The Korea Herald is publishing a series of interviews on experts in the intellectual property sector. This is the tenth installment. -- Ed.

Google’s artificial intelligence art program Vincent transforms a rough sketch into an impeccable Van Gogh painting. Composing module Iamus creates a full-scale symphony for the London Symphony Orchestra in just eight minutes. Who, then, is to hold the copyright for these AI-led creative works?

In order for modern society to move forward and fully embrace the forthcoming era of new technological changes, it has now become crucial to establish a copyright system for AI-created contents, according to an expert in technology-related law.

“Concerns have been snowballing over recent years on the drastic rise of AI, especially since the appearance of (Google Deep Mind’s AI program) Alpha Go and the accompanied concept of deep learning,” Son Seung-woo, professor at Dankook University College of Law and director of Start-up Support Foundation, told The Korea Herald in an interview.

People have reasons for such anxiety, Son admitted, as 40 percent of the world’s current knowledge management jobs are likely to die out in the next few years due to the expanding role of AI and the consequent monopolization of information and wealth.

The World Economic Forum also claimed that some 7.1 million jobs in total will disappear by the year 2020 to be replaced by some 2 million new vocations.

But in order to properly address the AI agenda, one should step away from blind fear and start with differentiating the various stages of AI, dividing it into “weak AI” and “strong AI,” the professor explained.

“The reason for the widespread fear is because people suspect that AI may at a certain point acquire an independent ego and make decisions and actions on its own without human interference,” Son said.

But the incumbent technology yet remains at a “weak AI” level as it requires human involvement to a considerable extent and its functions are limited to specific sectors, he added.

It is the professor’s assertion that a thin level of copyright protection should be granted for contents created by weak AI systems, as a compromising way to encourage AI development and investment on one hand and to deter AI’s market monopoly on the other.

“When it comes to weak AI, the copyright of its creative content should in principle belong to the person developing or operating the system, but the final decision on the copyright ownership should be decided individually in consideration of the level of human involvement (in the creation process),” Son said.

“Without such rules, AI will soon monopolize the copyright sector and developers, operators and investors are likely to end up being infringers of AI-created contents.”

But considering the balance with conventional human-created contents, the range and period of the protection for AI-created contents should be limited, he added.

“A plausible solution would be to take example from the special clause on the copyright duration of database builders and to grant a five-year exclusive copyright (for AI-created contents),” he said.

The Copyright Act states that copyrights are to remain effective throughout the lifetime of the copyright holder and for 70 more years after his or her death, unless in case of a special provision.

Also, an alleviated criterion should be applied when judging the infringement of AI copyrights so that people may freely use the results of AI work to create greater values, he added.

“In order to hold a person liable for plagiarizing an AI work, one should be able to recognize a striking level of similarity, instead of the conventional level of practical similarity,” Son said.

“Even in case of infringement, humans should be allowed to use the AI contents at the exchange of monetary compensation, instead of being totally banned from usage.”

Seoul is in fact already a step behind than other developed countries when it comes to the legal discussion concerning AI, he also pointed out.

The European Union, for instance, passed a resolution in January 2017 to recognize the need of legal protection for AI-created intellectual property and to legally recognize the “electronic person” status for robots.

“The problem is that our entire legal system is still built on the premise that only humans are entitled to creative activities and the accompanied rights,” the professor said.

Clause 22 of South Korea’s Constitution lists “authors, inventors, scientists, engineers and artists” as objects of creativity protection.

“Even the patent law, which defines invention as the highly advanced creation of a technical idea utilizing the laws of nature, tends to exclude AI from plausible actors,” he said.

By Bae Hyun-jung (tellme@heraldcorp.com)