Changing Landscape of Copyright |

Nowadays, it is so easy to copy documents available online.

When you see an interesting photo or video someone posted to their social media account, all you need to do is upload a copy or if you can’t upload it, take a screenshot and then post it on your own account for all your friends. and followers to see.

However, if you are not sure if someone took this photo or created this video themselves, you insert the letters CTTO or CTO meaning credit to owner just to make sure you make some attribution to the real owner of those photos or videos. .

The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL), however, points out that this is not an appropriate attribution, as you may infringe someone’s copyright unless the use can be justified under of the so-called “fair dealing doctrine”.

Under our Intellectual Property Code (IPC) and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, obtaining copyright in one’s literary and artistic work should not be subject to any formality. Works are protected from their creation, but you can have them registered or registered at the National Library in order to have proof of ownership. But registering his literary and artistic works, which include the photographic works, is not a requirement before the owner can sue for copyright infringement.

* * *

You take a video of a scene with a building, which is the architectural masterpiece of, say, a national artist in the background. You are using this photo without asking the architect’s permission in your next movie, which, good for you, has Netflix interested enough to buy the rights to your movie on their very popular streaming service.

Without knowing it, you are violating the rights of the author or such work of architecture.

During the first Philippine International Copyright Summit, which just ended over five days, Chuck Valerio, Deputy Head of the Bureau of the Accreditation and Standards Division of the Copyright Office and related rights, explained that local copyright laws do not recognize the so-called Freedom of Panorama (FOP) or the right to photograph public spaces.

Freedom of panorama, he said, is an exception to copyright laws, similar to fair dealing, which dispenses with the need to obtain prior permission from a copyright holder. author for the use of a work.

But since our IPC does not offer such freedom of panoramic arrangement and taking a photo or video of a copyrighted work, such as a building, the architectural design of which is protected by the copyright, is considered to create a derivative work based on an existing copyrighted work, then the appearance – intentional or unintentional – of such copyrighted work in a photograph can be seen as creating a derivative work.

Creating a derivative work of one’s copyrighted work is an exclusive right granted to the copyright owner.

Valerio cited the case of France, where the company in charge of maintaining the Eiffel Tower installed a new lighting display and copyrighted it so that photos of the tower taken at night – when the lights are displayed – are subject to copyright and copyright laws. to publish.

In other jurisdictions with FOP provisions in their copyright laws, one has the right to take photographs of public spaces and use such photos even for commercial purposes and even without the consent or the Payment of royalties to the copyright owner is permitted. Basically, the FOP provision will allow reproduction and communication to the public of the copyrighted work as it appears in the photo.

There is now a proposal to Congress to amend the IP Code to include such a FOP provision. As proposed, “the copyright in a work which is located, other than temporarily, in a public place or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting or a drawing. , an engraving or photograph of the work or by the inclusion of the work in a cinematographic film or in a television program.

Unfortunately, as lawyer Jose Antonio Aliling and Raffy Lerma, board member of the Photojournalist Council of the Philippines, have pointed out, copyright infringement lawsuits can be very costly, so copyright owners Copyrights in the country often turn a blind eye to infringement of their works. Or some are simply not aware of their rights.

* * *

If a person uses a copyrighted work without the consent of the copyright owner and the unauthorized use of that copyrighted work is not among those considered to be exceptions or copyright limitations, then a person can be sued for infringement. Good faith is not a defense in the event of copyright infringement and criminal, civil or administrative liability may be incurred.

During the same forum, there was a very interesting presentation on whether literary and artistic works created through artificial intelligence are entitled to copyright protection.

CIPP / US Communities Rise lawyer Ijeoma Unachukwu highlighted how AI is now being used to create artistic works. She cited the AI ​​portrait of Edmond de Belamy, which was created by feeding the AI ​​system with 15,000 portraits from the 14th and 15th centuries allowing the generator to create a new image based on the training data. The AI ​​portrait was auctioned for $ 432,500.

In South Korea, she cited how AI was used to revive the voice of late superstar Kim Kwang-seok 25 years after her death. Supertone’s AI technology was trained to sing over 700 songs with the artist’s voice and was able to learn by listening to several of the artist’s songs.

AI was also used to complete Beethhoven’s last symphony 194 years after his death by Amper AI music. In the movies, an AI called Benjamin wrote a sci-fi short called “Sunspring” after the AI ​​was fed dozens of sci-fi storylines. And then there’s the nude portrait of crouching women, which was brought to life by an AI trained to paint like Picasso after the AI ​​analyzed dozens of Picasso’s past works. More recently, she said that a 3D portrait of Rembrandt was created by art historians and technicians using FR data and techniques from 346 Rembrandt paintings.

Unfortunately, there are a number of issues that need to be resolved before we can determine whether these AI-created works are even protected by copyright. She said the U.S. copyright office, for example, will not register works produced by machines or mechanical processes that operate randomly or automatically without sufficient creative input or intervention by a human author. in the resulting work. Thus, in the United States, works created by AI will fall into the public domain. But if there has been human intervention, does the copyright belong to the human author?

Unless the work is created by humans, it is not entitled to copyright protection in the United States. In this interesting case from Naruto vs Slater, a macaque (monkey) took selfies and those photos were used in a book by David Slater (who was actually the one who set up the camera for the monkey). The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) sued Slater for copyright infringement, claiming it was the monkey who took the photos of himself. The court ruled that the Naruto macaque lacked standing to sue under copyright law.

If the AI’s work, assuming the AI ​​is the one who owns the copyright, is used without their permission, can they sue for copyright infringement? Should AI work even be protected? Since AI used copyrighted works as input, didn’t AI also violate copyright?

Technology changes everything. Hopefully our legal framework can keep up with these changes.

For comments, email [email protected]

Comments are closed.