PHILIPPINES Trends and Developments Contributed by: Katrina Doble, Danielle Francesca San Pedro and Edward King Chua, Villaraza & Angangco
In the meantime, the IPOPHL has begun to address a key issue surrounding generative AI-created works: their eligibility for protec - tion. Under the existing copyright regime, only natural persons can be recognised as authors, thereby excluding fully AI-generated works from copyright protection. During the Big Bad Wolf bookfair in Manila in June 2023, the IPOPHL’s Bureau of Copyright and Related Rights (BCRR) conducted copyright seminars addressing intel - lectual property questions and concerns. During one seminar on AI, the BCRR addressed ques - tions raised on the copyrightability of a work if it is partly generated by AI and a human. Accord - ing to the IPOPHL, for works that are partially created with AI assistance, copyright protection is limited only to portions that reflect human originality. Thus, fully AI-generated works will be rejected outright, while those with partial AI involvement are subject to further scrutiny. Director General Barba and BCRR Director Emerson G Cuyo, however, clarified that the IPOPHL relies heavily on the declarations made by applicants regarding the extent of AI involve - ment in their work, which could prove to be prob - lematic. Although applicants are required to dis - close whether a work was made by a machine or a person, and to indicate the percentage of the work generated by AI, the BCRR currently has no means to verify the accuracy and veracity of such declarations. Director General Barba acknowledged the ongo - ing confusion surrounding partially AI-generated works, stating that the IPOPHL’s current practice aims to address this uncertainty by applying the provisions of the IP Code while awaiting a more comprehensive set of guidelines. These prac - tices, which include requiring transparency and disclosure, reflect the intent for copyright laws to uphold human creativity without dismissing
technological contributions. The IPOPHL’s forth - coming AI-specific guidelines are expected to clarify these grey areas and integrate a more cohesive approach to regulating AI-generated creative outputs. Takeaways While the IPOPHL’s fair use guidelines equip both creators and users with tools to evaluate the use of copyrighted works under statutory fair use principles, they do not squarely address the issues brought about by AI-created works. The element-by-element breakdown of the statutory fair use provisions does not address the mixed authorship of a work by users and developers of AI tools, nor the rights of creators under the IP Code whose works were used as datasets for machine learning, among other complex issues created by generative AI. At most, the guidelines provide comparative examples upon which general fair use principles may be interpreted and expanded to recognise and protect creative human input in works cre - ated through generative AI. Thus, the protec - tion of copyrighted works used by generative AI as “learning” inputs remains a grey area that must be properly addressed through AI-specific guidelines and issuances, and further tested through relevant case law in the Philippines. For creators and copyright holders, the increas - ing use of copyrighted works to train AI systems underscores the need for vigilance in protecting their intellectual property rights. However, in the absence of clear-cut guidelines, creators must actively monitor AI-driven outputs to ensure that their rights are not compromised. This task, however, remains difficult due to the lack of tools for scouring AI-generated works within the world wide web. Consequently, creators and copyright holders will have to manually undertake online
471 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook