Legal articles and news for companies
Technoviking – an Internet Meme Against His Will
Type “Technoviking” into an internet search engine. The result? Even after more than 25 years, an endless stream of YouTube videos, a dedicated Wikipedia page, a wealth of themed digital art, and sales of printed T-shirts, mugs, underwear, collectible figurines, toys and gaming characters based on this internet phenomenon from the year 2000. A legend was born – one that will never be forgotten…
AI Compliance - Do you develop or use artificial intelligence?
The European Union is adopting the world's first rules on artificial intelligence (the AI Act). The AI Act defines the framework that developers, providers, distributors, importers and even certain users (in particular you, entrepreneurs using an AI system in your business) must follow.
The AI Act clearly says "no, thank you" to systems that could place you on a socially undesirable list, manipulate you or monitor you without authorisation. It lays down rules for high-risk systems, including transparency obligations.
A Czech court has ruled that AI-generated graphics are not a copyrighted work
It turns out that giving a prompt to an AI is more like handing a recipe to a chef – even if you provided the ingredients, the finished dish is not your work. The AI user is more of a kitchen assistant than the actual chef. In my view, what will matter greatly is what you do with the dish next and how you serve it…
If it isn't a copyrighted work, can I do whatever I want with it?
Many ebooks and LinkedIn posts have already been written about how works created by AI are not copyrighted works. They are therefore not protected by copyright. Does that mean that everything not protected by copyright is freely available?
For example, an image generated by AI? An expert report? General terms and conditions?
Artificial intelligence is not the author of a work, just as a camera or an animal is not. So concluded the U.S. court in THALER v. PERLMUTTER
On 18 August 2023, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the Copyright Office had not erred when it refused to register copyright protection for a work created by artificial intelligence.