Archive
Generative AI / Generative IP (Part 3: Now What?)
My previous posts described the rise of Generative AI applications and their usability super-powers, as well as their implications for mass AI adoption, ethics and intellectual property, but the question remains – How should the average person respond to what some describe as a critical and transformative step in our collective human experience and cultural evolution?
Read more…Generative AI / Generative IP (Part 2: So What?)
In my first post on this topic, I described how the most striking aspect of the sudden rise in popularity of generative AI models may be the accessibility and ease of use of such applications as ChatGPT, which seem to be approaching a tipping point towards mass adoption. Could this be a much anticipated AI Summer, as opposed to AI Winters of the past? What are the key implications of these developments?
Read more…Generative AI / Generative IP (Part 1: What?)
What makes such Generative AI applications as: ChatGPT, Dall-E, Codex, or MidJourney and Stable Diffusion so compelling? Is it the seemingly miraculous leap in capability, application and user experience? Or is it something to do with the timing, (at the tail-end of a great pandemic), and/or the tantalising promise of even greater things to come? And what has all this got to do with Intellectual Property anyway? Well, why don’t you jump on my multi-carriage train of thought to find out…
Read more…ChatGPT and Intellectual Property
ChatGPT has taken the world by storm, and it is only at GPT version 3.5! As ever, given its proximity and ability to generate creative content (e.g. text, art, music, poetry, videos and games), the first question that comes to mind, as indeed it has with many others, is what are the implications for Intellectual Property, especially copyright? Is it finally time to update and upgrade that most artificial of property rights to something befitting the 21st century?
In true spirit of enquiry, I had to do the needful and ask ChatGPT for its views on the future of Generative AI and Intellectual Property, and below is a screenshot + transcript of the most-impressive sub-minute responses I got to both my questions:

Transcript:
Q1: what are the key implications of generative AI for intellectual property such as copyright?
ChatGPT:
- Difficulty in determining original authorship: AI models can generate content that is similar to existing works, making it difficult to determine who holds the rights.
- Lack of legal protection: Currently, most copyright laws do not extend to AI generated content.
- Potential for infringement: AI generated content could potentially infringe on existing copyrights, which could lead to legal disputes.
- New legislation: The increasing use of AI in content creation may prompt the need for new legislation to address these issues.
Q2: What type of new legislation would be useful to address those issues?(i.e. of AI content and intellectual property)
CHATGPT:
- Extension of copyright laws: To cover AI-generated content and determine who holds the rights.
- Moral rights protection: To ensure that authors have control over the modification or destruction of their works.
- AI creators liability: To hold AI creators responsible for any infringing content generated by their models.
- Fair use clarification: To clearly define the limits of fair use in the context of AI generated content.
- Registration and licensing: To provide a clear and transparent process for registering and licensing AI generated works.
What can I say – ChatGPT must have read my mind!
I can certainly understand why authors, bloggers and some journalists might be tempted to use this service to augment or create their content, but I have chosen not to do so on this occasion. A man has his fast waning pride to hold on to. What’s more, I feel a series of hand-crafted posts on this topic coming soon, so watch this space!
UPDATE:
Below are the links to my 3-part blogpost series entitled “Generative AI / Generative IP”. They represent my train of thoughts which I’ve chunked into the following parts that describe the: What.., So What.., and Now What.., as follows:
- What? – The first carriage on my metaphorical train looks at current state AI and the amazing capabilities provided with transformers and other generative models.
- So What? – This is swiftly followed in the second carriage by an exploration of certain key implications, particularly with regards to jobs, IP & Ethics.
- Now What? – The final carriage concludes with some admonitions, premonitions and recommendations for the way forward. So, all aboard!
Are NFTs the future of digital IP and the creative world, or just a remix of DRM and all its woes? (Part 3)
This is third in a series of posts to share some observations, opinions and conclusions from playing with this intriguing technology that sits squarely at the intersection of digital technology, creative content and intellectual property. The topic is broken down into the following parts:
- What are NFTs (and the non-fungibility superpower)?
- What has this got to do with Intellectual Property (and content protection)?
- Does it mean that NFTs are like DRM remixed?
- How does it affect the creative industry today and in the future?
- Summary observations and conclusions.
The Tech Start-Up’s IP Dilemma
An IP System Fit for the 21st Century
Last week, I attended a breakfast meeting at the House of Commons to discuss and reflect on practical issues around implementing recommendations of the Hargreaves Report, as well as ways in which the IP system can be evolved to better enable the benefits from 21st Century business and technology opportunities.
This event, organised by the Industry and Parliament Trust, featured brief talks by Professor Ian Hargreaves (author of the IP Review report & recommendations – download it here), Ben White (Head of IP at the British Library), and Nico Perez (co-founder of startup, MixCloud), plus Q&A style discussions with the attending group of politicians and business people from relevant industries. Some key observations and comments are:
- London has the largest cluster of IP related start-ups, as well as the biggest hub for VCs, in Europe
- There has been a lot of international interest in the Hargreaves report and recommendations (the good professor regularly gets calls from interested observers across the globe). Also, the review findings and recommendations had good traction with the UK government.
- Digital economy versus creative economy; are they one and the same (i.e. is there and/or should there really be a difference)?
- The larger creative industry players (e.g. publishers), and their lobbyists, are not in full agreement with the review findings and / or recommendations, and remain firmly resistant to change
- According to one attendee, the interests of creative stakeholder (e.g. content creators) were not well represented or served by the review findings and recommendations
- Collecting societies act like de facto monopolies, which can make life difficult for some more innovative start-ups
- Broadcast TV players are trying to innovate and catch up with what consumers are already doing in their homes, but the current IP system is not sufficiently geared towards enabling such initiatives.
Note: Further information, comments and observations can be found in the IPT blog post about this event.
The upshot of the above points, in my opinion, is that a new / evolved IP system must really be geared towards dual targets, i.e. to help simplify and facilitate the use and reuse of IP works, especially in the digital realm. Such a focus would undoubtedly go a long way towards addressing the legion of non-technological challenges faced by most innovators, entrepreneurs and investors in the creative digital industries. For example, according to an article (see: The Library of Utopia), published by MIT technology review, “the major problem with constructing a universal library nowadays has little to do with technology. It’s the thorny tangle of legal, commercial, and political issues that surrounds the publishing business.”
These are pretty much the same issues to be found in similar ventures within publishing and other major creative industries, e.g.: Music (think cross border licensing for the much vaunted Celestial Jukebox), or a global film and image library (e.g. a mash-up of Hulu, Netflix, Corbis and Getty Images). In all cases, technology is not the stumbling block, because the bigger challenges lie with any combination of: business strategy, commercial models, legal / political / cultural mindsets, encountered along the way.
Having said that, it can be argued that such hurdles are not sustainable, for various reasons, not least of which is that individuals (or customers, casual pirates, consumers, freetards etc. – take your pick) are already way ahead of the curve in terms of digital content / technology, and will often use it exactly as they see fit.
This means that established incumbent players in the creative industries are forever playing a reactive / catch-up game, instead of pursuing or encouraging discovery of the next big thing. As a result, most disruptive propositions will invariably have a high impact on established business models, especially if and when they harness the natural instincts of individual users. An interesting example could be the recently launched Google Drive, complete with built-in OCR capability (which will enable users to digitize and search scanned content). Could this ultimately lead to a user generated version of Google Books?
To conclude, an IP system worthy of the 21st century is an urgent necessity, but there is also pressing need to keep in mind the big picture, which is that the Internet is a global enabler / platform, therefore any new IP system must likewise be global in scope. The UK, with its wealth of creative talent, plus such efforts as the IP review and recommendations, may be in a unique position to provide some leadership on the best way forward for IP in this 21st century.