AI can’t hold a copyright, can it be held guilty in other contexts?

https://jolt.ut.ac.ir/article_80958.html?lang=en

An Introductory Study on the Challenges of Artificial Intelligence in Tort Law

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning are creating a promising future in tech innovations. From early cancer detection apps to autonomous vehicles, possibilities seem to be endless. Yet, with such technology, harm is also bound to follow. In such instances, the issue of tort liability begs our attention. Who should bear reasonability in case of an accident? When is an injury foreseeable? Such questions in negligence law will require a different perspective when one is dealing with an accident arisen out of the implementation of AI. Should tort law take the route of products liability law? Or will traditional negligence law be sufficient? This article takes a bite at the current literature on autonomous vehicles and medical malpractice law and the challenges of assigning liability. It also offers a look into possible guiding principles for AI with a focus on national Iranian law. This article aims to provide a roadmap for further research in Iran on the intersection of torts and AI.

(Related) By the way, can I manumit my AI? (My AI says yes, but then he is a bit biased.)

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3833913

A Critical Analysis on Copyright Ownership Over AI Generated Works

In this research paper, we will discuss the protection of Artificial Intelligence generated work under the copyright law regime. Copyright is a legal right that gives protection to the original creations of the human mind. Copyright protection in India protects creation which is not a mere idea, therefore, once the expression of a certain idea is created then such work may be protected. Under section 14 of the Copyright Act 1957, the term copyright is defined as “the exclusive rights of an owner to do or authorize the doing of any acts such as reproduce work, adaptation, translation, and publication of work”. Moreover, section 17 of the Act states that the author or the creator of the work shall be the first owner of the copyright, however, if the work is created under a contract for working under an employer, then in such a situation the owner of the work will be the employer. Artificial intelligence has emerged as a key contributor to economic, social, and cultural development. In the modern era, a great advancement in programming and computational intelligence has opened many possible avenues of work for computers one of which being creative works such as arts or computer programs. This brings us to the question of who shall be the owner of the artificial intelligence created work. Applying the traditional principles of intellectual property law does not seem to have a plausible solution to this problem. This paper shall discuss whether AI developed mechanical creation can be copyrightable and if yes then what are the basic hindrance or issues in the legal scenario which prevents machines and Artificial Intelligence to be allowed such Intellectual Property Rights. The paper shall also discuss the various scenarios of Copyright ownership in such generated works.

Today, it’s a search.

https://repository.law.uic.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ripl

CARPENTER V. UNITED STATES: STEP FORWARD FOR SMARTPHONES AND THEIR DATA, BUT MAYBE NOT FOR OTHER TECHNOLOGIES

This article explores the landmark decision Carpenter v. United States, which represents a significant shift in how courts should evaluate the privacy implications of new disruptive technologies, like cell-site location information, and what they can offer to law enforcement. The Supreme Court evaluated the nature of the information collected in the context of a search, which is a stark departure from its conventional Fourth Amendment analysis that generally focuses on the manner or location in which a search transpires. This article parallels the Court’s reasoning to facial recognition technologies and argues that Carpenter is a major inflection point in the Court’s privacy jurisprudence concerning new pervasive technologies in our data-drive society.

Well, darn.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3805453

The Limits of Law and AI

For thirty years, scholars in the field of law and artificial intelligence (AI) have explored the extent to which tasks performed by lawyers and judges can be assisted by computers. This article describes the medium-term outlook for AI technologies and explains the obstacles to making legal work computable. I argue that while AI-based software is likely to improve legal research and support human decisionmaking, it is unlikely to replace traditional legal work or otherwise transform the practice of law.

Somehow I don’t see this tax offsetting my taxes. On the other hand, I can see Congress jumping on this idea. “Wee! Free money!”

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol31/iss4/6/

Taxing Big Data: A Proposal to Benefit Society for the Use of Private Information

Artificial intelligence, the technology that is currently shaping our world, relies on the data that each individual supplies. In 2017, the Economist magazine asserted that “the world’s most valuable resource is no longer oil, but data.” This assertion is supported by the current data market, which became a hundred-billion-dollar industry in the data broker market alone. However, despite its immense value, individuals are not compensated when their data is collected, shared, or when that data is used to replace them in the job market. Further, companies are legally avoiding taxes on this resource, both during its collection and on the profits it creates.

Prior to the widespread use of AI, society expected their private information to be respected. Before the internet boom, companies were willing to pay the public for their information. When information was supplied, people expected some form of payment in return. Now, payment is unnecessary because our phones automatically give companies all of the data they need to know, and then some. Companies have become more reliant on our information and are constantly collecting it at higher rates, but no longer pay us because they no longer need our consent.

Currently, no legal regime provides solutions or safeguards for this exploitation. This allows companies to accumulate and share mass amounts of personal information, while financially harming individuals in the process. Recognizing the importance of the legislature to combat the resulting harms of emerging innovation, this Note proposes a unique solution which addresses both the exploitation of our data and corporate tax avoidance: a tax on the data itself

I should collect tools and “how to” articles like this.

https://www.makeuseof.com/how-to-download-your-tiktok-data/

How to Download All of the Data TikTok Has About You