BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

Boczek Michał (SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Warsaw)
Copyright - Protection of Intelligent Man or Artificial Intelligence?
Zeszyty Naukowe. Organizacja i Zarządzanie / Politechnika Śląska, 2022, z. 165, s. 7-20, bibliogr. 28 poz.
Słowa kluczowe
Sztuczna inteligencja, Prawo autorskie
Artificial intelligence, Copyright law
Purpose: The aim of the study is to indicate the essence of copyright in the context of what was, is, and may be. Drawing attention to the changing reality, the expansion of artificial intelligence as a potential author of a given work, who as the creator will be entitled to legal protection. If we assume that a snail and cancer can be a fish, a carrot can be a fruit, and a machine cannot be an inventor because it is just a tool, then what is copyright in human life? What is the difference between artificial intelligence in copyright law and the natural intelligence of a given author - creator, if both are intelligent creations? Why is there talk of a higher than natural intelligence in a situation in which it is not so much about something completely new and from the beginning, but about something that is simply better, faster, more accurate and more efficient in some respects than an intelligent man, whom this thing does not replace, but only helps. Design/methodology/approach: The research method used in this article is the analysis of legal sources, scientific studies of interdisciplinary scope, supplemented by interviews, observations and experience of the author. The research procedure included the analysis of information sources, a review of Polish and foreign literature, an analysis of legal acts, a method of analysis and synthesis, a case study and logical deductive reasoning in the timespace of yesterday - today - tomorrow. Findings: For centuries, man has wanted to be better, to overcome basically everything, including Nature, to create something that could have existed so far without his participation or with his indirect participation. The emergence of concepts related to artificial intelligence only seemingly suggests a desire to take control of man. Man is a realistic, rich structure composed of soul and body, which artificial intelligence does not have. Who will be the creator and who will be entitled to the rights and how they will be protected when the object of protection becomes the product of artificial intelligence. Thanks to the algorithms used, an artificial intellectual creator is able to quickly assimilate many things, but first he must know what. Here we come to a very important issue - who should "feed" artificial intelligence data so that the so-called biased algorithms are not created. At the moment, attributing copyright to machines and devices and granting them legal protection as a creator seems to be an action incompatible with the natural protection of man as a creator. Research limitations/implications: The limitations of the results obtained may result from a limited research sample, including textual sample. They may result from too innovative invention of comprehensive use of artificial intelligence, which in the case of copyright is attributed to man. The trick is to come up with an innovative solution and construct some unprecedented thing, but the success of this mainly depends on their widespread use. In many areas, artificial intelligence is to be used on the march, it will be more difficult to use it in areas that are inherently reserved for man with his creativity. Originality/value: The presented research, suggestions and conclusions provide not only practical but also theoretical tips to scientists and average citizens, mainly those who are not aware of what copyright is, what copyright protection is, who it is supposed to cover and to what extent. One of the objectives of the legislation on the use of artificial intelligence is to increase the protection of creators. Creating regulations to effectively protect the rights given to people, perhaps in the future also artificial intelligence.(original abstract)
Pełny tekst
  1. Act of 25.02.1964 - Family and Guardianship Code (Journal of Laws of 2020, item 1359).
  2. Act of 29.03. 1926 on copyright (Dz.U. No. 48, item 286).
  3. Barta, J., Markiewicz, R. (2008). Copyright and related rights. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer.
  4. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of 9.09.1886, reviewed in Berlin on 13.11.1908 and in Rome on 2.06.1928 (ratified in accordance with the Law of 5.03.1934) (Journal of Laws of 1935, No. 84, item 515).
  5. Bukowski, M. (1994). Copyright holder. Review of Economic Legislation, 11, p. 9.
  6. Chwalba, A. (2008). Universal history. Nineteenth century. Warsaw: PWN.
  7. Convention on the Grant of European Patents (European Patent Convention), done at Munich on 5.10.1973, as amended by the Act amending Article 63 of the Convention of 17.12.1991 and the Decisions of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation of 21.12.1978, 13.12.1994, 20.10.1995, 5.12.1996 and 10.12.1998, together with the Protocols forming an integral part thereof (Journal of Laws of 2004 No. 79, item 737).
  8. Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22.05.2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ L ..., p. EU L 167, p. 10).
  9. Gniewek, E. (2016). Property law. Warsaw: C.H. Beck.
  10. Golat, R. (2001). Agreements in the field of copyright and related rights. Patterns and commentary. Warsaw: Difin.
  11. Grzybowski, S. (2003). The genesis and place of copyright in the legal system. In: J. Barta (ed.), The System of Private Law. Copyright, vol. 13 (pp. 1-6). Warsaw: C.H. Beck.
  12. Grzybowski, S., Kopff, A., Serda, J. (1973). Copyright issues. Warsaw: PWN.
  13. Judgment of the SA in Łódź of 8.09.2017 I ACa 150/17, OSAŁ.
  14. Judgment of the Supreme Court of 23.01.2006, III CSK 40/50, LEX No. 176385.
  15. Judgment of the Supreme Court of 30.06.2005, IV CK 763/04, OSNC 2006/5, item 92.
  16. Judgment of the Supreme Court of 5.07.2002, III CKN 1096/00 BSN 2003/2. item 10.
  17. Judgment of the Supreme Court of 7.11.2003, V CK 391/02, OSNC 2004/12, item 203.
  18. Judgment of the Supreme Court of 8.11.2000, V CKN 693/00, LEX No. 52478.
  19. Jung, K.G. (2017). A breakthrough of civilization. Warsaw: Kr Publishing House.
  20. Kubala, W. (1995). Author's economic rights as the subject of legal transactions. Review of Commercial Law, 5, pp. 25-32.
  21. Kuzior, A., Czajkowski, W. (2019). Filozofia umysłu i sztuczna inteligencja. Etyka Biznesu i Zrównoważony Rozwój. Interdyscyplinarne studia teoretyczno-empiryczne, 4, pp. 5-18.
  22. Nowińska, E. (1991). Copyright holders. Scientific notebooks of the Jagiellonian University, Prace Wynalazczości i Ochrony Własności Intelektualnej, 57, pp. 43-48.
  23. Paris Federal Convention of 20.03.1883 for the Protection of Industrial Property, reviewed in Brussels on 14.12.1900, in Washington on 2.06.1911 and in The Hague on 6.11.1925 (ratified in accordance with the Law of 17.03.1931) (Journal of Laws of 1932, No. 2, item 8).
  24. Siekierko, S. (1962). Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers. Palestra, 6(1-2), pp. 107-113.
  25. Ślęzak, P. (2007). Inheritance of economic rights in the light of Polish copyright law. Regent, 17(1), pp. 94-108.
  26. Styczyński, J. (2002). A machine cannot be an inventor. It's just a tool. Retrieved from:,sztuczna-inteligencja-dabus-wynalazca-patent-maszyna-epo.html, 02.08.2022.
  27. The Statute of Anne (1710), 8 Ann. c. 19 (Statute of Queen Anne).
  28. Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in Paris on 10.12.1948.
Cytowane przez
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu