11 Amendments of Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO related to 2020/2015(INI)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recalls that artificial intelligence (AI) should serve humanity and that its benefits should be widely shared; stresses that, in the long-term, AI may surpass human intellectual capacity; stresses the need therefo leaving no one behind; stresses that, as AI is an ever-changing collection of technologies that are being developed at great speed, and as it is constantly gaining the ability to perform more tasks typically related to humans, it shall be required to establish safeguards such as a human centric design which allows for human control and verification of AI decision-making;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the European legal framework for intellectual property aims to promote and protect innovation, creativity and access to knowledge and information;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the aim of making the European Union the world leader in AI technologies must include efforts to safeguard the Union’s digital and industrial sovereignty, as well as cultural diversity;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Stresses that the EU should play an essential role in laying down basic principles on the development, programmingdeployment and use of AI, notably in its regulations and codes of conduct, in particular an ethical regulatory framework and a digital data strategy anchored in the respect of fundamental rights and European values;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas a human-centred approach to AI in compliance with the ethical principles and human rights, is needed if the technology is to remain a tool that serves people and the common good;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that AI cannot only perform activities which used to be exclusivelyis constantly gaining the ability to perform more tasks typically related to humans, but that it can alsoy acquireing and developing autonomous and cognitive features, through experience learning; stresses that AI systems can autonomously create and generate cultural and creative works, with only minimum human input, although they are always developed, deployed and used by humans, can autonomously create and generate creative works; notes, moreover, that AI systems can evolve in an unpredictable way, by creating original works unknown to their initial programmers;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Emphasises the need to address copyright issues relating to AI-generated cultural and creative works; underlines, in that context, the need to assess whether the notion of the humanart for AI-generated works, and recalls that the human as author and creator ais the basis for the intellectual property rights (IPR) system is still adequate for AI-generated works; considers that automatically assigning the copyright of AI-generated works to the copyright holder of the AI software, algorithm or programme may not be the best way forward as there is a need for a human intervention to be credited for being author of a new creative work;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)
Recital K a (new)
Ka. whereas the purpose of authors' rights is on the one hand to protect the economic and moral interest of authors and in the other to incentivise human creation;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recommends that priority be given to assessment by sector and type of IPR implications of AI technologies; considers that such an approach should take into account for example, the degree of human intervention, the autonomy of the AI and the importance of the role and the origin of the data used and the possible involvement of other factors, such as sectoral economic equilibria;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Takes the view that consideration must be given to protecting technical and artistic creations generated by AI, where such protection is justified on the basis on the same or similar creative results, in order to encourage this form of creation; considers that certain works generated by AI can be regarded as equivalent to intellectual works and could therefore be protected by copyright; recommends that ownership of rights be assigned to the person who creates, prepares and publishes a work lawfully, provided that the technology designer has not expressly reserved the right to use the work in that way;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Notes that creators and creative sectors are among the main users of AI technologies as a supporting tool to create and enrich their works; considers that copyright and authors' rights should be regarded to protect to protect human creators using that technologies;