kindly understand the difference!
Thus, IP isn’t about the compensation. It ain’t about the profit making either. It is about knowing the originators of the original work, and not merely of the copyrightable work alone. 😊
© Pranav Chaturvedi 2024
No comments:
Post a Comment