This workshop was supported by ARC Linkage Grant No. 120100249, Testing Trade Mark Law’s Image of the Consumer (CIs Weatherall, Humphreys, Burt, Kelly, Richardson, PI Burrell). The investigators acknowledge the support of the Australian Research Council and our partners, IP Australia, the Federal Court, Treasury Wine Estates and Carlton & United Breweries.
This workshop addressed the challenges that artificial intelligent systems (AIS) might pose to traditional concepts of copyright authorship.
In many jurisdictions – including Europe and Australia - authorship seems to be somewhat connected to the conditions for protection, which might imply that, absent a human author, a work will not be original and therefore not copyrightable. This may leave many works that would otherwise be copyrightable without protection, thereby causing legal uncertainty; but it also raises questions about whether protection should at all be available, and about whether copyright is fit for purpose in face of technological progress in the area of AIS.
The workshop explored whether the current legal framework can accommodate AIS as creators for purposes of copyright protection, and then considered the more normative question of whether AIS’ creations should be copyright protected, or rather belong in the public domain. It concluded with a suggested model for the legal regime of works created by AIS.
These seminars provided an overview of recent IP developments in Europe, namely the state-of-play of the unitary patent (especially considering the imminent Brexit); the Trade Secrets Directive; the new Trademark Regulation; and the proposed Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market.
The right of communication to the public as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union in relation to hyperlinking (especially in cases Svensson and GS Media).
The Australian Information and Privacy Commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim, lead a legal, social policy and rights panel at the University of Melbourne. Commissioner Pilgrim will be joined by human rights scholar and advocate, Dr. Monika Zalnieriute, and technology advisor, James Horton. The free event was hosted by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) and the University of Melbourne.
University of Melbourne’s privacy law expert, Professor Megan Richardson, MC'd the interactive panel and took questions from the floor and from the live Twitter feed #ppnMelbourne. Privacy professionals, academics and students with an interest in privacy rights were encouraged to attend and join in the discussion.
In this seminar, Yeung offered a descriptive analysis of algorithmic regulation, classifying these decision-making systems as either reactive or pre-emptive, and offered a taxonomy that identified 8 different forms of algorithmic regulation based on their configuration at each of the three stages of the cybernetic process: notably, at the level of standard setting (variable vs fixed behavioural standards); information-gathering and monitoring (historic data vs predictions based on inferred data) and at the level of sanction and behavioural change (automatic execution vs recommender systems).
Yeung mapped the contours of several emerging debates surrounding algorithmic regulation, drawing upon insights from regulatory governance studies, legal critiques and selective insights from surveillance studies to highlight various concerns about the legitimacy of algorithmic regulation.
As Australian courts begin to apply s 115A of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), it is timely to consider the experience of the English and European courts in relation to website blocking injunctions.
practice and procedure in blocking applications.
As Australian policymakers enter the third decade of grappling with the challenge of adapting copyright law to the modern era, they enter a polarized, unproductive debate that pits tech innovation interests against the interests of creators invested in their copyrights. In reality, creators have at least as much interest in user rights (exception and limitations) as they do in copyright monopoly rights. Aufderheide discussed her research, primarily from the U.S. but with some data from ongoing research in Australia, with creative organizations and creators on their use of copyright exceptions and limitations. The U.S. research demonstrates the difference in creative potential and productivity when creators are able to access functional exceptions.
Private Power Online: how does EU law fare?
The emergence of very large transnational private companies which provide critical Internet infrastructure and services has brought with it corresponding concerns about the power of these companies to control, surveil and otherwise influence our communications. Many of these companies also gather vast amounts of data by and about their users – a bank of data which has proved attractive to the public power of nation-states’ security and law enforcement agencies, which have accessed it in less than transparent and legitimate ways, as Edward Snowden’s revelations from 2013 attest.
Against this backdrop, and adopting a socio-legal methodology, this presentation considered some key topics, such as net neutrality, the Commission investigations into Google and the emergence of cloud computing, and considered how well existing EU legal and regulatory frameworks are able to protect individual Internet users’ interests vis-à-vis private power online.
This presentation was based on her book, Private Power, Online Information Flows and EU Law, which has just been published by Hart.
This panel discussion with the Victorian Privacy and Data Protection Commissioner David Watts took place at the University of Melbourne. Commissioner Watts was joined by big data, information security and artificial intelligence experts Abigail Payne, Vanessa Teague, and Pompeau Cassanovas. The free event was be hosted by the Victorian Office of Commissioner for Privacy and Data Protection and the University of Melbourne.
The Honourable Randall Rader, formerly Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, spoke on The Future of Patent Law in Melbourne.
In a world where IP doctrines and policies are changing rapidly in the two leading economic markets -- China and the US -- intellectual property retains a prominent component of market success. Thus learning the future of patent law changes may have important implications for businesses and law firms alike.
The Honourable Randall Rader was appointed to the United States Court of Federal Claims in 1988. In 1990, he was nominated to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In 2010, he became Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit. In 2014, he retired.