Harmonisation and improvement of substantive IP laws

Goal 3

Over the last century, it has been AIPPI’s objective to seek to harmonise IP laws to provide for a more consistent, predictable and uniform legal environment especially for international businesses.  This effort has been very successful, but it may not always fully solve problems that accompany modern businesses and systems, which put new pressures on traditional legal frameworks, e.g.:

  • The protection of intellectual creativity, in connection with online and streaming distribution of musical and video content
  • The protection of intellectual creativity, in connection with the assembly and creation of large data sets which underpin the operation of AI systems
  • The identification of IP protection mechanisms more appropriate to e-commerce platforms

AIPPI would like to move to the next level and consider whether the improvement of laws can assist with more effective protection of the products of intellectual creation where traditional approaches have become over-complex, relatively cumbersome and multi-layered which can be both expensive to enforce and expensive to defend against. 

For example, copyright laws, first conceived several hundred years ago to protect intellectual creation in written and artistic works now find themselves shoehorned into a new role which is to protect musical and video works through online exploitation.  The complexity of using traditional IP laws to protect new media works results in greater costs, which can itself create barriers to effective protection. 

Similarly, the protection of large volumes of data, e.g. in AI systems, can be challenging using patents/copyrights/database rights.  The data itself is mundane, being just binary ones and zeros, and the generation of data using neural network training can often be automated to large extent in the right conditions and thus the creation of the dataset might not even be carried out by a human.  Identifying the protectable creative input is a difficult process and the IP protection should follow the identification of the creative input, rather than specific forms of IP being adapted to protect various aspects of the result of creation.