Tagged / CIPPM

Centre for Intellectual Property Policy and Management (CIPPM) celebrates 25th anniversary

The Centre for Intellectual Property Policy and Management (CIPPM) at Bournemouth University has celebrated its 25th anniversary.

The previous and current directors of CIPPM with Professor Einar Thorsen

From L-R: (Top) Prof. Martin Kretschmer. Prof. Einar Thorsen, Prof. Maurizio Borghi, (Bottom) Prof. Ruth Soetendorp and Prof. Dinusha Mendis

Established in 2000 by founding directors Professor Ruth Soetendorp and Professor Martin Kretschmer, CIPPM has since carried out over 50 research projects by around 100 members – informing intellectual property policy in the UK and internationally.

In 2018 the Centre was named as a Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence for European Intellectual Property and Information Rights, co-funded by the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union.

Research and consultancy projects have covered topics including 3D printing and intellectual property law; copyright and the regulation of Orphan Works; and the music publishing industry.

CIPPM research commissioned by the UK Intellectual Property Office recommended the introduction of a parody exception to copyright, which was adopted by the UK government and has benefited the creative sector through increased income, innovation and freedom of expression.

To celebrate the anniversary, CIPPM hosted a two-day event, bringing together past and present members and collaborators to showcase the changing landscape of intellectual property and the work of the centre during the past 25 years.

Opening the event, Professor Einar Thorsen, Dean of the Faculty of Media and Communication, said: “[CIPPM’s] reach across BU and beyond is truly incredible.

“The centre rightly prides itself on its reputation of evidence-based research and interdisciplinarity, exemplified by strong links with other departments within our faculty.

“The work of the centre extends nationally and internationally. It is really impressive and we’re incredibly proud of it.”

Panel of former and current directors of CIPPM at 25th anniversary event

The former and current directors of CIPPM took part in a panel discussion

As part of the event, the past and current directors of CIPPM – Professor Martin Kretschmer (Founding Director, 2000-2012), Professor Ruth Soetendorp (Founding Director, 2000-2007), Professor Maurizio Borghi, (Director, 2013-2021) and Professor Dinusha Mendis (Director since 2022) – came together for a panel discussion to share their insights and experiences of being part of the centre.

Professor Kretschmer spoke of CIPPM’s unique approach of looking at the effects of IP law and its impact, working with businesses and companies of all shapes and sizes to help them understand what IP meant for them.

Professor Soetendorp described CIPPM as acting like a ‘marriage guidance counsellor’ – bringing together partners and helping them to understand each other.

Professor Borghi added that CIPPM brought together intellectual property enthusiasm and scepticism, adding that a critical view of the limits of IP was needed alongside a strong and solid knowledge of the field, while Professor Mendis spoke about the creative and collaborative approach taken by CIPPM, talking to people outside of IP law.

When asked what the biggest challenges in the next 10 years might be, the panel spoke about advances in technology such as AI, changes in geopolitics and foreign policy, and maintaining a balance of IP rights against other legal protections like trade secrets and confidentiality.

Attendees at the event were also asked to contribute to a time capsule, writing their predictions for the future of both the centre and intellectual property.

Professor Dinusha Mendis, current director of CIPPM, said: “CIPPM isn’t the biggest centre but the people we have – whether they are permanent staff or visiting fellows – have built a vibrant community.

“It’s not about the quantity but the quality of what we do. CIPPM members together have achieved a lot, and we can be really proud of that.”

Find out more about CIPPM

Conversation article: How a New York Times copyright lawsuit against OpenAI could potentially transform how AI and copyright work

Professor Dinusha Mendis writes for The Conversation about the potential copyright implications of AI as a lawsuit is lodged by the New York Times against the creator of ChatGPT…

How a New York Times copyright lawsuit against OpenAI could potentially transform how AI and copyright work

Stas Malyarevsky / Shutterstock

Dinusha Mendis, Bournemouth University

On December 27, 2023, the New York Times (NYT) filed a lawsuit in the Federal
District Court in Manhattan against Microsoft and OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT,
alleging that OpenAI had unlawfully used its articles to create artificial intelligence (AI) products.

Citing copyright infringement and the importance of independent journalism to democracy, the newspaper further alleged that even though the defendant, OpenAI, may have “engaged in wide scale copying from many sources, they gave Times content particular emphasis” in training generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools such as Generative Pre-Trained Transformers (GPT). This is the kind of technology that underlies products such as the AI chatbot ChatGPT.

The complaint by the New York Times states that OpenAI took millions of copyrighted news articles, in-depth investigations, opinion pieces, reviews, how-to guides and more in an attempt to “free ride on the Times’s massive investment in its journalism”.

In a blog post published by OpenAI on January 8, 2024, the tech company responded to the allegations by emphasising its support of journalism and partnerships with news organisations. It went on to say that the “NYT lawsuit is without merit”.

In the months prior to the complaint being lodged by the New York Times, OpenAI had entered into agreements with large media companies such as Axel-Springer and the Associated Press, although notably, the Times failed to reach an agreement with the tech company.

The NYT case is important because it is different to other cases involving AI and copyright, such as the case brought by the online photo library Getty Images against the tech company Stability AI earlier in 2023. In this case, Getty Images alleged that Stability AI processed millions of copyrighted images using a tool called Stable Diffusion, which generates images from text prompts using AI.

The main difference between this case and the New York Times one is that the newspaper’s complaint highlighted actual outputs used by OpenAI to train its AI tools. The Times provided examples of articles that were reproduced almost verbatim.

Use of material

The defence available to OpenAI is “fair use” under the US Copyright Act 1976, section 107. This is because the unlicensed use of copyright material to train generative AI models can serve as a “transformative use” which changes the original material. However, the complaint from the New York Times also says that their chatbots bypassed the newspaper’s paywalls to create summaries of articles.

Even though summaries do not infringe copyright, their use could be used by the New York Times to try to demonstrate a negative commercial impact on the newspaper – challenging the fair use defence.

ChatGPT
Giulio Benzin / Shutterstock

This case could ultimately be settled out of court. It is also possible that the Times’ lawsuit was more a negotiating tactic than a real attempt to go all the way to trial. Whichever way the case proceeds, it could have important implications for both traditional media and AI development.

It also raises the question of the suitability of current copyright laws to deal with AI. In a submission to the House of Lords communications and digital select committee on December 5, 2023, OpenAI claimed that “it would be impossible to train today’s leading AI models without copyrighted materials”.

It went on to say that “limiting training data to public domain books and drawings created more than a century ago might yield an interesting experiment but would not provide AI systems that meet the needs of today’s citizens”.

Looking for answers

The EU’s AI Act –- the world’s first AI Act –- might give us insights into some future directions. Among its many articles, there are two provisions particularly relevant to copyright.

The first provision titled, “Obligations for providers of general-purpose AI
models” includes two distinct requirements related to copyright. Section 1(C)
requires providers of general-purpose AI models to put in place a policy to respect EU copyright law.

Section 1(d) requires providers of general purpose AI systems to draw up and make publicly available a detailed summary about content used for training AI systems.

While section 1(d) raises some questions, section 1(c) makes it clear that any use of copyright protected content requires the authorisation of the rights holder concerned unless relevant copyright exceptions apply. Where the rights to opt out has been expressly reserved in an appropriate manner, providers of general purpose AI models, such as OpenAI, will need to obtain authorisation from rights holders if they want to carry out text and data mining on their copyrighted works.

Even though the EU AI Act may not be directly relevant to the New York Times complaint against OpenAI, it illustrates the way in which copyright laws will be designed to deal with this fast-moving technology. In future, we are likely to see more media organisations adopting this law to protect journalism and creativity. In fact, even before the EU AI Act was passed, the New York Times blocked OpenAI from trawling its content. The Guardian followed suit in September 2023 – as did many others.

However, the move did not allow material to be removed from existing training
data sets. Therefore, any copyrighted material used by the training models up until then would have been used in OpenAI’s outputs –- which led to negotiations between the New York Times and OpenAI breaking down.

With laws such as those in the EU AI Act now placing legal obligations on general purpose AI models, their future could look more constrained in the way that they use copyrighted works to train and improve their systems. We can expect other jurisdictions to update their copyright laws reflecting similar provisions to that of the EU AI Act in an attempt to protect creativity. As for traditional media, ever since the rise of the internet and social media, news outlets have been challenged in drawing readers to their sites and generative AI has simply exacerbated this issue.

This case will not spell the end of generative AI or copyright. However, it certainly raises questions for the future of AI innovation and the protection of creative content. AI will certainly continue to grow and develop and we will continue to see and experience its many benefits. However, the time has come for policymakers to take serious note of these AI developments and update copyright laws, protecting creators in the process.The Conversation

Dinusha Mendis, Professor of Intellectual Property and Innovation Law; Director Centre for Intellectual Property Policy and Managament (CIPPM), Bournemouth University, Bournemouth University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Major Study on 3D Printing and IP Law Led by Prof. Dinusha Mendis Published by the European Commission

Awarded & submitted bids, Business Engagement, Fusion themes, Industry collaboration, innovation, Knowledge Exchange, PG research, Post-award, REF Subjects

A large scale empirical and legal study on the Intellectual Property Implications of the Development of Industrial 3D Printing, funded by the European Commission and led by Professor Dinusha Mendis (FMC, Law and Co-Director CIPPM) has been published.

The report can be accessed here: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/e193a586-7f8c-11ea-aea8-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-124493516

The project was awarded to Professor Mendis in 2018 and together with academic and industry partners from UK (Dr. Julie Robson, Bournemouth University; Prof. Phill Dickens, Added Scientific Ltd), Germany (Prof. Dr. Jan Nordemann, Nordemann LLP; Hans Brorsen) Austria (Dr. Maria del Carmen Calatrava Moreno, Technopolis Group) and Finland (Dr. Rosa Ballardini, University of Lapland) the project was completed in February 2020, with the report being published in April 2020.

Ahead of the completion of the project and publication of the report, a final workshop was hosted in Brussels on 14 October 2019. The presentations from the workshop as well as the panel discussion, can be accessed here.

The project provides an overview of the past and current industrial applications of Additive Manufacturing (AM) and 3D printing in seven  selected sectors (health, aerospace, automotive, consumer, energy, construction and tooling) whilst identifying potential challenges and opportunities in need of clarification. With the aim of enhancing the competitiveness of the AM sector in Europe, the Study makes policy recommendations in the field of intellectual property for businesses engaged in the AM and 3D printing field, and in the present context, is highly relevant for businesses and consumers working with 3D printers, in the fight against Covid-19.

CIPPM Co-Director Professor Dinusha Mendis and Team Secures European Commission Funding for Research into 3D Printing and IP Law

Awarded & submitted bids, Fusion themes, REF Subjects

A project exploring the ‘Study into the Intellectual Property Implications of the Development of Industrial 3D Printing’ was awarded by the European Commission to the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy and Management (CIPPM) in April 2018.

The project led by Co-Director of CIPPM, Professor Dinusha Mendis (Principal Investigator), also includes Dr. Julie Robson, Associate Professor, Marketing (Co-Investigator), Dr. Marc Mimler, Lecturer in Law (Member of Advisory Board), Dr. Sally Weston, Senior Principal Academic in Law (Member of Advisory Board) and Mr. Dukki Hong, PhD Candidate, CIPPM (Research Assistant).

Apart from members of CIPPM, this one-year project also includes partners from UK (University of Glasgow; Added Scientific Ltd), Austria (Technopolis Group), Finland (University of Lapland) and Germany (Boehmert & Boehmert).

The project aims to provide an overview of the past and current industrial applications of Additive Manufacturing (AM) in selected sectors whilst identifying potential challenges and opportunities in need of clarification. In essence, the Study will aim to formulate a clear picture of the Intellectual Property (IP) framework that could enhance the competitiveness of the AM sector in Europe.

CIPPM’s AHRC-funded Project Copyrightuser.org publishes Episode II of the Award-Winning ‘Game is On!’ Film

Awarded & submitted bids, Fusion, Fusion Investment Fund, Knowledge Transfer, Post-award, REF Subjects, Research themes, Student Engagement

Copyrightuser.org – is a collaboration between the Law Department’s Centre for Intellectual Property Policy and Management (CIPPM) at Bournemouth University (BU) and CREATe, University of Glasgow, has produced Episode II of the ‘Game is On!’ Series.

The project led by the Principal Investigator for Bournemouth University, Dr. Dinusha Mendis, Associate Professor in Law and Co-Director of CIPPM was initially funded by BU’s Fusion Investment Fund in 2012. Since 2013 the project has been successful in securing AHRC funding under the leadership of Dr. Mendis and in November 2015, won the AHRC Innovation in Film Award.

Game is On! by Copyrightuser.org is a s a series of short animated films that puts copyright and creativity under the magnifying glass of Sherlock Holmes, providing a unique, research-led and open access resource for school-aged learners and other creative users of copyright. Drawing inspiration from well-known copyright and public domain work, as well as recent copyright litigation, these films provide a springboard for exploring key principles and ideas underpinning copyright law, creativity, and the limits of lawful appropriation and reuse.

Episode I of the ‘Game is On!’ Series titled The Adventure of the Girl with the Light Blue Hair  won the AHRC Innovation in Film Award in November 2015 and was shortlisted for a BUFVC Learning on Screen Award in April 2016 and has been recently used by Into Film to develop the educational resource ‘Exploring copyright for clubs’.

The accompanying Case Files – an important feature of the ‘Game is On!’ series – for Episode I was authored by CIPPM’s Co-Director, Dr. Dinusha Mendis and CIPPM PhD Candidate, Ms. Hayleigh Bosher.

Episode II titled The Adventure of the Six Detectives is also accompanied by a number of Case Files, authored by CREATe researchers Megan Rae Blakely and Andrea Wallace and offer points of discussion around many of the most pressing copyright questions and concerns faced by screenwriters: http://copyrightuser.org/the-game-is-on/episode-2/

The short films are written, directed and produced by Professor Ronan Deazley (Queen’s University Belfast) and CREATe producer Bartolomeo Meletti (currently seconded to the British Film Institute) with Art Direction / Design by Marco Bagni, illustrations by Davide Bonazzi and music by SFX:Sarco.

game-is-on

CIPPM Co-Director publishes three Reports for the UK Government detailing the IP Implications of 3D Printing

Awarded & submitted bids, Business Engagement, Post-award, Publishing, Research themes

CIPPM Co-Director Dr. Dinusha Mendis together with Dr. Davide Secchi (From April 2015, Associate Professor, University of Southern Denmark) and Dr. Phil Reeves of Econolyst Ltd have published a sequence of three reports on the intellectual property implications of 3D printing resulting from a project commissioned by the UK Intellectual Property Office.  The three reports can be accessed here.

In 2012, the Big Innovation Centre, in their Report ‘Three Dimensional Policy: Why Britain needs a policy framework for 3D Printing’ provided a number of recommendations.  A key recommendation was to review the intellectual property (IP) implications of 3D printing.

In 2013, the UKIPO highlighted the lack of empirical evidence relating to 3D printing and the difficulty in determining whether this emerging technology will have an impact on IP laws.  The aim of the current project was therefore to respond to this limited research.  In doing so, the Studies adopted a legal, quantitative and qualitative approach.

Study I titled ‘A Legal and Empirical Study of Online Platforms and an Analysis of User Behaviour’ explores 17 online platforms dedicated to 3D printing and provides a legal and empirical overview of how the online platforms operate and aims to provide a clearer understanding of ‘how’ the sharing happens.  In this context, Study I provides an understanding of the ‘parameters’ for sharing, e.g. terms and conditions, rules and regulations that apply, together with restrictions and bounds that apply to the user behaviour and file-sharing.  As such, Study I evaluates the extent of this phenomenon amongst users.  In doing so, the research examines the price, downloads, licences, type of physical objects, which are shared and the implications for intellectual property laws and in particular analyses the legal provisions arising from the sharing and the copyright implications relating to software.  As such, Study I presents new findings on the current status of 3D printing relating to online platforms.  

Study II titled ‘The Current Status and Impact of 3D Printing Within the Industrial Sector: An Analysis of Six Case Studies’ explores the status, impact and adoption of 3D printing in the Replacement Parts, Customised Goods and High Value Small Status Goods Industries.

To map the impact that 3D printing technology is having on the UK’s economic and legal landscape, Study II represents six case studies which consider the current and future consequence of 3D printing.  The first two case studies address issues relating to Replacement Parts and consider how 3D printing will affect the supply of aftermarket parts to the consumer.  The two case studies within the Customised Goods theme address how 3D printing enables unique products to be manufactured that are tailored to consumers’ needs, and the IP challenges that arise from this. Finally, the two case studies within the High Value Small Status Goods theme look at the impact that 3D printing is having on consumer products that have a low functional purpose, such as collectible figurines or sculptures.

The third publication – an Executive Summary – brings together the findings and conclusions from the two Studies and provides recommendations.

The Studies concluded that there is no urgency to legislate at present as 3D printing is not a mass phenomenon yet.  It warned that a premature call for legislative and judicial action in the realm of 3D printing could stifle the public interest of “fostering creativity and innovation and the right of manufacturers and content creators to protect their livelihoods”.

However, as 3D printing continues to grow it is important to address the IP issues arising in this area in order to cultivate a climate better suited to tackling impending IP issues more successfully and in a manner, which takes into account the interests of all stakeholders.

As such, the Studies make some important recommendations to Government, the Industry and Intermediaries (online platforms) about how to regulate 3D printing without resorting to legislation.

Recommendations to Government suggest the setting up of a Working Group to review the technology and the IP status particularly the position in relation to the software (Computer-Aided Design (CAD) Files) and the traceability of spare parts. The Reports also suggest that the Government should adopt a ‘wait-and-see’ approach.

The Studies conclude that 65% of users engaged in the activities of 3D printing on online platforms do not license their work, leaving their creations vulnerable and open to infringement whilst losing the ability to claim authorship. The Study therefore recommends that online platforms provide more awareness and understanding of the different types of licences. The Study suggests that this aim can be achieved by explaining the nuances relating to each licence in clear and simple language, rather than simply ‘encouraging’ the user to adopt a particular type of licence. Furthermore, online platforms can assign the most appropriate licence as a default with ‘opt-out’ as an option.

Finally, in relation to Industry, the Study recommends the adoption of new business models and provides a number of suggestions in this regard. The Reports also suggest the licensing of CAD files more widely, thereby opening up doors to a range of outlets selling 3D CAD files. This will avoid locking the manufacturer into an agreement through a system such as a ‘one-stop-shop’ for (spare) parts. Although a one-stop-shop may take away the costs of manufacture, transportation and storage whilst reducing potential infringement of IP laws, it can lead to a monopoly-situation, which should be avoided.

A press release led to the research being picked up by various media outlets including IPP Pro, Pan European Networks, Phys.org, Nanowerk and 3Dprint.com amongst others.

A further write-up of the research was published by the UKIPO following the publication of the reports.  Bournemouth University’s Research Chronicle also presented a feature article in March 2015 on the research and its findings.

Following the publication of the reports, Dr. Dinusha Mendis, the Principal Investigator of the project, was invited by the Australian Government to present the research in March 2015, highlighting the impact of this research in another jurisdiction.  Dr. Mendis also presented the research in March at the University of Tasmania in Australia and the Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne.