American jurisprudence on artificial intelligence has been evolving for a number of years. The intersection between it and the American legal system has generated various disputes and challenges, resulting in courts addressing various cases such as criminal liability, automated decision-making or privacy .
Some of the most common subjects are:
- Responsibility , including criminal liability.
- Discrimination and bias, to the extent that the implementation of Artificial Intelligence in decision-making has had a negative and disproportionate impact on certain groups, creating social gaps.
- Rights and privacy , highlighting the violation of these rights by those who have used Artificial Intelligence.
- Automated decision-making , such as predicting judicial or political outcomes, reviewing legal documents, or others.
For its part, American jurisprudence has delved into this, which is why some of the most relevant cases are mentioned.
Firstly, an American Judge ruled in favour of human creativity , in such a way that he does not consider that there are Copyrights in the case in which the art has been developed by Artificial Intelligence.
Specifically, it was the United States District Judge who confirmed the position of the United States Copyright Office to the extent that they point out that works of art created solely and exclusively by means of Artificial Intelligence cannot be protected by Intellectual Property.
The origin of the controversy is due to the fact that there was a refusal on the part of the Government to register creations produced by Artificial Intelligence, while the Plaintiff maintained that Artificial Intelligence that met the requirements of authorship should be considered as such .
This ruling sets a precedent as it highlights the relevance of human creativity in Intellectual Property .
It was confirmed that Artificial Intelligences could not patent their inventions, reiterating that only human beings can be recognized as inventors or patent holders .
In resolving the case, the Judge maintains that the decision is protected by copyright and, in particular, by the Copyright Act of 1976 , which specifies who can and cannot be considered an author.
Additionally, other United States jurisprudence was brought up, such as:
-
Burow-Giles Lithographic CO. v. Sarony , in which the Supreme Court held that photographs should be considered as creations eligible for protection under intellectual property, even though they arose from a mechanical device that merely reproduced the image. In addition, it indicated that human participation in the final creative control of the work in question was proven.
- Urantia Found v. Kristen Maaherra case , which reiterated the impossibility of recognizing authorship even if it is a divine being, and this is because only those in which a human being participates are eligible for protection.
- Naruto v. Slater case: The Court rejected the possibility of registering a photograph taken by a monkey on the grounds that the monkey did not have the legal standing to be a copyright holder.
- Kelley v. Chicago Park District case : The Judge reiterated that those who have legitimacy as authors of IP are human beings.
-
Eldred v. Ashcroft , the operative section of which indicated that the United States Auto Law Office only applies regulations emanating from the legislative branch, without having the capacity to question the legitimacy of the authors.
For his part, a Disciplinary Judge of the Supreme Court of Colorado temporarily suspended a lawyer for contributing false case law generated by Artificial Intelligence and, in particular, by ChatGPT to a proceeding. Additionally, the lawyer confirmed that the errors had been signed by the intern, without his work having been reviewed by the lawyer.
The resolution stated that the duty to act in a competent and diligent manner had been breached, thus violating professional rules .
In conclusion, American jurisprudence focuses mainly on the field of Intellectual Property, although it has also covered other areas such as the liability of a lawyer for the incorrect use of it.
