Author: Ana Pepeljugoska, Chairperson of the AmCham IPR Task Force
*The article in Macedonian language, published by Kapital can be found at the bottom of this page.
The term “artificial intelligence” (AI) was first introduced at the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence in 1956. Today, AI is defined as the capability of a machine to perform tasks that typically require human intelligence, such as reasoning, learning, planning, and creativity.
In the realm of creativity, major tech companies are investing in AI-driven programs designed to compose music, write articles, and even create artistic images. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), since the term “artificial intelligence” was first coined, there have been approximately 340,000 inventions related to AI. The growing power of computers and advancements in communication technologies have enabled the aggregation and dissemination of large and diverse data sets, opening new avenues for the technological evolution of AI.
WIPO data also reveals that the highest number of patent applications involving AI are in the fields of telecommunications, transportation, and medical sciences. The average annual increase in AI-related patent applications is 28%, with the majority filed in the United States and China. However, only 20% of these applications are filed through WIPO’s Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) system. Significant challenges arise for patent examiners in determining whether a particular AI-driven invention warrants patent protection. These challenges often relate to issues of ownership, ethics, security, data protection, superintelligence, and the potential for AI to replace humans in various work processes.
Trends in AI regulation
The international community has made some strides in reference to AI regulation. The OECD adopted a non-binding recommendation on AI in 2019, and UNESCO followed with recommendations on AI ethics in 2021. In the United States, a minimal regulatory approach, “laissez-faire” approach, concerning AI, has been adopted. Meanwhile, China adopted a law focused on generative AI in 2023, which aims to introduce restrictions on companies providing these services, both in terms of data usage and the final products.
The European Union has gone a step further with the adoption of the AI Act. The primary goal of this legislation is to establish legal, ethical, and political boundaries for the use of AI systems. The EU seeks to balance the risks of over-regulation, which could stifle innovation, against the dangers of a laissez-faire approach, which might endanger fundamental civil rights and freedoms. In the Republic of North Macedonia, however, there are currently no efforts to regulate AI.
Ana Pepeljugoska, Chairperson of the IPR Task Force
Partner, Pepeljugoski Law Firm
Ownership of AI-Created Works
Computer programs have been used in creative processes since the 1970s. The current challenge lies in the fact that AI can learn from data and evolve to make decisions—either managed or independent—that could lead to the creation of new works. Traditionally, the ownership of works created with the help of computer programs has not been contested, as these programs were seen merely as tools supporting the creative process. In many countries, it is explicitly stated that only human-created works are eligible for legal protection under intellectual property (IP) law.
Currently, two approaches are being considered to address this issue: one is to deny IP protection to AI-generated works, not recognizing the AI itself as an “author,” and the other is to grant IP rights to the creator of the AI program. The same principles should apply when evaluating cases of infringement, as affirmed by recent European Court rulings.
It is crucial to apply existing regulations when resolving disputes related to AI. In this legal vacuum, lawyers may have to rely on current laws and basic legal principles when analyzing infringement cases. However, it is possible that some established principles may need to be adapted, particularly regarding the standards for determining ownership or infringement of IP rights. Nevertheless, it is important to note that no new technology has yet diminished the level of protection provided by IP rights, nor has it undermined the significance of these rights.