Competition of intelligences? Really?

Boost your name on the Internet
February 3, 2023
Membership of the “Entreprise des Possibles” solidarity group
February 17, 2023

Human Intelligence or Artificial Intelligence: brain interference, a very human puzzle

Intellectual property has not finished being shaken up and questioned in its very substance. It is no longer a question of knowing if certain methods of counterfeit seizure are adapted, but rather of questioning notions that seemed simplistic, such as the authorship.

Who is the author? Except for the derogatory case of collective work, the answer was easy until now: the PHYSICAL person who realized the musical composition, the novel, the painting etc.

Obvious yes. But not anymore.

What does the term author cover, this beautiful notion full of sensitivity, of specific point of view, of this part that we thought was impregnable, the last bulwark against the invasion of technology when we use ChatGpt, Bard or Dall-E to generate a poem, to produce a painting and let’s not doubt it, a lot of little cousins that will come to multiply these already bluffing conversational and creative systems.

In the United States, these questions are already agitating lawyers and generating actions upstream of creation. A group of artists and Getty Images have just filed a complaint against Midjourney, DreamUp (DeviantArt) and Stability AI, designers of image and art generators based on Artificial Intelligence (AI).

Indeed, these platforms would have used, without the authorization of the artists, billions of works in order to train their robot and produce AI.

As for the Metaverse, we have for the moment more questions than answers.

Going back to the justification of acquired rights, their necessary transformation and adaptation constitutes a fundamental urgent issue since it will lead to the elaboration of new regulations and build a new professional and social order.

The financial consequences are enormous and will impact content publishers, press organs, galleries, cultural enterprises, etc.

At this stage, we can only recommend to use these systems as super tools producing “works” to be reworked, completed, enriched by the human brain, which will allow to give it a monopoly under the copyright.

In summary, let’s keep the good practices of the past to better embrace the future: work, creativity and evidence building without depriving ourselves of exploiting these fabulous tools.


Nathalie FAYETTE, Intellectual Property Attorney and Founder of Mark & Law