In the recent years, there had been significant development in artificial intelligence. In simple words, artificial intelligence can be described as the intelligence or skills displayed by the machines. This is different from the natural intellect displayed by human beings. More often, artificial intelligence is created by human skills or knowledge. With the advancements in science, there have been many major inventions including robots that can walk, speak and even think like human beings.

Artificial intelligence systems possess the capability to be independent and creative; sometimes more creative than human beings. At an international level, there had been many products invented or rather created by the AI systems. Therefore, there is an existing dilemma regarding the authorship and ownership of the products created by artificial intelligence. This article would primarily deal with this issue from a legal perspective.

WHAT ARE THE APPLICABLE LAWS?

Artificial Intelligence is creating a lot of useful products in the technical field. So, whenever such an invention is made it becomes necessary that it is protected. The authorship and ownership of the creation must be well established. In India, the prominent legislation to make this happen has been the Indian Copyright Act, 1857.

INDIAN COPYRIGHT ACT, 1857

The definition of ‘author’ is given under section 2(d) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1857. According to the definition, “in relation to any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the person who causes the work to be created is the author of the work”[1]. But, computer algorithms are not coming under this definition. System generated or machine produced works are not provided registered copyrights. However, we have gone so far in the scientific field that machines create a number of products or works.

The major issue with 2(d) of the act is that in order to attain a copyright, the individual must satisfactorily come under the purview of “author” under the said section. But, can artificial intelligence be treated as a legal individual? This is another controversy as the world already witnessed instances like the robot Sophia being given the citizenship of Saudi Arabia (this robot was a legal person of Saudi Arabia).

So, the current legal framework under the Copyright Act, 1957 does not effectively deal with the creation/invention of works in which the actual contributor of the “expression” is not a human or a legal person[2]. Thus, when it comes to works that are created by artificial intelligence, their authorship would be a bone of contention as under Indian copyright laws[3].

PATENTS ACT, 1970

Patents Act basically deals with the new creations or inventions. This is another important legislation with regard to the intellectual property laws. Section 2 of the act provides the various definitions associated with patent rights. “Patentee” is defined under section 2(p) as the person for the time being entered on the register as the grantee of proprietor of the patent[4]. “Person interested” is defined under section 2(t) as a person engaged in, or in promoting, research in the same field as that to which the invention relates. Under both these definitions there is no mention of artificial intelligence[5]. It does not specify as to whether the term “person” includes only legal persons or whether it has any space for artificial beings.

Section 6 of the Patents Act deals with the persons entitled to patents. But, even here there is no mention of the status of the products created by artificial intelligence. Rather, there is no clue whether “true and first investor” includes only human beings or not.

SIGNIFICANT JUDGEMENTS

In Rupendra Kashyap v. Jiwan Publishing House Pvt. Ltd[6] it was held by the court that “in the context of question papers for an examination, that the author of the examination paper is a person who has compiled the questions; the person who does this compiling, is a natural person, a human being, and not an artificial person; Central Board of Secondary Education is not a natural person and it would be entitled to claim copyright in the examination papers only if it establishes and proves that it has engaged persons specifically for purposes of preparation of compilation, known as question papers, with a contract that copyright therein will vest in Central Board of Secondary Education”. Hence, CBSE not being a natural person was not entitled to copyrights.

Similarly, it was held in many other cases that juristic person is incapable of being the author of any work in which copyright may exist[7].

In the case of Naruto v Slater[8] held that, animals by virtue of the fact that they are not humans lack locus standi under Copyright Act to sue for infringement. Issue was related to copyright infringement of the selfies taken by a macaque.

In Eastern Book Company & Ors v. D.B. Modak & Anr[9], it was observed that “To claim copyright in a compilation, the author must produce the material with exercise of his skill and judgment which may not be creativity in the sense that it is novel or non- obvious, but at the same time it is not a product of merely labour and capital. The derivative work produced by the author must have some distinguishable features and flavour.”

There can be two major types of issues associated with products created primarily by artificial intelligence. These are the products produced without any human intervention and products created with a certain level of human interference. The issues of ownership and authorship are more or less similar in both the scenarios.

POSITION IN UNITED KINGDOM AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

In the United Kingdom, the law that governs patentability is the “Patent Law of 1977”. As per this law, the artificial intelligence models  and  computational  algorithms  are  excluded  from  patentability,  unless  they constitute  a  computer  program  that  has  an  “additional  technical  effect”  that  goes more than or  beyond “normal” physical interactions between the computer and the program[10].

Inventions  are  generally  patentable  in  the  United States,  however,  because  they  involve features related to computer and software, care should be taken regarding the US Supreme Court eligibility  test  as  provided  in  Alice  Corp. v. CLS Bank  International[11].

CONCLUSION

The issue of ownership and authorship of artificial intelligence products can be dealt effectively by making amendments in the Copyrights Act. There is even scope of a new legislation governing the protection of products created by artificial intelligence. Demarcation can be made in the products based on whether there was human interference in making that product or not. The more the human intervention, more will be the possibility of the human attaining ownership of that particular product.

Also, the products created by an AI may or may not be desired by the owner. With the developments in science, there can be situations where the AI can create certain products that are not preferred by its owner. But, since there is no specific law the liability will be on the human owner. This is also a case which mandates a new rule or legislation in this area.

The post OWNERSHIP AND AUTHORSHIP OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

The literal meaning of the word censorship is ‘the suppression or elimination of any parts of books, movies or news that are considered indecent, politically objectionable, or a danger to security’. The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) is a statutory body that is primarily responsible for evaluation and certification of films in India. It is popularly known as the censor board. Censorship is a mechanism of restricting public expression of ideas, views and opinions that are against morality or social order.

Central Board of Film Certification

The Board comprises of Chairman and non-official members appointed by the central government. The board carries out the process of certification in consonance with The Cinematograph Act, 1952, The Cinematograph (certification) Rules, 1983, and the guidelines issued by the Central government[1]. The supposed purpose of The Cinematograph Act 1952 was the division of provisions with regard to sanctioning of films for exhibition from the provisions related to licensing and control of cinemas in order to reformulate the whole mechanism for content regulation in Indian cinema.

The four broad categories in which films are certified are:

·         Films unrestricted for public exhibition.

·         Unrestricted public exhibition – however, with a piece of caution that discretion necessary for children below the age of 12 years.

·          Restricted to adults.

·         Restricted to any distinct class of individuals.

Films cannot be exhibited in India without the certification from the board. Section 5B(1) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952[2] states that the Central Board of Film Certification has to examine the works against the principles of sovereignty and integrity, security of  states, friendly relations with foreign State, public order, decency, morality, defamation, contempt of court or likeliness to incite the commission of an offence.

Judicial Interpretation of Censorship

The right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined under Article 19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution is not an absolute right. It is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), provided the restriction is imposed following the due process of law and not arbitrarily.  It was held in A.K.Gopalan v. The State of Madras[3]  that, “man as a rational being, desires to do many things, but in a civil society his desires have to be controlled, regulated and reconciled with the exercise of similar desires”. Henceforth, imposing reasonable restrictions cannot violate the fundamental right to speech and expression.

In K.A. Abbas v. Union of India[4], the petition challenged the constitutionality of part 11 of the Cinematograph Act 1952. The argument was such that the freedom is absolute and censorship is derogatory. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the said part within the sphere of Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution. 

Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon[5] designed a new perspective to the censoring process. Here, due respect was given to the idea behind the film. The case was related to the exhibition of a film that dealt with the life of Phoolan Devi. The appeal was allowed and the court was of the opinion that “scenes of nudity and rape and the use of expletives, so far as the tribunal had permitted them, were in aid of the theme and intended not to arouse prurient or lascivious thoughts but revulsion against the perpetrators and pity for the victim”. Similarly, in S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram[6] the Supreme Court upheld   the   freedom   of speech and expression.

Courts time and again highlighted the importance of conformity of films to the statutory scheme. In Amitabh Bachhan Corporation Ltd. v. Om Pal Singh Hoon[7] , it was held that “as long as Section 5-B contains the words ‘decency and morality’ drafted from Article 19(2) of the Constitution, Censor Boards must see that films conform to constitutional and statutory provisions and guidelines issued by the Central Government”.

In Sree Raghavendra Films v. Government of Andhra Pradesh[8], the   exhibition   of a film   named ‘Bombay’   was suspended   in   Andhra   Pradesh   under   Section   8(1)   of   the   A.P. Cinemas   Regulation   Act,   1955. The court highlighted the significance of watching the film by the competent authorities before taking any decision. “The authority may have any number of reports or representations before it, but no opinion of his own can be formed without seeing the picture”.

What are the objectives of Censor Board?

a) To ensure healthy entertainment, amusement and education to the public as a whole.

b) To make the certification process transparent and accountable.

c) To build awareness among advisory panel members, film makers and also media members about the guidelines for certification.

d) To utilize modern technology for certification process through computerization of certification process and upgrades of infrastructure.

e) To maintain transparency and accountability about the board’s activities through voluntary disclosures, implementation of e-governance, timely replies to RTI queries and publication of annual report.

6. To promote CBFC as a centre of excellence[9].

Recent Controversies Associated with Censorship

·         PK Movie

The major controversy related to this film was the alleged violation of religious sentiments of a certain groups of people. The film was quite popular and got huge recognition world-wide.

·         Messenger of God

The   film faced issues associated with its clearance from the certification board. The film was alleged to be objectionable as far as public exhibition was concerned. Producer of the film filed an appeal before the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT). The FCAT directed the Central Board of Film Certification to issue the clearance. The controversy resulted in the resignation by the CBFC chief and many other board members.

Grounds for Refusal of Certification

A film can be refused certification by the authorities if it falls within the ambit of the restrictions enshrined under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. Apart from this, the CBFC has to ensure that the film does not justify- anti-social acts, words or visuals that can trigger the commission of an offence. Absence of scenes such as: involvement of children in crime, abuse of handicapped individuals, cruelty to animals or other violent acts is mandated[10].

Other vital elements to be scrutinized by CBFC include:

·         Glorification of drinking, smoking or drug activities

·         Obscene contents

·         Content that may degrade women in any manner

·         Scenes of rape, subject to it being germane to the theme

·         Religious sentiments

·         Non-scientific and anti-national attitude

·         Security, sovereignty, integrity, public order and friendly relations with foreign states

·         Defamation or contempt of court[11].

The board takes into consideration many inherent aspects like the theme of the movie, the era or time period depicted in the film. In other words the film is judged based on its overall impact on the society.

Conclusion

Films have a great impact on the society. It has the potential to shape public opinions. If used in the right manner, it has the power to throw light on various social issues and can even help in curbing the same. Although a wide freedom of speech is available to the citizens of India, there are certain necessary restrictions imposed on it. Maintaining peace in the society is also equally important. Henceforth, the entire review process must be in such a way that the artistic talent and beauty of Indian Film industry is not lost in the process of certification.

The post Censor Board and Television appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.

 Introduction

Cyber bullying can be defined as harassing, intimidating or humiliating a person with the help of electronic means. As far as bullying is concerned, we cannot possibly limit the meaning of this term to a few aspects. Cyber bullying could thus encompass many inherent issues like cyber stalking, trolling, trickery, impersonation and intentional exclusion. Roasting is a new trend prevalent in social media. Roasting was introduced as a type of humour in which an individual is subjected to jokes and pun to amuse the larger audience. Initially, the roasting culture was among close friends and family. However, present day roasting is an entirely different scenario.

It is indeed necessary to explore the background and history of ‘roasting’. All India Bakchod (AIB) Knockout was one of the well-known controversies related to celebrity roasting. Show involved a few renowned Bollywood celebrities. However, show was taken out of the YouTube channel due to widespread criticism from legal activists, celebrities and other spectators. Recently, there were issues raised against a person alleged to have roasted a few people who were active in TikTok (a social networking and entertainment platform).

The legal framework that regulates ‘roasting’ and similar activities has time and again been analysed. The key legislations to be focussed in this regard are the Indian Penal Code, Information Technology Act and the Constitution of India.

Existing Legal Structure Related to Cyber Bullying in India

Closely related provisions of Information Technology Act, 2000 are:

·         Section 67A specifies punishment for publishing or transmitting any material containing sexually explicit act in the electronic form.

·         Section 66E deals with punishment for violation of privacy of an individual intentionally or knowingly by capturing, publishing or transmitting the image of a private area of that person without his or her consent.

It is clear from the above mentioned sections that we cannot rely on them for all cases with regard to cyber bullying. In other words, there is no clear-cut or specific law to deal with cyber bullying and related issues like online roasting. This is the reason why we generally depend on Indian Penal Code, 1860 under such circumstances.

Provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860 that are largely depended on under similar situations:

·         Section 499: Defamation

·         Section 354A: Offence of making sexually coloured comments or sexual harassment. Involves matters like seeking undesirable sexual favours from a woman.

·         Section 354D: Stalking, striding behind or purposefully following a woman. Monitoring a woman’s personal information through electronic means also come under the purview of this section.

·         Section 292A: Involves printing of books etc. of indecent or scurrilous matters intended to blackmail a person.

·         Section 509: Comprises of issues like uttering words intended to insult the modesty of a lady.

·         Section 507: Criminal intimidation by concealing identity (anonymous blackmailing).

The need for a specific legal schema with regard to “cyber bullying” is thus established. It could ease the whole procedure and no doubt, reduce the occurrence of such incidents to a large extent.

Analysis based on the Indian Constitution

The right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined under Article 19(1) (a) need to be critically analysed in every such situation.  The right allows citizens to think and speak without bounds. At the same time, reasonable restrictions to this right are provided under Article 19(2). It was held in A.K.Gopalan v. The State of Madras[1] that, “man as a rational being, desires to do many things, but in a civil society his desires have to be controlled, regulated and reconciled with the exercise of similar desires”.

In Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State Of Maharashtra[2], the constitutional validity of Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code was challenged. The facts of the case involve the alleged sale of obscene books by the accused. It was questioned based on Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, stating that section creates an unreasonable restriction on freedom of speech and expression. The Hon’ble court confirmed the validity of section 292 IPC in this case. Therefore, it is fair enough to say that the right to express thoughts can be restricted for the benefit of a larger population. Moreover, the larger public interest prevails when compared to individual rights.

The freedom of speech can be curtailed under various grounds such as public order, morality, defamation, decency etc. Henceforth, the act of roasting may also fall under one or more of the above mentioned categories of restrictions. When an individual is roasted in front of family members or close acquaintances, the impact created is very meagre. On the other hand, the effect is huge when the same act is performed in social media. Size of the audience is much larger and it can disturb public order if the content being spoken or published happens to be immoral. Apart from personal defamation, such activities have a wider impact on the society at large.

Conclusion

Adherence to the policies and community standards as provided by social media sites is of immense significance. For instance video sharing platforms like YouTube provides plethora of guidelines to the users. Smart and rational usage can eliminate problems to a large extent. However, a secondary level augmentation can be made by addition of a better filtering mechanism using factors like consent and age of the users.

Information Technology Act combined with certain other legal provisions like Indian Penal Code is perhaps the only available method to deal with issues like roasting and cyber bullying in online media. The verdicts in such cases would be different if there is a ‘definite legislation’ to address the offence of cyber bullying.  Also, various branches of cyber bullying cannot even be addressed within the purview of the existing laws. All these points add to the need of a specific law in this area.

The post Cyber Bullying and Roasting on Online Media: Legal Perspective appeared first on Legal Desire Media and Insights.