There has been an explosion of technologies that are transforming how we work and live in an increasingly interconnected digital world. The emergence of frontier technologies is at the heart of what is sometimes termed the Fourth Industrial Revolution; hence, there is a need for the IP system to continue to promote innovation in the age of frontier technologies.

In today’s global innovation economy, the demand for various IPR related matters like trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, domain names to mention a few is increasing at a high pace and becoming more complex. Artificial Intelligence (AI) one of the frontier technologies has emerged as a general-purpose technology with widespread applications throughout the economy and society.

The benefits of AI technology are varied and could truly have the potential to revolutionise many aspects of life, including the world of IP, but its introduction also poses several challenges within the IP industry that need to be addressed not just now but in the near future.

This article seeks to explore some of the challenges of one of the frontier technologies, artificial intelligence (AI), on intellectual property.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

AI is generally considered to be a discipline of computer science that is aimed at developing machines and systems that can carry out tasks considered to require human intelligence. It could also be defined as the ability of a computer-controlled products to perform tasks that only intelligent beings are able to do.

Intellectual property systems have been designed to incentivize human innovation and creation. Until very recently such innovation and creation were one of the defining characteristics of the human species.

CHALLENGES

1. Ownership of Intellectual Property: There is no doubt that AI machines have the ability to create subject matter which can be protected by IP. As the ownership of a trademark is not linked to the person who devised the mark, it is unlikely to have any implications on trademark ownership if an AI machine creates your trademark, but for other forms of IP, the ownership of AI created matter is a hot topic.

The first owner of a piece of work protected by copyright is generally the author or the person who created it. In all these cases, ownership is directly linked to the creation of the subject matter. If it is therefore accepted that AI machines can create the subject matter, does this make the AI machine the first owner of the IP? Allowing AI to own IP has consequences in the field of IP enforcement.

• Infringement of Intellectual Property: If it is accepted that an AI machine can generate subject matter, who will be held responsible if that subject matter infringes third party IP? This challenge is however relevant especially in the context of an infringement of copyright which involves actual copying from the copyrighted source, that is, the author of a work which infringed the copyright of a third party must have had access to that copyrighted work. Again, the concept of AI creating subject matter raises a number of complex legal queries, does an AI machine have sufficient legal personality to be sued for infringement? If not, who is responsible for the infringement of copyright by an AI machine and is it just to hold an individual to account for the actions of the AI machine and would thin individual meet the criteria of having copied the work?

• Liability challenges: Since AI machines can create subject matter, it is worth considering that in some situations they can also be held liable. Artificial intelligence could be subjected to allegations of violation of copyright, trade secrets, or even data privacy if it analyses the investment plans of a business or personalizes big data for a marketing advertisement by auto-copying details from different sources.

• Role of a new consumer and skilled person challenge: With the emergence of technologies such as Amazon Dash buttons and home appliances that can re-order staple groceries when you run out, it is conceivable to see a world where an AI machine will order your shopping for you. We must therefore ask ourselves what impact this will have on the average consumer for the purpose of trademark law. Is it possible for an AI machine to be confused and order the wrong product? Could an AI machine raise the level of attention paid by the relevant consumer if it ever becomes commonplace that certain goods are ordered by AI and not selected by humans?

There is also a question in patent law on whether the concept of a skilled person will change as a result of the surge in AI technologies. The skilled person is a notional person who appears in the EPO and UK legal provisions, including when considering inventive steps. The skilled person is considered to know concepts and terminology in the field of the application and will have means for routine work and experimentation. Should the notionally skilled person be assumed to have access to commonly used AI tools? If this is the case, does it make it easier to find a lack of inventive steps for AI-related inventions, or perhaps all inventions? If new legislation is introduced that allows patents for inventions made solely by an AI system, could the skilled person then also be an AI system?

CONCLUSION

There have been a lot of ongoing debates at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) with respect to the several questions and challenges that this topic- AI generates. However, despite the controversies and challenges, there is a need to generate a practical and appropriate way to deal with the current situation.

In the near future, artificial intelligence will have a dramatic effect on what it means to be human and even perform what normal humans cannot. There must be a proper balance between the utilization and commercialization of the innovation created by artificial intelligence so it can provide reasonable benefits to the machine and must provide benefits to the public at large, or we can say that it must be of public interest.

Frontier technologies provide opportunities for economic growth. To harness these opportunities for all, we need to ensure that the intellectual property (IP) system continues to foster innovation and creation and that the systems for IP administration evolve. Examples of frontier technologies include digital technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT), blockchain, artificial intelligence (AI), big data, and cloud computing; physical technologies such as autonomous driving, 3D printing, and hardware innovations; and biological technologies such as genetic engineering, human augmentation, and the brain-computer interface.

https://www.aathornton.com/the-challenges-of-artificial-intelligence-in-ip/

https://www.aathornton.com/the-challenges-of-artificial-intelligence-in-ip/

https://blog.ipleaders.in/intellectual-property-ai-issues-challenges/

Deborah F. Toluwalase  
Associate
Stillwaters Law Firm

The Committee’s terms of reference include amongst others, liaising with the office of the Attorney General of the Federation to push through the amended Copyright Bill at the National Assembly.

We are looking forward to the amended Copyright Act.

The objectives of the Scheme include to encourage full tax compliance, discharge of outstanding tax liabilities as well prevent tax evasion. While it increases government revenue, the Tax Payer also benefits from it vide workable tax payment plans, and immunity from prosecution for tax offences and tax audit.

A VAID application is valid where the disclosure is voluntary and substantially verifiable, and the payable tax is assessed by the relevant tax authority. The Scheme is to be implemented across the Federation and is applicable to all taxable persons & entities.

However, on June 30, 2017 the Supreme Court (SC) held otherwise, in the case of Sky Bank Nigeria Plc. VS Anaemem Iwu. A 5-man panel of the SC held that the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal covers all appeals from the National Industrial Court and that jurisdiction is not limited to criminal matters or issues of fundamental human right.

The SC explained that no provision of any legislation expressly divests the Appeal Court of their appellate powers over any decision of the National Industrial Court.

Accordingly, all decisions of the National Industrial Court can now be appealed against at the Court of Appeal.

There is currently a bill titled “A Bill for an Act to repeal the Legal Practitioners Act Cap C11 LFN 2004 and all amendments thereto; Legal Education (Consolidation etc.,) Act Cap. L10 LFN 2004 and enact the Legal Profession Regulation Act which shall regulate the legal profession” (the Bill) seeking to repeal the Legal Practitioners Act.

The Bill seeks to merge the Legal Practitioners Act and the Legal Education (Consolidation) Act Cap. L10 LFN 2004 into one Act titled “the Legal Profession Regulation Act”.

The Bill also seeks to establish a ‘Legal Profession Regulation Council of Nigeria’ (the Council), a Secretariat for the Council as well as various other committees such as; body of benchers, legal services, young lawyers and career committee, the remuneration and welfare committee, ethics and standards committee to mention but a few.
The Council would be responsible for the general regulation of the legal profession in Nigeria.

The Bill also touches on matters of remuneration and taxation of legal practitioners and such other ancillary matters.

The Secured Transactions in Movable Assets Act (2017) substantially provides for the registration of movable assets such as motor vehicles inventory, livestock, crops equipment, vehicles and accounts receivables as collateral for obtaining credit facilities from financial institutions. These immovable assets are to be registered at National Collateral Registry (The Registry) which shall be under the Central Bank of Nigeria and shall be responsible for the registration of immovable assets to be used as collateral for loan facilities.

The Credit Reporting Act essentially established the Credit Bureau. The Credit Bureau is vested with the responsibility of receiving relevant information from ‘credit information providers’ in relation to intending borrowers such as their credit worthiness, financial obligations and details of the assets intended to be used as collateral and transmitting same to the ‘credit information users’.

The Report: Nigeria 2017 will shine a spotlight on the country’s long-term strategy for boosting oil output, which will be steered by a major overhaul of the regulatory framework governing the sector.

The government’s efforts to attract investment for areas of the economy deemed ripe for growth, such as agriculture, ICT and insurance, will also be explored. In addition, OBG’s publication will analyse the steps taken to address the challenges that have weighed on Nigeria’s economy, which range from lower global oil prices and declines in foreign exchange to security concerns.

Stillwaters Law Firm has signed a first-time memorandum of understanding (MoU) with OBG for its forthcoming publication. Under the MoU, the firm will work with OBG to compile and produce the Law chapter of The Report: Nigeria 2017.

Afamefuna Francis Nwokedi, Principal Counsel& Group Head, Stillwaters Law Firm, said he looked forward to teaming up with OBG to bring the business community both at home and abroad up to date on Nigeria’s evolving legal framework.

“Nigeria’s plans for shifting the economy away from a reliance on hydrocarbons for export revenues and driving growth across its industrial sector, especially at its free zones, have necessitated major legislative and regulatory changes, with more expected,” he said. “Oxford Business Group’s reports on emerging markets are known to be essential reading for the international investment community. I’m delighted to be supporting the team’s research on Nigeria’s economy at this critical time in the country’s development.”

Diana Rus, OBG’s country director, said she was confident that Stillwaters Law Firm’s input would give investors valuable insight into Nigeria’s changing legal framework, including the impact of reforms on doing business in the country.

“While external pressures and domestic challenges remain problematic, Nigeria’s strong fundamentals and abundance of resources make it an attractive prospect for investors, especially those willing to look longer term for results,” she said. “Stillwaters has an in-depth understanding of the country’s legal landscape, providing services across the spectrum.I’m thrilled that both our team and readers will benefit from the law firm’s observations and analysis.”

The Report: Nigeria 2017 will be a vital guide to the many facets of the country, including its macroeconomics, infrastructure, banking and other sectoral developments. The publication will also contain contributions from leading representatives, including Audu Ogbeh, the Hon. Minister of agriculture, and Okechukwu E. Enelamah, the Hon. Minister of industry. The report will be available in print and online.

About Oxford Business Group

Oxford Business Group is a global research and consultancy company with a presence in over 35 countries, from Africa, Asia and the Middle East to the Americas. A distinctive and respected provider of on-the-ground intelligence on many of the world’s fastest growing markets, OBG has offices in London, Berlin, Dubai and Istanbul, and a network of local bureaus across the countries in which we operate.

The Report: Nigeria 2017 will be produced withthe Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission and the Nigerian Economic Summit Group. Contributions will also be made by SIAO, FBN and Stillwaters Law Firm.Through its range of products, OBG offers comprehensive and accurate analysis of macroeconomic and sectoral developments, including banking, capital markets, tourism, energy, transport, industry and ICT. OBG provides business intelligence to its subscribers through multiple platforms: Economic News and Views, OBG Business Barometer – CEO Survey, Roundtables and Conferences, Global Platform – exclusive video interviews, The Report publications and Consultancy division.

]]> https://stillwaterslaw.com/abuja-panel-discussion-day-world-ip-day/feed/ 3 https://stillwaterslaw.com/okafors-law-saga-writersproducerscinemas-beware/ https://stillwaterslaw.com/okafors-law-saga-writersproducerscinemas-beware/#comments Sat, 01 Apr 2017 14:02:51 +0000 http://stillwaterslaw.com/?p=8130 The recent brouhaha surrounding the ownership of the film “Okafor’s Law” said to be owned/produced by Omoni Oboli, a popular actress cum director and the recent vacation of the interim order against the film’s release by the court, has granted initial respite to a warring side as well as the eager movie buffs.

This raises some legal issues which any serious-minded writer, producer or cinema owners would want to consider. But first may we warn that, no one can and no one must pre-empt the court as to whether or not Omoni has infringed on the copyright of Jude Idada. What then are the legal lessons to take home? Section 15 of the Copyright Act, makes liable a producer or like party, who does any work or act which is controlled by copyright without the permission of the owner. Simply put, use of a copyrighted material is tantamount to copyright infringement. Now, what many Nigerians do not know is that, section 15(1)(f) also makes liable any person who permits a place of public entertainment or a business to be used for a performance in the public of the work, where such performance constitutes an infringement of the copyright work, unless the person permitting the place to be used was not aware and had no reasonable ground for suspecting that the performance would be an infringement of the copyright.

Thus, a cinema owner, a producer and a writer may be liable for infringement of copyright. With the wide publicity and newspaper documentation of the Okafor’s Law saga, can any such owner or manager of a cinema feign/claim ignorance of the controversy herein? Will the cinema owner’s action amount to putting itself at risk of a subsequent lawsuit for damages (depending on the outcome of the suit)? This means that a copyright owner may come back and sue the cinemas separately for damages. What then are the lessons to take home? In such a dicey scenario as this, it is advised that third parties like cinema owners consider including a saving clause in their contract with producers. Given the privity of contract principle, we are well aware that this may not save them from legal liabilities to the copyright owner, their safety net may however be the inclusion of a remuneration clause to save them from economic loss and provide a cushion effect. As such, any cinema owner who has not taken the above step while displaying Okafor’s law puts it self at risk as only time would tell. Tick tock… tick tock.

On the part of producers, it is advised that producers must take reasonable steps to verify the authenticity of the scripts they seek to produce i.e due diligence. More importantly, they should engage the services of an Intellectual property lawyer to draft a contract agreement with the script writer which will make the writer liable for remuneration should the script be found to be a copyright infringement. (Please note that there is a difference between copyright and plagiarism but this is not our focus.).

The writer who copied without permission and holds his/her self out as the writer, is the worst of all. The shameful repercussion can be obviated by entering into an agreement with the original writer to promote and use the work and in return both persons will be cited as the writers and enjoy the benefits thereto. The problem is that man in his capricious nature tries to be greedy.

As for the true owners/writers of their script, it is advised that no matter how frustrated one may be, never ever give out your work without documentation/evidence of same and always enter into a written contract where all terms must be spelt. A word is enough for the wise.