A fourth law of robotics? Copyright and the law and ethics of machine co-production

Abstract

Jon Bing was not only a pioneer in the field of artificial intelligence and law and the legal regulation of technology. He was also an accomplished author of fiction, with an oeuvre spanning from short stories and novels to theatre plays and even an opera. As reality catches up with the imagination of science fiction writers who have anticipated a world shared by humans and non-human intelligences of their creation, some of the copyright issues he has discussed in his academic capacity take on new resonance. How will we regulate copyright when robots are producers and consumers of art? This paper tries to give a sketch of the problem and hints at possible answers that are to a degree inspired by Bing’s academic and creative writing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Here and at other places, we are very grateful to the suggestions by the referees.

  2. 2.

    Extrapolating on existing ideas, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1954704/Robot-conducts-orchestra-for-first-time.html.

  3. 3.

    See for example https://torrentfreak.com/copyright-apocalypse-trolls-attack-the-net-from-the-future-140928/, last accessed 21 January 2015.

  4. 4.

    http://www.qentis.com, last accessed 21 January 2015.

  5. 5.

    http://www.qentis.com/work/work-13/, last accessed 21 January 2015.

  6. 6.

    http://www.artmarcovici.com/BIOGRAPHY, last accessed 21 January 2015.

  7. 7.

    A rare attempt, by a group of performance artists, to implement the infinite monkey theorem in reality used six Sulawesi macaque monkeys The monkeys produced five pages consisting mainly of the letter “s” before they started destroying the typewriters with a stone and using it as toilet https://web.archive.org/web/20130120215600/ http://www.vivaria.net/experiments/notes/publication/NOTES_EN.pdf. In a paper dedicated to the memory of Jon Bing, one should point out that elephants would have been the superior choice, as they outperform monkeys when it comes to create art: http://www.elephantartgallery.com, last accessed 14 September 2015.

  8. 8.

    http://copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-authorship.pdf, last accessed 21 January 2015.

  9. 9.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/03/narrative_science_robot_journalists_customized_news_and_the_danger_to_civil_discourse_.single.html, last accessed 21 January 2015.

  10. 10.

    http://towcenter.org/blog/automated-stories-using-algorithms-to-craft-news-content/, last accessed 21 January 2015.

  11. 11.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/business/media/14link.html.

  12. 12.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/this-post-was-written-by-a-human/, last accessed 21 January 2015.

  13. 13.

    One of the functions of Pepper, the childminder-robot http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/home-robots/pepper-aldebaran-softbank-personal-robot The Kindle2 has caused similar copyright questions: http://www.fastcompany.com/1160843/authors-guild-says-kindle-2s-text-speech-violates-copyright.

References

  1. Abie H, Foyn B, Bing J, Blobel B, Pharow P, Delgado J, Tzovaras D (2004) The need for a digital rights management framework for the next generation of e-government services. Electron Gov Int J 1(1):8–28

    Google Scholar 

  2. Asada M et al (2001) Cognitive developmental robotics as a new paradigm for the design of humanoid robots. Robot Auton Syst 37(2):185–193

    MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bing J (1981) A meeting in Georgestown. In: Aldiss B, Lundwall S (eds) The penguin world omnibus of science fiction. Penguin, London

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bing J (1984) Handbook of legal information retrieval. Elsevier Science Inc., Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bing J (1991) Legal text retrieval systems the unsatisfactory state of the art. JL & Inf Sci 2:1

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bing J (1996) The contribution of technology to the identification of rights, especially in sound and audio–visual works: an overview. Int J Law Inf Technol 4(3):234–254

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bing J (1997) Availability and copyright. IFLA J 23:4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bing J (1998) A futuristic exploration of virtual reality. In: Jeleff S (ed) A virtual new world?. Council of Europe, Strassburg

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bing J (2003) Deposit, copyright and the notion of a ‘document’. Alexandria 15(3):171–174

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bing J (2004) Copymarks: a suggestion for simple management of copyrighted material. Int Rev Law Comput Technol 18(3):347–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bing J (2007) Interview with Erling Rognli. Pegasus 3:24–35

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bing J (2008) The Riddle of the robots. J Int Commer Law Technol 3:197–206

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bing J (2009) Copyright protection of computer programs. In: Derclaye E (ed) Research handbook on the future of EU copyright. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 401–426

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bing J (2013) Celebrating Gnaeus Flavius and open access to law. J Open Access Law 1:1

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Bing J, Sartor G (eds) (2003) The law of electronic agents. Unipubskriftserier, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  16. Boden MA (1994) Précis of the creative mind: myths and mechanisms. Behav Brain Sci 17(03):519–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Boden MA (1998) Creativity and artificial intelligence. Artif Intell 103(1):347–356

    MATH  MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Boden MA (2009) Computer models of creativity. AI Mag 30(3):23

    Google Scholar 

  19. Borel E (1913) Mécanique Statistique et Irréversibilité. J Phys 5e série 3:189–196

    Google Scholar 

  20. Borges JL (2007) The total library. Penguin, London

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bridy A (2012) Coding creativity: copyright and the artificially intelligent author. Stanf Technol Law Rev 5:1–28

    Google Scholar 

  22. Butler TL (1981) Can a computer be an author-copyright aspects of artificial intelligence. Comm/Ent LS 4:707

    Google Scholar 

  23. Cangelosi A et al (2010) Integration of action and language knowledge: a roadmap for developmental robotics. IEEE Trans Auton Ment Dev 2(3):167–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Chon M (2007) Intellectual property from below: copyright and capability for education. UC Davis Law Rev 40:803

    Google Scholar 

  25. Collingwood RG (1958) The principles of art, vol 11. Oxford University Press, USA

  26. Contissa G, Laukyte M (2008) Legal knowledge representation: a twofold experience in the domain of intellectual property law. In: Francesconi E et al (eds) Proceedings of the 2008 conference on legal knowledge and information systems. JURIX 2008 IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 98–107

  27. Cox I, Linnartz J (1998) Some general methods for tampering with water-marks. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun 16(4):587–593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Dante M, Tamburrini G (2006) Learning robots and human responsibility. Int Rev Inf Ethics 6:46–51

    Google Scholar 

  29. Di Dio C et al (2007) The golden beauty: brain response to classical and renaissance sculptures. PLoS One 2(11):e1201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Favale M (2011) Approximation and DRM: can digital locks respect copyright exceptions? Int J Law Inf Technol 19(4):306–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Funkhouser C (2007) Prehistoric digital poetry: an archaeology of forms 1959–1995. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa

    Google Scholar 

  32. Gervás P (2000) Wasp: evaluation of different strategies for the automatic generation of Spanish verse. In: Proceedings of the AISB-00 symposium on creative & cultural aspects of AI, pp 93–100

  33. Gervás P (2001) An expert system for the composition of formal Spanish poetry. Knowl-Based Syst 14(3):181–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gordon TF (2011) Analyzing open source license compatibility issues with Carneades. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on artificial intelligence and law ACM, pp 51–55

  35. Hartman CO (1996) Virtual muse: experiments in computer poetry. Wesleyan University Press, Middletown

    Google Scholar 

  36. Haupenthal G (1994) Geschichte der Würfelmusik in Beispielen, vol. 2. Saarbrücken, Univ., Diss

  37. Hong J, Rouget T (2014) Lesende und glaeubige Roboter im Film. In: Libert W-A et al (eds) Künstliche Menschen. Koenigshausen & Neumann, Würzburg

    Google Scholar 

  38. Horikawa T et al (2013) Neural decoding of visual imagery during sleep. Science 340(6132):639–642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Jiang L, Zhou M (2008) Generating Chinese couplets using a statistical MT approach. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on computational linguistics, vol. 1, pp 377–384. Association for Computational Linguistics

  40. Jordanous A (2012) A standardised procedure for evaluating creative systems: computational creativity evaluation based on what it is to be creative. Cogn Comput 4(3):246–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kac E (1997) Foundation and development of robotic art. Art J 56(3):60–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Kamitani Y, Tong F (2005) Decoding the visual and subjective contents of the human brain. Nat Neurosci 8:679–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Komuves D et al (2015) Monkeying around with copyright: animals, AIS and authorship in law. Jusletter-IT 26:RZ1–RZ27

    Google Scholar 

  44. Kostelanetz R (1971) Machine art. Centen Rev 15:229–249

    Google Scholar 

  45. Lee E (2012) Digital originality. Vanderbilt J Entertain Technol Law 14(4):919

    Google Scholar 

  46. Lee JH et al (2009) Brain–machine interface via real-time fMRI: preliminary study on thought-controlled robotic arm. Neurosci Lett 450(1):1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Legaspi R et al (2007) Music compositional intelligence with an affective flavor. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces ACM, pp 216–224

  48. Lessig L (1999) Code and other laws of cyberspace. Basic books, NY

    Google Scholar 

  49. Mahler T, Bing J (2006) Contractual risk management in an ICT context-searching for a possible interface between legal methods and risk analysis. Scand Stud Law 49:339–357

    Google Scholar 

  50. Manurung R, Ritchie G, Thompson H (2012) Using genetic algorithms to create meaningful poetic text. J Exp Theor Artif Intell 24(1):43–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Matthias A (2004) The responsibility gap: ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics Inf Technol 6(3):175–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. McCormack J, d’Inverno M (2012) Computers and creativity. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  53. McCutcheon J (2012) Vanishing author in computer-generated works: a critical analysis of recent Australian case law, The. Melb Univ Law Rev 36:915

    Google Scholar 

  54. Moffat DC, Kelly M (2006) An investigation into people’s bias against computational creativity in music composition. Assessment 13:11–17

    Google Scholar 

  55. Mulligan DK, Han J, Burstein AJ (2003) How DRM-based content delivery systems disrupt expectations of personal use. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM workshop on digital rights management, pp 77–89

  56. Nadal M et al (2008) Towards a framework for the study of the neural correlates of aesthetic preference. Spat Vis 21(3):379–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Nierhaus G (2009) Algorithmic composition: paradigms of automated music generation. Springer, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  58. Oberle D, Drefs F, Wacker R, Baumann C, Raabe O (2012) Engineering compliant software: advising developers by automating legal reasoning. SCRIPTed 9(2):280–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Oliveira HG (2012) PoeTryMe: a versatile platform for poetry generation. In: Proceedings of the ECAI 2012 workshop on computational creativity, concept invention, and general intelligence

  60. Petrie HG (2011) The dilemma of enquiry and learning. Living Control Systems Publ, Hayward

  61. Pogue D (2012) The remote control in your mind. Sci Am 307(6):32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Pynadath DV, Tambe M (2002) Revisiting asimov’s first law: a response to the call to arms. In: Intelligent agents VIII, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp 307–320

  63. Raabe O, Wacker R, Funk C, Oberle D, Baumann C (2010) Lawful service engineering-Formalisierung des Rechts im Internet der Dienste. Globale Sicherheit und proaktiver Staat-Die Rolle der Rechtsinformatik 266:643–650

    Google Scholar 

  64. RACTER (1985) The policeman’s beard is half-constructed: computer prose and poetry by Racter. Warner Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  65. Reese RA (2008) Transformativeness and the Derivative Work Right. Columbia J Law Arts 31(4):2012–2054

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  66. Reichardt J (1978) Robots: fact, fiction+ prediction. Thames & Hudson Ltd., London

    Google Scholar 

  67. Riedl MO (2014) The Lovelace 2.0 test of artificial creativity and intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.6142

  68. Roos JW (2005) Copyright protection as access barrier for people who read differently: the case for an international approach. IFLA J 31(1):52–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Rowe R (1993) Interactive music systems: machine listening and composing. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  70. Rowe E (2001) Machine musicianship. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  71. Schlegel A et al (2015) The artist emerges: visual art learning alters neural structure and function. NeuroImage 105:440–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Schöffer N (1969) La ville cybernétique. Tchou, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  73. Searle J (1980) Minds. Brains Programs Behav Brain Sci 3(3):417–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Sharkey A, Sharkey N (2012) Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly. Ethics Inf Technol 14(1):27–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Shinkareva SV et al (2008) Using fMRI brain activation to identify cognitive states associated with perception of tools and dwellings. PLoS One 3(1):e1394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Solso RL (2000) The cognitive neuroscience of art: a preliminary fMRI observation. J Conscious Studi 7(8–9):75–86

    Google Scholar 

  77. Stamp M (2003) Digital rights management: the technology behind the hype. J Electron Commer Res 4(3):102–112

    Google Scholar 

  78. Ward JA (1992) Copyrighting context: law for plumbing’s sake. Colum-VLA JL Arts 17:159

    Google Scholar 

  79. Weld D, Etzioni O (1994) The first law of robotics (a call to arms). AAAI 94(1994):1042–1047

    Google Scholar 

  80. Wiggins GA (2006) A preliminary framework for description, analysis and comparison of creative systems. Knowl-Based Syst 19(7):449–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Wolpaw JR et al (2002) Brain–computer interfaces for communication and control. Clin Neurophysiol 113(6):767–791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Xenakis I (2001) Formalized music: thought and mathematics in composition (Harmonologia series no. 6). Pendragon Press, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Work on this paper was supported by the RCUK funded CREATE network, http://www.create.ac.uk.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Burkhard Schafer.

Additional information

In Honour of Jon Bing.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schafer, B., Komuves, D., Zatarain, J.M.N. et al. A fourth law of robotics? Copyright and the law and ethics of machine co-production. Artif Intell Law 23, 217–240 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-015-9169-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Robotics
  • Copyright law
  • Bing