The Dilemma of S. 2(d)(vi) in the Copyright

 

What it says; says every section and article around World that defines an Author, when it comes to the computer generated related work:

‘…..in relation to any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the person who causes the work to be created…..’

Now, I’m not invoking the Natural person concept in the current scenario. But if you closely look around the definition, it mentions that a computer-generated work, wherein the person who generates that work becomes the author, and not the person who has made that program. But herein the dilemma ensues.

Notice the difference herein, as this section ought to have been only applicable for the ‘literary and dramatic’ works; and NEVER for the ‘artistic’ works. How? Take these examples.

When you type something in the Mircrosoft Word, then of course, you’re taking efforts to write the literary and the dramatic works. Thus, in terms of literary or dramatic works, this definition is applicable, as the Author is merely using the Microsoft Word as the Typewriter or as the Paper and so as the Keyboard itself. My concern comes for the Artistic Works these days wherein a Computer or AI generated image or work has been considered as the Work of Copyright, which shouldn’t have been allowed in the first place only. And if the Artistic work is included under this section and given the credit to the Natural Person, then shouldn’t that be applicable in terms of the sub-embedded AI systems too that has been created by AI or any Robot itself, as that artistic work created by the Natural Person was also fully ‘automated,’ created by the AI Sub-Systems?  

Thus, the entire chronology of jurisprudence is wrong, when it defines a Natural Person. As been discussed in my previous blogs also, the word Natural Person incudes the person who has life and consciousness, but what precedes or succeeds what, is still unknown. Can life exists without consciousness, or can consciousness survives when the life cease to exist, absolutely no idea!

Thus, the dilemma is, if the person who creates the automated work can become the author, then in that case, indeed, DABUS wasn’t the inventor, and its maker was both the inventor and the applicant. And so goes for the AI Act that precisely defines the Provider, Deployer and the Operator. But again, isn’t this all Wrong?

As what I’ve learnt in the jurisprudence is, we go the bottom of every aspect, before implementing the law itself. And just alike we obliterated the evolution in the law and textbooks itself to define -> inclusivity; we’ve obliterated consciousness in defining the term -> Natural Person. Maybe, this is our evolutionary limit, and we must accept it as our boundary!😊

© Pranav Chaturvedi