The fourth industrial revolution, based on digital connectivity and sophisticated ICT technology, enabled the emergence of new works. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is different from conventional machines in that it is able to learn and do cognitive reasoning based on deep learning techniques. Although AI technology differs in terms of creativity, availability, and diversity according to the stage of development, AI is creating creativity as a non-human subject in various fields such as music, art, game, design, novel and newspaper article. AI creation lies in the blind spot of protection of existing intellectual property rights in that human beings are not directly involved in creation, and the demand for a new protection system is increasing. Discussions on the copyright protection of AI creations are
centered on Japan and the EU. In particular, the Japan Intellectual Property Strategy Headquarters issued the Artificial Intelligence Report on April 8, 2016.
This paper focuses on the AI report of Japan and presents a new approach for copyright protection of AI creation. First of all, the development of AI technology is expected to produce a large number of various creative works in the future. If an exclusive right is given, it is worried about side effects due to intensification of monopolization. On the other hand, the need for copyright protection to induce investment in AI is increasing, and a harmonious approach to the pros and cons is needed. This paper argues that a very low level of protection is valid even when protecting the return on investment in existing AI industries. For example, applying ‘Thin copyright protection’ theory to AI creations, the ‘striking similarity’ rather than ‘substantial similarity’ as a component of infringement is defined as a requirement. It is suggested that criminal punishment should be excluded even in relief. In addition, to distinguish between AI creations and human’s, it is necessary to consider the introduction of new registration and labeling systems. This paper also argues that it is appropriate to set the protection period to a short term of about 5 years.
Furthermore, even if it is an infringement, it is suggested to consider the possibility of using permission based on the payment of compensation rather than the prohibition of the use.