Activities of Luisa REGIMENTI related to 2020/2015(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on intellectual property rights for the development of artificial intelligence technologies
Amendments (9)
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the European legal framework for intellectual property aims to promote innovation, creativity and access to knowledge and information and that copyright in particular seeks to protect authors and their ability to earn a living from the proceeds of their works;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas a human-centred approach to AI is needed if the technology is to remain a tool that serves people and the common good, particularly in the field of biomedical engineering, medical advancement and health;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas legal certainty fosters technological development, and whereasstrengthens the international competitiveness of European industry and SMEs, as well as fostering public confidence in new technologies, which is essential for the development of this sector;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the EU is the appropriate level at which to regulate AI technologies in order to avoid fragmentation of the single market, while taking due account of the varying levels of digitalisation of the Member States; whereas the EU regulatory framework in the field of AI will have the potential to become a legislative benchmark at international level;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas AI technologies are heavily dependent on data, a blanket term for information falling into a range of categories that requires protection and tailored governance; whereas increased access to certain data and databases in the European Union, especially for SMEs and start-ups, will play a crucial role in advancing the development of European AI;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. WelcomesTakes note of the Commission White Paper on ‘Artificial Intelligence - A European approach to excellence and trust’ and of the European Data Strategy; stresses thatconsiders the approaches outlined therein are likely to contribute toto be a starting point for the deployment of the potential of human- centered AI in the EU; notes, however, that the issue of the protection of IPRs in the context of the development of AI technologies does not seem to have been addressed by the Commission, despite the importance of these rights and the role played by innovation and creativity in the EU economy;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses the importance of protecting IPRs in relation to AI technologies, in order to create the legal certainty and build the trust needed to encourage investment in these technologies, in particular for SMEs and start-ups; considers that the EU can be a frontrunner in the creation of AI technologies if it adopts an operational regulatory framework that is regularly assessed in the light of technological developments and implements proactive public policies, particularly as regards training programmes and financial support for research;
Amendment 105 #
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, in order to encourage this form of creation; considers that certain works generated by AI canould be regarded as equivalent to intellectual works and could therefore be protected by copyright;, and recommends that ownership of rights be assigned to the person who prepares and publishes a work lawfully, provided that the technology designer has not expressly reserved the right to use the work in that waythe issue of copyright on such works be carefully assessed;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Notes that AI makes it possible to process a large quantity of data relating to the state of the art or the existence of IPRs; notes, at the same time, that the use of AI technology cannot be a substitute for human verification in relation to the granting of IPRs and the determination of liability for infringements of IPRs and of damage occasioned by AI technologies;