References
- Agreement on Trade-Related Agreements of Intellectual Property Rights, Article 13, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 33 I.L.M. 1197 (1994), 15.4.1994. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020782900027054
- Alexander, I. (2010), Copyright Law and the Public Interest in the Nineteenth Century, Oxford & Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.
- Aliyev, H. (2017), When Informal Institutions Change: Institutional Reforms and Informal Practices in the Former Soviet Union, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.8772004
- Amashukeli, M.; Lezhava, D. & Chitashvili, M. (2020), ‘“Conditioned” Quality Assurance of Higher Education in Georgia: Talking the EU Talk,’ TalTech Journal of European Studies, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 75–95. https://doi.org/10.1515/bjes-2020-0016
- Aristotle (2009), Nicomachean Ethics, transl. by W. D. Ross, Internet Classics Archive. Retrieved from http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html [accessed 30 Jun 2024]
- Authors Guild v. OpenAI Inc., 1:23-cv-08292, S.D.N.Y.
- Banfield, E. C. (1955), ‘Note on Conceptual Scheme,’ in M. Meyerson & E. C. Banfield (eds.) Politics, Planning and the Public Interest: The Case of Public Housing in Chicago, New York: The Free Press, pp. 303–329.
- Barry, B. M. (1962), ‘The Use and Abuse of the Public Interest,’ in C. J. Friedrich (ed.) Nomos V: The Public Interest, California: Atherton Press.
- Berman, A. (2022), ‘Haslanger, Marx, and the Social Ontology of Unitary Theory: Debating Capitalism’s Relationship to Race and Gender,’ Journal of Social Ontology, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 118–150. https://doi.org/10.25365/jso-2022-7441
- Bodimeade, C. & Deane, F. (2023), ‘Evolving Theory of IP Rights: Promoting Human Rights in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights,’ Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 603–614. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpad056
- Bonadio, E. & McDonagh, L. (2020), ‘Artificial Intelligence as Producer and Consumer of Copyright Works: Evaluating the Consequences of Algorithmic Creativity,’ Intellectual Property Quarterly, vol. 2, pp. 112–137.
- Bowen, J. R. (1986), ‘On the Political Construction of Tradition: Gotong Royong in Indonesia,’ The Journal of Asian Studies, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 545–561. https://doi.org/10.2307/2056530
- Browning, G. (2016), ‘Hegel and Marx: Political Culture, Economy, and Ideology,’ in G. Browning (ed.) A History of Modern Political Thought: The Question of Interpretation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 25–45. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199682287.001.0001
- Chabon v. Meta Platforms Inc., 3:23-cv-04663, N.D. Cal.
- Chabon v. OpenAI, Inc., 3:23-cv-04625, N.D. Cal.
- Charter of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Preamble, 20.11.2007.
- Christensen, K. (2021), ‘A European Solution for Text and Data Mining in the Development of Creative Artificial Intelligence: With a Specific Focus on Arts. 3 and 4 of the Digital Single Market Directive,’ Stockholm Intellectual Property Law Review, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 18–33.
- Cofemel – Sociedade de Vestuário SA v. G-Star Raw [2019], CJEU CV, C-683/17, EU:C:2019:721, 12.9.2019.
- Copet, J.; Kreuk, F.; Gat, I.; Remez, T.; Kant, D.; Synnaeve, G.; Adi, Y. & Défossez, A. (2023), ‘Simple and Controllable Music Generation,’ Arxiv. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.05284 [accessed 30 Jun 2024]
- Dahl, R. A. & Lindblom, C. E. (1963), Politics, Economics, and Welfare: Planning and Politico-Economic Systems Resolved into Basic Social Processes, New York: Harper & Row.
- Davies, G. (2002), Copyright and the Public Interest, 2nd ed., Sweet & Maxwell.
- Dermawan, A. (2024a), ‘AI v Copyright: How Could Public Interest Theory Shift the Discourse?’ Journal of Intellectual Property & Practice, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpad111
- Dermawan, A. (2024b), ‘Text and Data Mining Exceptions in the Development of Generative AI Models: What the EU Member States Could Learn from the Japanese “Non-enjoyment” Purposes?’ The Journal of World Intellectual Property, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 44–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12285
- Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, OJ L 167, 22.6.2001.
- Directive 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council (CDSM Directive) of 17 April 2019 on Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC, OJ L 130, 17.5.2019.
- Drexl, J.; Hilty, R.; Desaunettes-Barbero, L.; Globocnik, J.; Gonzalez Otero, B.; Hoffmann, J.; Kim, D.; Kulhari, S.; Richter, H.; Scheuerer, S.; Slowinski, P. R. & Wiedemann, K. (2021), ‘Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Law—Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 9 April 2021 on the Current Debate,’ Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Research Paper No. 21-10, pp. 1–26. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3822924
- Ducato, R. & Strowel, A. (2021), ‘Ensuring Text and Data Mining: Remaining Issues with the EU Copyright Exceptions and Possible Ways Out,’ European Intellectual Property Review, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 322–327.
- Dussolier, S. (2018), ‘Realigning Economic Rights with Exploitation of Works: The Control of Authors over the Circulation of Works in the Public Sphere,’ in B. Hugenholtz (ed.) Copyright Reconstructed: Rethinking Copyright’s Economic Rights in a Time of Highly Dynamic Technological and Economic Change, Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, pp. 163–201.
- European Union (EU) AI Act Proposal, COM(2021) 0206. Retrieved from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2021/0206/COM_COM(2021)0206_EN.pdf [accessed 30 Jun 2024]
- Feintuck, M. (2004), The Public Interest in Regulation, Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199269020.001.0001
- Flynn, S.; Geiger, C.; Quintais, J. P.; Margoni, T.; Sag, M.; Guibault, L. & Carroll, M. W. (2020), ‘Implementing User Rights for Research in the Field of Artificial Intelligence: A Call for International Action,’ European Intellectual Property Review, vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 393–398. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3578819
- Fox, C. J. & Miller, H. T. (1995), Postmodern Public Administration: Toward Discourse, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
- Funke Medien NRW GmbH v. Federal Republic of Germany [2019], C-469/17, 29 July 2019, ECLI:EU:C:2019:62.
- Geiger, C. & Schönherr, F. (2012), ‘Defining the Scope of Protection of Copyright in the EU: The Need to Reconsider the Acquis Regarding Limitations and Exceptions,’ in T. E. Synodinou (ed.) Codification of European Copyright Law: Challenges and Perspectives, Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.
- Gerrish, C. & Skavlan, A. M. (2019), ‘European Copyright Law and Text and Data Mining Exceptions and Limitations: In Light of the Recent DSM Directive, is the EU Approach a Hindrance or Facilitator to Innovation in the Region?’ Stockholm Intellectual Property Law Review, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 58–67.
- Gervais, D. (2010), ‘Fair Use, Fair Dealing, Fair Principles: Efforts to Conceptualize Exceptions and Limitations to Copyright,’ Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 499–520.
- Getty Images (US), Inc. v. Stability AI, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00135-GBW, D. Del. Mar. 29, 2023.
- Giblin, R. & Weatherall, K. (2017), ‘If We Redesigned Copyright from Scratch, What Might it Look Like?’ in R. Giblin & K. Weatherall (eds.) What if We Could Reimagine Copyright? Acton: Australian National University Press, pp. 1–23. Retrieved from https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n2190/pdf/book.pdf [accessed 30 Jun 2024] https://doi.org/10.22459/WIWCRC.01.2017.01
- Google Cloud (n.d.), ‘Getting Started with the Built-in BERT Algorithm.’ Retrieved from https://cloud.google.com/ai-platform/training/docs/algorithms/bert-start [accessed 30 Jun 2024]
- Güven, K. (2022), Eliminating Aesthetics from Copyright Law: The Aftermath of Cofemel, GRUR International, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikab113
- Harms, L. T. C. (2012), The Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights: A Case Book, 3rd ed., Geneva: World Intellectual Property Organization.
- Held, V. (1970), The Public Interest and Individual Interests, New York: Basic Books.
- Iaia, V. (2022), ‘To Be, or Not to Be … Original Under Copyright Law, That Is (One of) the Main Questions Concerning AI-Produced Works,’ GRUR International, vol. 71, no. 9, pp. 793–812. https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikac087
- Judgment of the German Federal Court of Justice, BGH Urteil vom 18 Mai 1955, I ZR 8/54, GRUR 1955, p. 496.
- Judgement of the German Federal Court of Justice, BGH Urteil vom 27 November 1956, I ZR 57/55, [1975] GRUR 291, 293 (Europapost).
- Judgement of the German Federal Court of Justice, BGH Urteil vom 4 November 1966 -Ib ZR 77/65, [1967] GRUR 315, 316 (skaicubana).
- Judgement of the German Federal Court of Justice, BGH Urteil vom 4 October 1990, I ZR 139/89 ‘Operating System,’ GRUR 1991, pp. 449, 453.
- Judgement of the German Federal Supreme Court of Justice, BGH Urteil vom 12 Mai 2011, I ZR 53/10, paras. [18–22], [25], [30] (Seilzirkus).
- Judgement of the German Federal Court of Justice, BGH Urteil vom 18 September 2014, I ZR 76/13 (OLG Nürnberg).
- Lauber-Rönsberg, A. (2019), ‘Autonome “Schöpfung”—Urheberschaft und Schutzfähigkeit,’ GRUR, p. 244.
- Leistner, M. (2006), ‘Von “Grundig-Reporter(n) zu Paperboy(s)”— Entwicklungsperspektiven der Verantwortlichkeit im Urheberrecht,’ GRUR, pp. 801–814.
- Leys, W. A. R. & Perry, C. M. (1959), ‘Philosophy and the Public Interest: A Document,’ Paper presented at the Symposium of the Western Division of the American Philosophical Association, University of Wisconsin, 1 May 1959.
- Li, Z.; Yang, Z. & Wang, M. (2023), ‘Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback: Learning Dynamic Choices via Pessimism,’ Arxiv. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.18438.pdf [accessed 29 Aug 2024]
- Margoni, T. & Kretschmer, M. (2022), ‘A Deeper Look into the EU Text and Data Mining Exceptions: Harmonisation, Data Ownership, and the Future of Technology,’ GRUR International, vol. 71, no. 8, pp. 685–701. https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikac054
- Mezei, P. (2023), ‘“You AIn’t Seen Nothing Yet” – Arguments against the Protectability of AI-generated Outputs by Copyright Law,’ in M. Borghi & R. Brownsword (eds.) Informational Rights and Informational Wrongs: A Tapestry for Our Times, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 126–143. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003242987-8
- Mezger, L. (2017), ‘Die Schutzschwelle für Werke der angewandten Kunst nach deutschen und europäischem Recht,’ vol. 42, Göttingen: V&R Unipress. https://doi.org/10.14220/9783737006965
- Mostov, J. (1989), ‘Karl Marx as Democratic Theorist,’ Polity, vol. 22, pp. 195–212. https://doi.org/10.2307/3234831
- Nadel, M. S. (2004), ‘How Current Copyright Law Discourages Creative Output: The Overlooked Impact of Marketing,’ Berkeley Technology Law Journal, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 785–856.
- Noto La Diega, G.; Cifrodelli, G. & Dermawan, A. (2024), ‘Sustainable Patent Governance of Artificial Intelligence: Recalibrating the European Patent System to Foster Innovation (SDG 9),’ in B. Amani, C. Ncube & M. Rimmer (eds.) Elgar Companion on Intellectual Property and Sustainable Development Goals, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781803925233.00020
- Okediji, R. G. (1999), ‘Copyright and Public Welfare in Global Perspective,’ Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 117–89.
- Okediji, R. L. (2017), Copyright Law in an Age of Exceptions and Limitations, New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316450901
- OpenAI (n.d.), ‘Introducing ChatGPT.’ Retrieved from https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt [accessed 30 Jun 2024]
- Pelham GmbH, Moses Pelham, Martin Haas v. Ralf Hütter, Florian Schneider-Esleben [2019], C-476/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:624, 29.7.2019.
- Peter, K. Y. (2009), ‘The Objectives and Principles of the TRIPS Agreement,’ Houston Law Review, vol. 46, pp. 979, 1007.
- Peter, K. Y. (2024), ‘The Future Path of Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Law in the Asian Pacific,’ Computer and Law, vol. 96.
- Peukert, A. (2024), ‘Copyright in the Artificial Intelligence Act – A Primer,’ GRUR International, vol. 73, no. 6, pp. 497–509. https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikae057
- Plato (2003), Republic, New York: Penguin Books.
- RG (1911), 10 June 1911, Rep. I. 133/10, RGZ 76, 339, 344 – Schulfraktur.
- Rosati, E. (2024), ‘No Step-Free Copyright Exceptions: The Role of the Three-Step in Defining Permitted Uses of Protected Content (Including TDM for AI-Training Purposes),’ European Intellectual Property Review, vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 262–274. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4629528
- Schmidt, A. (2019), Wann ist Design Kunst im Sinne des Urheberrechts? Frankfurt: Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/b15555
- Schricker, G. & Loewenheim, U., eds (2020), Urheberrecht, 6th eds., Munich: C.H. Beck.
- Schubert, G. (1982), The Public Interest: A Critique of the Theory of a Political Concept, Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers Inc.
- Shanahan, M. (2023), ‘Talking About Large Language Models,’ Arxiv.org, p. 2. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.03551.pdf [accessed 30 Jun 2024]
- Silverman et al. v. OpenAI, Inc. et al., No. 4:23-cv-03416, N.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2023.
- Simm, K. (2011), ‘The Concepts of Common Good and Public Interest: From Plato to Biobanking,’ Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 554–562. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180111000296
- Sorauf, F. (1962), ‘The Conceptual Muddle,’ in C. J. Friedrich (ed.), Nomos V: The Public Interest, California, Atherton Press.
- Spiegel Online v. Volker Beck, Case C-516/17, 29 July 2019, ECLI:EU:C:2019:625.
- Statute of Anne (1710), 8 Anne, c. 19. Retrieved from https://case.edu/affil/sce/authorship/statueofanne.pdf [accessed 30 Jun 2024]
- Strowel, A. (1993), Droit d’auteur et copyright, Divergences et Convergences, Brussels: Bruylant.
- Tremblay et al. v. OpenAI, Inc. et al., No. 4:2023-cv-03223, N.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2023.
- Ueono, T. (2021), ‘The Flexible Copyright Exception for ‘Non-Enjoyment’ Purposes— Recent Amendment in Japan and Its Implication,’ GRUR International, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 145–152. https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikaa184
- United States Copyright Office (2023), ‘Artificial Intelligence and Copyright.’ Retrieved from https://www.copyright.gov/ai/docs/Federal-Register-Document-Artificial-Intelligence-and-Copyright-NOI.pdf [accessed 30 Jun 2024]
- World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty, 36 I.L.M. 65 (1997), 20.12.1996. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020782900018830
- Yu, P. K. (2009), ‘The Objectives and Principles of the TRIPS Agreement,’ Houston Law Review, vol. 46, pp. 979, 1007.
- Yu, P. K. (2024), ‘The Future Path of Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Law in the Asian Pacific,’ Computer and Law, vol. 96.