Qualification of AI creations as "works" under EU copyright law: four-step test

To answer this question, the European Commission( EC) has proposed a four- step test.

 AI- supported affair 
 Step one 
 The AI- supported affair must be a product in the erudite, scientific or cultural sphere( composition 2( 1) of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Cultural workshop). This includes, for illustration 
 news papers; 
 geographical charts; 
 prints; and 
 The affair of numerous AI systems will fall under this order." The Next Rembrandt" fulfils this condition as the final affair generated consists of a 3D oil. 
 Step two 
The AI- supported affair must be the result of mortal intellectual trouble. In the Painer case, the Court of Justice of the European Union( CJEU) clarified that it's possible to produce workshop of authorship with the aid of a machine or device.( 4) According to the EC, AI- supported labors will always go hand in hand with some form of mortal intervention – for illustration 
 the development of software; 
 the gathering or choice of training data; and 
 thus, this condition will generally be fulfilled for AI- supported affair. 
" The Next Rembrandt" meets this demand. The generators of" The Next Rembrandt" gathered data from the entire collection of the workshop of Rembrandt. In order to gain this data, the generators analysed a broad range of accoutrements , similar as high- resolution 3D reviews and digital lines, which were upscaled by deep literacy algorithms to maximise their resolution and quality. This expansive database was also used to produce" The Next Rembrandt". 

 The generators also designed a software system that used different algorithms to identify Rembrandt's style( ie, composition, figure and oil accoutrements ) and construct a face out of the features. Yet another software was developed to convert the digital train into a 3D published work that could mimic the encounter strokes used by Rembrandt. thus, the result was at least incompletely the result of mortal intellectual trouble.
Step three 
 The AI- supported affair must be original. In the Painer case, the CJEU stated that a creative combination of ideas at distinct 
 stages of the product process might be sufficient for the result to qualify as a" work" defended under EU brand law.( 5) The originality of an AI- supported affair will depend on whether a mortal author has made creative choices during the product process, and whether these creative choices are reflected in the final result. In the assessment of originality, creative choices in three phases of the product process( 6) are taken into account. 
 Generality phase 
 This phase involves creating and evolving a work and requires a series of detailed design choices, similar as kidney, style, accoutrements and fashion. These opinions can also number the choice of the AI system, as well as the selection of input data. With AI- supported labors, these choices will substantially be exercised by a natural person. The AI system will, in general, play no part in this phase. 
 The generators of" The Next Rembrandt" made choices concerning the input and training data that was used to induce the final affair. It could be argued, still, that their choices concerning style, composition and colour, among other effects, weren't" free and creative", because they were mandated by the earlier workshop of Rembrandt. 

 prosecution phase 
 This phase involves converting the design or plan into draft performances of the final work. exemplifications include 
 producing Textbook; 
 recording music; 
 taking photos; and 
 coding software. 
In this phase, the AI system will frequently play a dominant part in the creative process, whereas the stoner will have a rather more functional part by guiding the AI system towards the asked affair. still, this can still number creative choices on the part of the stoner. In the case of supervised deep literacy systems in particular, the stoner's part is vital in constantly covering the affair, giving feedback and conforming the AI system. 
 The AI system played a dominant part in the creation of the draft performances of" The Next Rembrandt". It used the principles it had learned to replicate Rembrandt's style and to induce new facial features for the new digital oil. The same is true for the 3D published oil that mimics the brushstrokes of Rembrandt. still, the generators must have laboriously covered, acclimated and given feedback to the AI system throughout the creative process in order to achieve the final affair. 
Redaction phase 
 This phase involves processing and revamping the draft performances into a finalised artistic product before it's published and retailed – for case 
 mastering; and 
 other"post-production" conditioning. 
For AI- supported labors, the mortal actor will frequently make creative choices in this phase. For illustration, a musician using an AI music musician will frequently edit the affair before finalising their track. On the other hand, the affair generated by the DeepL translator( 7) will generally not bear expansive redaction by the stoner. 
 In the environment of" The Next Rembrandt", it may be argued that the generators made numerous choices throughout the creative process in the redaction phase, similar as the selection of the AI- generated facial features and the position of murk and facial features. The decision to use a 3D print comprising 13 layers for the digital affair of the AI system can also arguably be seen as a free and creative choice. 
The EC concludes that the quantum of free and creative choices made by a mortal actor in the creative process of AI- supported affair shouldn't be undervalued. thus, these choices may contribute to the result of an original work. An AI- supported affair could qualify as a work defended by brand if a mortal actor initiated and conceived the work and latterly redacted the affair in a creative manner. 
 Step four 
 The work needs to be identifiable with sufficient perfection and neutrality. Given the" black box" specific of machine literacy systems, the mortal actor may not be suitable to prognosticate the outgrowth of the prosecution phase. still, as long as the affair stays within the dimension of the author's general authorial intent, this condition shouldn't form an handicap. 

" The Next Rembrandt" will most probably meet this demand. Indeed, the generators had a clear original intent to make a 3D oil in the style of Rembrandt. thus, the generated affair will fall within the creator's general authorial intent. 
 It's important to note that brand protection will do automatically at the generality of the work and there's no enrollment demand for brand in the European Union. The validity of brand is only assessed after the fact before public courts. It remains to be seen whether public courts will indeed decide that the choices made by the creator in the product of an AI- supported affair are in fact free and creative choices. More specifically, it remains to be seen whether public courts will agree that choices made only in the generality phase and in the redaction phase – as suggested in the EC's four- step test – will serve to fulfil the condition of originality. 

 From a practical perspective, authors are advised to strictly document all creative choices made in every phase of the creative process of developing an AI- supported affair. This will enable them to demonstrate the original character of the work and claim brand protection. 
 AI- generated affair 

 AI- generated affair is created without any mortal intervention. thus, it doesn't meet the conditions to qualify as a" work" laid down in the four- step test. For AI- generated affair to enjoy brand protection in the European Union, the current legal frame doesn't feel suitable. In order to attack this issue, the council will have to assess whether it's desirable in the current social and profitable environment to grant brand protection to machine creations.