AI 창작물의 저작권 보호는 필요한가

박성준,김상겸 연세대학교 법학연구원 2024 법학연구 Vol.34 No.2

It is the era of artificial intelligence. Technological innovation, which has been a constant driving force for the growth of mankind, has emerged a new type of technology called artificial intelligence. With the development of digital and information and communication technologies, artificial intelligence technology has opened the horizon of the new era of the 4th industrial revolution and provided many conveniences to mankind. Meanwhile, artificial intelligence has taken human life to the next level and presented humanity with numerous legal challenges. The problem of artificial intelligence creations is also a representative example of this. Artificial intelligence, which has been developing over and over, has expanded its scope to the realm of creation, which was said to be the exclusive property of mankind, and has caused problems with copyright and responsibility, bringing about a great impact on the human intellectual property system. Looking at this situation, this paper was written to find a way to achieve harmony with the human intellectual property system by regulating and protecting artificial intelligence creations within the copyright field, and the results of the study are as follows. First, although various artificial intelligence creations are produced, it was confirmed that artificial intelligence creations are in a legal blank state under the current intellectual property system. Since it is not recognized as a work under the copyright law, it is not possible to regulate them within the current legislation governing human creation. As a result of examining their need for protection, it may be contradictory, but it was concluded that artificial intelligence creations need to be regulated within the current legal system for human creation. Even considering the purpose of the Copyright Act, which is the protection of human creations and the development of related industries, the necessity of regulation and protection can be recognized. However, in order to protect artificial intelligence creations, numerous issues of copyright law, such as the issue of copyrightability of creations, copyright attribution, and protection method, must be decided in the current legislation. Considering that artificial intelligence cannot be a subject of rights and obligations at present and the current technological ability to create creations without human intervention, the subject of rights of creations should be human. Based on this, the constitutional approach to the knowledge and information society as a protection measure, “introduction of electronic personality” to prepare for the upcoming era of strong artificial intelligence, legal improvements such as “Amendment of Copyright Act” and “Enactment of Special Act on Artificial Intelligence” as a way to realize the recognition of copyright and the establishment of authors, and the production of “Ethical Guidelines” as a concrete system, the registration system as a technical indication obligation, and external measures were proposed. However, since these measures also attempt a legal approach to artificial intelligence from the beginning, social consensus should be reached through further discussion on their concrete realization measures. Regardless of the field, artificial intelligence will create new legal issues in a completely different way than before. Now, we must start an in-depth discussion to present a new paradigm to respond to new issues in artificial intelligence.

인공지능과 약관

최경진(Choi, Kyoungjin) 한국비교사법학회 2021 비교사법 Vol.28 No.3

인공지능에 의한 계약(이하에서 “인공지능 계약”이라 한다)이 증가함에 따라 인공지능 계약에서의 약관(이하 “인공지능 약관”이라 한다)으로 인하여 소비자에게 피해가 발생하지 않도록 하면서도 동시에 인공지능의 발전도 가로막지 않도록 인공지능 시대에 약관은 어떠한 의미를 가지고 법적으로 어떻게 다루어야 할 것인가에 관하여 깊이 있는 논의가 필요하다. 이러한 시각을 바탕으로 하여 이 글에서는 인공지능을 이용하여 계약을 체결함에 있어서의 약관과 관련한 문제를 중심으로 논의를 진행하되, 인공지능 약관의 의의나 유용성, 유효성 및 법적 근거, 계약 내용으로의 편입 통제와 같은 약관법의 기초적인 문제를 중심으로 논의를 진행하였다. 발전된 인공지능 계약은 개별적인 당사자에 따라 계약을 체결하는 ‘개별화’와 함께 상황이나 시간의 변화에 따라 적절히 대응하여 변화되는 ‘현행화’의 두 가지 성격을 가지고 있고, 계약의 체결 과정에서 인공지능이 결정적 역할을 하여 약관을 형성한다는 특성을 도출할 수 있었다. 이처럼 인공지능 계약에 있어서 구체적인 약관의 내용이 인공지능에 의하여 확정되는 과정을 고려할 때 종래와 같이 사전에 계약내용의 모든 것이 확정되어 있는 고정적인 약관의 모습이 아니라 인공지능에 의하여 최종적으로 확정되는 ‘동적 약관’으로 새롭게 파악할 필요성이 인정된다. 동적 약관으로 파악하게 되면, 약관으로서의 인공지능에 대한 통제 및 투명성 의무의 도입과 같은 새로운 법적 접근이 필요하다. 즉, 종래의 약관의 계약 내용으로의 편입 통제와 약관 조항의 불공정성 판단을 통한 내용 통제는 인공지능 약관에도 그대로 적용할 수 있겠지만, 인공지능의 특성을 고려하여 특별히 계약 체결 과정에서의 투명성을 증진하기 위한 대응노력이 필요하다. 특히 투명성을 증진하기 위하여 인공지능 약관과 관련한 정보제공의무를 강화하거나 중립적인 제3자에 의한 지속적인 모니터링과 이를 통한 약관 조항의 통제 등을 제도화하는 논의가 필요하다. 인공지능과 관련한 약관규제의 논의는 이제 막 시작단계에 들어섰을 뿐이고 향후 인공지능의 발전과 계약 형성에의 적용례가 쌓여 가면 보다 더 세밀하게 논의하여 인공지능 시대에 맞는 약관규제법의 발전방안을 도출할 수 있을 것으로 기대한다. 이 글이 향후 인공지능 시대의 약관법 논의의 단초가 되기를 기대한다. As contracts by artificial intelligence (hereinafter referred to as “artificial intelligence contract”) increase, in-depth discussion is needed about the meaning and legal treatment of the Standard Form Contract in the age of artificial intelligence in order not to cause damage to consumers due to the terms of the artificial intelligence contract and at the same time not to block the development of artificial intelligence. Based on this perspective, this article discusses the issues related to the Standard Form Contract in concluding a contract using artificial intelligence. In particular, the discussion is focused on the fundamental issues, such as the meaning, usefulness, validity and legal basis of the Standard Form Contract in artificial intelligence contract, as well as the control of incorporation into the content of contract. The advanced artificial intelligence contract has two characteristics: ‘individualization’, in which contracts are concluded according to individual parties to contract, and ‘actualization’, which contracts change in response to changes in circumstances or time. Artificial intelligence plays a decisive role in the contract conclusion process and forms the Standard Form Contract. In this way, when considering the process in which the contents of specific terms and conditions are confirmed by artificial intelligence in an AI contract, it is far from the appearance of a fixed Standard Form Contract in which all the contents of the contract are confirmed in advance as in the past. Rather, it is necessary to recognize it as a Dynamic Standard Form Contract in which the contract is finally confirmed by artificial intelligence. Furthermore, in consideration of the characteristics of artificial intelligence, it is necessary to make special efforts to improve transparency in the process of the formation of the Dynamic Standard Form Contract . The discussion of standard form contract in artificial intelligence contract is only just beginning. With the development of artificial intelligence in the future, it is expected that a more detailed discussion will lead to the development of a Standard Form Contract regulation law suitable for the age of artificial intelligence. It is hoped that this article will serve as a starting point for the discussion of the Standard Form Contract law in the age of artificial intelligence in the future.

블록형 프로그래밍 언어 기반 인공지능 교육이 학습자의 인공지능 기술 태도에 미치는 영향 분석

이영호 한국정보교육학회 2019 정보교육학회논문지 Vol.23 No.2

Artificial intelligence has begun to be used in various parts of our lives, and recently its sphere has been expanding. However, students tend to find it difficult to recognize artificial intelligence technology because education on artificial intelligence is not being conducted on elementary school students. This paper examined the teaching programming language and artificial intelligence teaching methods, and looked at the changes in students' attitudes toward artificial intelligence technology by conducting education on artificial intelligence. To this end, education on block-type programming language-based artificial intelligence technology was provided to students' level. And we looked at students' attitudes toward artificial intelligence technology through a single group pre-postmortem. As a result, it brought about significant improvements in interest in artificial intelligence, possible access to artificial intelligence technology and the need for education on artificial intelligence technology in schools. 인공지능이 우리 생활의 다양한 곳에 사용되기 시작하였으며, 최근 그 영역 또한 점차 확대되고 있다. 하지만 인공지능에 대한 교육이 초등학생을 대상으로 이루어지고 있지 않기 때문에 학생들이 인공지능 기술에 대해 어렵게 인식하는 경향이 있다. 이에 본 논문에서는 교육용 프로그래밍 언어와 인공지능 교육 방법을 고찰하고, 인공지능에 대한 교육을 실시함으로써 학생들의 인공지능 기술에 대한 태도의 변화를 살펴보았다. 이를 위해 학생들의 수준에 적절한 블록형 프로그래밍 언어 기반 인공지능 기술에 대한 교육을 실시하였다. 그리고 학생들의 인공지능 기술에 대한 태도를 단일집단 사전사후 검사를 통해 태도의 변화를 살펴보았다. 그 결과 인공지능에 대한 흥미, 인공지능 기술에 대한 접근 가능성, 학교에서 인공지능 기술에 대한 교육의 필요성에 있어 유의미한 향상을 가져왔다.

제4차 산업혁명시대 인공지능의 의사결정과 인격권 보장

정애령(Ae Ryung Jung) 한국부패학회 2023 한국부패학회보 Vol.28 No.1

4차산업혁명 시대의 핵심어는 단연 인공지능이다. 빅데이터에 기반한 인공지능의 결정은 다량의 데이터를 빠르게 검토하여 시간과 비용을 줄여 업무처리의 효율성을 높인다. 이에 따라 사회의 전 영역에서 인공지능 기술이 이용되기 시작했고, 기업의 인사관리영역에서도 회사의 특정 요구사항에 따라 업무를 최적화할 수 있을 뿐 아니라, 신뢰와 공정에 의구심을 제기하는 채용 관련 비리 및 비위행위에 맞서 반부패정책도구로서 기대된다. 그러나 인공지능에 대한 적절한 통제가 없는 경우 인공지능은 오히려 편견을 강화하고, 구직자의 개인정보를 침해할 수 있다. 인공지능의 결정에 기반이 되는 데이터는 오랜 시간 축적된 것이므로, 과거 인종과 성별 또는 일정 그룹에 대한 차별과 편견이 그대로 드러나거나, 알고리즘 설계에 반영될 수 있기 때문이다. 더욱이 인공지능의 의사결정과정은 스스로 학습을 거쳐 일반적으로 이해할 수 있는 절차와 근거가 제시되기 어렵기 때문에, 반박하거나 교정하기 어려운 상태에서 기계의 결정을 인간이 그대로 받아들여야 하는 주객전도의 상황이 발생한다. 지능정보사회에서 인공지능이 점점 더 중요한 결정을 내리게 됨에 따라, 자동화된 의사결정이 행사하는 이른바 알고리즘 권력이 어떤 문제를 수반하고 이를 어떻게 적절히 통제할 것인지가 중요한 과제가 된다. 따라서 첨단기술의 효용성을 극대화하되, 인간의 존엄과 가치가 훼손되지 않으며 인공지능을 이용할 방법을 강구하여야 한다. 인공지능의 의사결정에 대한 인격권 보장방안으로, 유럽 개인정보보호규정을 참고하여 인공지능의 배타적 결정을 제한하고 최종적 결정 권한은 인간에게 두어야 한다. 또한 인공지능을 이용한 채용과정에서 발생하는 법적 윤리적 문제에 대하여 감사기관과 정부, 윤리위원회 및 심리 전문가까지 신중한 분석에 따른 지침설정이 필요하다. 나아가 인공지능 기술이 가진 문제점을 인지하여 기술적 보완을 위해 힘써야 할 것이나, 기술이 가진 위험성을 예방하고 감시할 수 있는 실효적인 구체적 절차의 마련이 더욱 절실하다. 채용과정은 자아실현의 수단인 직업을 갖게 되는 첫 단계인 만큼 기회의 균등과 직무능력에 따른 평가가 중요하다. 인공지능 및 기술발전을 저해하지 않으면서 노동법과 개인정보보호법이 추구하는 법익을 실현하기는 쉽지 않을 것이나, 법학적 철학적 기술적 전문가의 치열한 논의를 통해 지침이 되는 실용적이고 균형잡힌 명확한 법률을 만들어지기를 기대한다. 가장 중요한 명제는 인공지능은 인간의 결정을 돕는 도구이고, 그것의 윤리는 항상 도구를 만드는 사람에 달려 있다는 것이다. The key word in the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution is definitely AI(Artificial Intelligence). Artificial intelligence's decision based on big data increases the efficiency of work processing by quickly reviewing a large amount of data and reducing time and cost. As a result, artificial intelligence technology has begun to be used in all areas of society, and it is expected to be an anti-corruption policy tool against hiring-related corruption and irregularities that raise doubts about trust and process. However, if there is no proper control over artificial intelligence, artificial intelligence can rather strengthen prejudice and infringe on job seekers' personal information. This is because the data based on artificial intelligence's decisions have been accumulated for a long time, so discrimination and prejudice against race, gender, or certain groups in the past can be revealed or reflected in algorithm design. Moreover, since artificial intelligence's decision-making process is difficult to present procedures and grounds that can be generally understood through self-learning, there is a situation in which humans have to accept machine decisions as they are in a difficult state to refute or correct. Therefore, while maximizing the utility of high-tech technology, it is necessary to find a way to use artificial intelligence without damaging human dignity and value. As a way to guarantee the personal rights of artificial intelligence's decision-making, the exclusive decision of artificial intelligence should be limited by referring to the European Personal Information Protection Regulations and the final decision authority should be placed on humans. In addition, it is necessary to set guidelines based on careful analysis by audit agencies, the government, ethics committees, and psychological experts for legal and ethical problems that arise in the hiring process using artificial intelligence. It is more urgent to prepare effective specific procedures to prevent and monitor the risks of technology. As the hiring process is the first step in getting a job, which is a means of self-realization, evaluation according to equality of opportunities and job competency is important. We hope that practical and balanced clear laws will be created through intense discussions by legal, philosophical and technical experts. The most important proposition is that artificial intelligence is a tool that helps humans make decisions, and its ethics always depend on the person who makes the tool.

인공지능과 불법행위책임

최경진(Kyoungjin Choi) 한국정보법학회 2021 정보법학 Vol.25 No.2

기술이 발전함에 따라 과거에는 상상에 그쳤던 인공지능이 점차 일상생활 속으로들어오고 있다. 인공지능이 사회·경제 각 분야에 접목됨으로써 인공지능에 대한 법적 규율에 대하여도 관심이 높아지고 있다. 또한 인공지능의 수준이 점점 더 고도화됨에 따라 법적 규율에 있어서도 변화가 발생할 것으로 예상된다. 인공지능의 활용에따른 민사법상의 책임문제도 그 중의 하나이다. 인공지능과 관련한 불법행위책임의 문제는 민법상 일반 불법행위책임으로부터 제조물책임, 공작물책임, 자동차손해배상보장법 상의 자동차사고 책임에 이르기까지 다양하게 나타난다. 인공지능은 불법행위책임에 새로운 도전으로 다가왔지만, 어떻게 불법행위책임을 인정할 것인가와 관련해서는 일반 불법행위책임의 성립요건인고의·과실, 위법성, 인과관계, 손해, 책임의 주체 등에 대하여 근본적인 검토를 한 후에 종래의 법해석에 의하여 해결하기 어려운 문제가 확인된 경우에 인공지능의 특성을 고려한 해석론 혹은 입법론적 접근을 하는 것이 바람직하다. 이 글에서는 일반 불법행위책임 측면에서 인공지능을 둘러싼 고의·과실이나 위법성 등의 의미를 살펴보고, 특수 불법행위책임 측면에서의 인공지능의 규율 가능성과 한계 등을 살펴보았다. 일반 불법행위책임이나 민법 및 특별법 상의 특수 불법행위책임에 의한 해결을 최대한 먼저 시도해보아야 한다. 그럼에도 기술적 특성이 강해서 일반적인 증명이 쉽지않거나 실제 생명·신체·재산에 대한 인공지능의 위험성이 높은 경우에는 제한적범위 내에서 강화된 책임을 단계별로 인정하는 것은 향후 깊이 검토할 필요가 있다. 또한 앞서 살펴본 바와 같이 인공지능을 포함한 디지털제품에 대하여 종래의 제조물책임법을 개정해서 포섭할 것인지 그렇지 않으면 별도의 ‘디지털제조물책임법’을 제정할 것인지에 대하여도 깊이 있는 논의가 필요하다. 이러한 논의들은 서로 긴밀히 관련되어 있기 때문에 인공지능과 관련한 과도한 책임법의 범람을 지양하기 위해서라도 일반 불법행위책임으로 다룰 수 있는 영역과 구체적인 요건·효과, 종래 특수 불법행위책임의 적용을 위한 요건 및 효과, 제조물책임법 등 특별법 상의 인공지능에 대한 규율 등을 종합적이고도 정밀하게 검토하면서 상호간에 보충적인 작용을 하면서 적절히 인공지능으로 인한 불법행위책임을 규율할수 있는 연구와 입법적 논의가 진행되어야 할 것이다. 향후 다각적이고 깊이 있는 연구를 통하여 인공지능의 변화 속도에 발맞춰서 적절한 규율체계를 정립해나는데 이글이 논의의 기초가 되길 기대한다. As technology advances, artificial intelligence, which was only imaginary in the past, is gradually entering our daily life. As artificial intelligence is applied to various fields of society and economy, interest in legal regulations on artificial intelligence is also increasing. In addition, as the level of artificial intelligence becomes more and more advanced, it is expected that changes will also occur in legal regulations. One of them is the issue of liability under the civil law for the use of artificial intelligence. The problem of tort liability related to artificial intelligence is diverse, ranging from general tort liability under the Civil Act to product liability, work piece liability, and automobile accident liability under the Automobile Damage Compensation Act. Artificial intelligence has come as a new challenge to tort liability, but in relation to how to recognize tort liability, it is first reviewed from the point of view of general tort liability. It is desirable to adopt a new interpretation or legislative approach considering the characteristics of artificial intelligence. This article examines the meaning of intention, negligence, and illegality surrounding artificial intelligence in terms of general tort liability, and examines the possibility and limitations of civil regulation on artificial intelligence in terms of special tort liability. The resolution of general tort liability or special tort liability under civil and special laws should be attempted first. Nevertheless, in cases where general proof is not easy due to strong technical characteristics, or when the risk of artificial intelligence to real life, body, or property is high, it is necessary to consider in depth the acknowledgment of reinforced responsibility step by step within a limited scope. In addition, it is necessary to discuss in depth whether or not to revise and include the existing Product Liability Act for digital products including artificial intelligence or to enact a separate ‘Digital Product Liability Act’. Since these discussions are closely related, various types of tort liability should be comprehensively and precisely reviewed in order to avoid the overflow of excessive liability laws related to artificial intelligence. In addition, research and legislative discussions should be conducted to properly regulate liability for torts caused by artificial intelligence while complementing each other. It is hoped that this article will serve as a basis for future in-depth research and establishing an appropriate discipline system for the pace of change in artificial intelligence.

인공지능에 의한 행정상 자동결정에 대한 규율과 권리구제

김휘식 경북대학교 IT와 법연구소 2021 IT와 법 연구 Vol.0 No.22

Artificial intelligence, one of the core technologies leading the 4th industrial revolution, is expected to bring about an innovation in administration. In the past, e-government has implemented various public services through Internet and brought innovation in administrative affairs. Intelligent informatization in administration takes one step more to make automatic administrative decisions by using artificial intelligence in various fields of administration. In this paper, we examine the aspects of regulations and remedy of rights in automatic administrative decisions with artificial intelligence. In the case of automatic administrative decisions with artificial intelligence, regulations and remedy of rights may vary depending on various types of administrative actions, such as administrative disposition, public contracts, realakte, and administrative rules. When establishing the the regulations of automatic administrative decisions with artificial intelligence, lawmakers should consider rule of law, administrative procedures, opacity and bias of machine learning algorithms, and personal information protection. When making administrative disposition with artificial intelligence, it is reasonable to allow discretionary actions as well as binding actions considering the nature of AI. In order to enforce public contracts and realakte with artificial intelligence, legal grounds will be required. Automatic administrative rules with artificial intelligence will be allowed only when there is social consensus based on democratic legitimacy. When referring to overseas regulatory trends, it is necessary to recognize the right to object against automatic administrative decisions and to grant the right to request an explanation of the AI′s algorithms. On the other hand, it is necessary to keep in mind the principles of science and technology regulation, such as so-called negative regulation-a method of specifically enumerating the rights limited and permitting other matters in principle. Regarding the remedy of rights, the current law does not reflect the automatic administrative decision with artificial intelligence, so remedy of rights is insufficient. In relation to state compensation liability, if public officials using artificial intelligence inflict damage on other persons, the negligence of public officials should be presumed. If damage occurs in public structures due to artificial intelligence errors, defects should be presumed when the probability of the defects is proved. When it comes to an appeal suit, automatic administrative decisions with artificial intelligence-for example, machine learning algorithms that reflect specific disposition criteria- should be recognized as administrative disposition. With regard to the illegality of administrative disposition, the issues are rule of law, administrative procedures, opacity and bias of machine learning algorithms, personal information protection, etc. In addition, a party suit should be used for state compensation claims or public contracts.

자율적 인공지능에 의한 창작물의 저작권 보호 여부 및 저작자 결정의 이론적 근거에 대한 연구

김도경 한국스포츠엔터테인먼트법학회 2024 스포츠엔터테인먼트와 법 Vol.27 No.2

As artificial intelligence technology becomes increasingly sophisticated and advanced, a new era of creation through artificial intelligence has arrived, it has reached a level where it can match intellectual ability of humans, thereby improving human capabilities. An important issue was raised in relation to copyright law as to who owns the copyright of works created by autonomous artificial intelligence without human intervention. In order to solve this problem, one option currently available is to grant copyright to emergent works created by autonomous artificial intelligence, such as the artificial intelligence itself, users of artificial intelligence, artificial intelligence programmers, or artificial intelligence companies as copyright holders. Alternatively, a legislative policy could be chosen to not grant copyright at all by ensuring that such creations belong to the public domain as soon as they are created so that everyone can use them freely. Therefore, it is an important issue to prevent legal confusion by resolving the issue of who holds the copyright for the creations created by autonomous artificial intelligence. A legislative solution is needed to determine the most appropriate option among the options for granting and determining copyright holders. In line with this awareness of the problem, this study clearly presents copyright issues related to the creation of creative works by autonomous artificial intelligence, and consider legislative measures such as the revision of the copyright law, protection by other laws such as the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, or the review of protection under the special law(sui generis) and attribution to the public domain. Accordingly, it is expected to be used as a theoretical basis for legislative data to review ways not to grant copyrights according to copyright protection of artificial intelligence creations (i.e., belong to the public domain) or to grant authorship, propose the most valid alternative based on clear copyright-related grounds, and use it as a theoretical basis for judicial judgment in the event of a copyright-related dispute over creations of artificial intelligence.

인공지능 창작 문예물의 저작권 문제에 관한 고찰 -저자와 저작물의 법적 보호 가능성을 중심으로

오태호 한국문예창작학회 2024 한국문예창작 Vol.23 No.1

This article is written to examine the copyright issue of literary works created by artificial intelligence in February 2024, which is going through the artificial intelligence era. Specifically, we reviewed the outline of the case of the “comic book” Zarya of the Dawn that showed the legal debate over copyright issues in the United States, inferred the “judgment of authors and works” on the novel “The World from Now” and the poetry collection of “Artificial Intelligence SIA” Why I Write Poems. We collaborated with the interactive artificial intelligence “ChatGPT” and established writers to create novels, and made inferences on the judgments of “authors, works, and copyrights” through the recently published short story collection Manifesto. In conclusion, the feature novel The World from Now created by the work of Kim Taeyeon and ‘Artificial Intelligence Virampung’ is not a ‘first artificial intelligence creation feature novel’, but rather a ‘collaborative creation of author Kim Taeyeon and artificial intelligence Virampung’ created by collaboration between Kim Taeyeon and artificial intelligence. The poetry collection of ‘Artificial Intelligence SIA’ Why I Write Poems is a ‘Exclusive Creation of Artificial Intelligence SIA’ created by author Slitscope and Kakao Brain using artificial intelligence SIA. Manifesto corresponds to a co-creation created by 7 Novelists and ChatGPT to advocate 8 co-au-thors in collaboration, but given the legal judgment that ‘Only Humans are Authors’, it is judged that only 7 novelists are authors, and ChatGPT was used as a tool. In this way, “discussions on authors, works, and copyrights” between humans and artificial intelligence are likely to continue in the future, and it is expected that who will be able to create, how, and how much they will be able to empathize with the text will be the biggest topic.

인공지능에 의한 사이보그 형 자동화 의사결정에 대한 고찰

양종모 충북대학교 법학연구소 2021 과학기술과 법 Vol.12 No.1

Artificial intelligence research started with computers trying to take the place of what humans have to do intelligently. Research started in the 1950s went through several ups and downs and reached the same period of the third boom as it is now. With the shocking situation where Alpha Go defeated Lee Se-dol, the strongest player in Go, in 2016, interest in artificial intelligence increased rapidly, and stories about the future situations that artificial intelligence will bring about, such as the possibility and singularity of artificial intelligence, are talked about even among the general public. Certainly, artificial intelligence has the potential to fundamentally change the way humans live, not just technological advances. The real value of artificial intelligence algorithms is prediction. At the center of all the algorithmic revolutions that have taken place in the various fields of modern society, there is one unchanging purpose: prediction. The algorithm for predicting the risk of recidivism used in US law enforcement fits precisely with the principle that individual humans behave in a predictable and consistent manner. While using the algorithm of predicting the risk of a second offender, an artificial intelligence algorithm, not a judge, actually takes the place of the defendant's decision on whether or not to be arrested or sentenced. Automated decision making continues to grow at an unprecedented rate and benefits because machine learning offers the possibility to extend the automated decision-making process, allowing wider, deeper decisions without human intervention. It is also very large and is expected to continue to expand its use. However, the risks are as great as the benefits of artificial intelligence algorithms. The risks of artificial intelligence algorithms outweigh the individual risks of any algorithmic technology specifically applied. Despite the widespread use of artificial intelligence in the social sphere, the reality is that the problems of artificial intelligence cannot be properly grasped. However, people who were treated differently due to automatic decision-making by artificial intelligence began to question the fairness or fairness of artificial intelligence, and in particular, while causing sensitive problems such as discriminatory results, controversy surrounding artificial intelligence algorithms gradually became more and more controversial. It is expanding. Even if a decision made by artificial intelligence is wrong or causes negative effects such as discrimination, there is a big problem that there are few means to object to this. In a situation where automated decision-making is more likely to threaten human autonomy and dignity, in order to secure an individual's autonomous personality, make sure that the entire process of the individual's automatic decision-making that affects him or her is fair and error-free. It is of utmost importance to know and allow humans to directly intervene if necessary. Although available data is increasing and algorithms are gradually improving, artificial intelligence algorithms do not completely eliminate the uncertainty posed by decision making. Eventually, there are cases in which humans, as finalists, have to make important decisions in situations where uncertainty has not been resolved. It is necessary to build a system in which artificial intelligence algorithms and human experts cooperate well to make the best decisions, and in addition to the direction of such a collaboration system establishment, the problem of legal responsibility due to errors in decision-making in artificial intelligence algorithms or collaboration systems is necessary. I want to deal with it in this paper.

인공지능에 의한 발명의 발명자성에 대한 소고

이상호 한국지식재산학회 2022 産業財産權 Vol.- No.71

Under Korean patent laws, a patent right is initially vested in an inventor, and the justification of the patent right needs to be reviewed under the consideration of whether the recipient can be qualified as an inventor. This paper reviews three philosophical justifications for patent rights and applies them to artificial-intelligence-generated inventions and concludes that an inventor should be a natural person, and artificial intelligence's inventorship is not justified. First, under Locke's labor theory, every human being has property rights to his own person from birth and can expand his ownership, including patent rights, through his manual or mental labor. Artificial intelligence is a man-made object and does not have any basis for expanding property rights therefrom through labor as it is bereft of any innate rights whatsoever to own itself. Under Hegel's personality theory, a natural person has "the right to direct his will upon any object" and is a bearer of free will, which also can be a basis of the right to a patent. Free will is not merely the act of calculation, it's a reflection of Being itself. Artificial intelligence cannot have such self-purpose and dignity as human beings have and thus cannot be justified as an inventor. Under Bentham's Utilitarian view, it is presumed that an individual responds to incentives, and that this response benefits society. However, artificial intelligence lacks any motivation to devise an invention seeking a monopoly. One might argue that if artificial intelligence's inventorship is denied and no natural persons are qualified as an inventor and no one would be able to reap the benefits arising from the invention generated by artificial intelligence. It might be concerning as this will diminish scientists' motivation to develop the technology and eventually lead to a failure to maximize the utility in society as a whole. However, scientists' efforts should be protected only to the extent appropriate to their contributions. No one should be granted the rights to an invention that he or she has not contributed to. Otherwise, once the artificial intelligence technology reaches AGI (artificial general intelligence) or ASI (artificial superintelligence), only small number of owners would enjoy the limitless fruits of such artificial intelligence. Additionally, once artificial intelligence gains legal status, it can expand its rights boundlessly in society, which would pose a menace to humankind. In these cases, the inventorship of artificial intelligence should be denied under the Utilitarian view as it fails to maximize its utility in society. Accordingly, it is submitted that only natural persons are eligible for an inventor. If artificial intelligence generates an invention with no human contribution, the invention becomes the property of the public. However, if a natural person's contribution is insufficient to satisfy the inventorship requirement, it may be necessary to expand the scope of inventorship to include partial contributions from natural persons. In this regard, the work for hire doctrine under copyright provides a hint on how to enlarge the boundary of inventorship. It is suggested that a natural person employer who defines a problem and plans to find the solution using artificial intelligence, as a creative employee, should be credited as an inventor under the ‘invention for hire’ doctrine even if his contribution to a conception of an invention does not meet the current inventorship requirements. 특허법에 따르면, 특허권은 원시적으로 발명자에게 주어지므로 특허권의 정당성을 논함에 있어 권리를 받는 자가 발명자로 인정되어 권리를 누리는 것이 합당한지 검토해야 할 필요가 있다. 본 고는 특허권에 대한 세 가지 철학적 정당성을 검토하고 인공지능에 의한 발명에 적용하여 오직 자연인만 발명자로 인정받을 수 있으며 인공지능의 발명자성은 정당화되지 못한다고 결론 내렸다. 먼저, 로크의 노동이론에 따르면 모든 인간은 생득적으로 자기 자신에 대한 재산권적 권리를 가지며 특허권을 포함해 자신의 정신적 육체적 노동을 통해 소유권을 확장해 나갈 수 있다. 하지만 인공지능은 사람이 만든 객체에 불과하여 자기 자신으로부터 노동을 통해 확장할 수 있는 어떤 내재적 권리의 기반을 가지고 있지 못하다. 헤겔의 인격 이론에 따르면 자연인은 자신의 의지를 객체에 투영할 수 있는 권리를 가지며 특허권의 근거가 되는 자유의지의 담지자이기도 하다. 자유의지는 단순한 정보의 선택을 의미하지 않으며 존재 자체로부터 나오는 자기 자신의 목적의 투영이다. 인공지능은 인간과 같은 자기 목적성이나 존엄성을 가지고 있지 못하므로 발명자로 정당화될 수 없다. 벤담의 공리주의에 따르면, 인간은 유인에 반응하는 존재로 상정되며 이러한 인간의 반응이 사회의 유용을 증대시키는 역할을 한다. 하지만, 인공지능은 이러한 유인에 반응하여 발명의 독점권을 추구하는 존재가 아니다. 혹자는 만약 인공지능의 발명자성이 부정되고 발명자로 인정될 수 있는 자연인이 존재하지 않는 경우, 누구도 인공지능이 발명한 결과물에 대한 유익을 취할 수 없게 될 것이고, 이는 결국 인공지능을 연구하는 과학자들의 사기를 저하해 사회 전체 유익이 최대화되지 못한다는 위험을 불러올 수 있다고 염려할 수 있다. 하지만 과학자들의 노력은 그에 상응하는 정도의 보호만 받을 필요가 있다. 누구도 자신이 발명하지 않은 것에 대한 권리를 주장할 수는 없다. 인공지능기술이 초인공지능 내지는 강인공지능에 이르게 되면 소수의 사람이 인공지능이 개발한 열매를 누릴 수 있는 위험이 있다. 또한, 인공지능이 자신의 법률적 지위를 가지게 되면 특허권은 자신의 발명에 대한 권리를 사회에서 무한대로 확장할 수 있는 근거가 될 수가 있고, 이는 인류가 위협될 수 있다. 이 두 경우 모두 인공지능을 발명자로 인정하는 것은 부정되어야 하는데 이는 공리주의적 관점에서 사회 전체적 유용성을 최대화하지 못하기 때문이다. 따라서, 자연인만 발명자로 인정받아야 하며, 만약 인간의 개입 없이 인공지능에 의한 발명이 이루어지면 이는 결국 공공재로 취급되어야 한다. 그러나 자연인이 인공지능을 사용하며 발명에 이르는 과정을 기획한 경우의 비록 발명의 착상에 대한 발명자의 기여가 비록 발명자 요건을 만족시키는 정도는 아니라 하더라도 발명자성의 범위를 보다 확대하여 발명자성을 부여하는 것이 합리적이라 하겠다. 이와 관련해서 저작권법의 업무상 저작물 제도는 발명자성의 외연을 넓히는 단초를 제공한다. 본 고는 자연인 사용자가 문제를 정의하고 해결책을 찾기 위해 인공지능을 창의적 근로자로 사용한 경우 해당 자연인의 발명 착상에 대한 기여가 비록 특허법에서 요구하는 발명자성에 미치지 못한다고 하더라도 업무상 발명(invention for hire)제도를 통해 발명자로 인정해줄 것을 제안한다.