Asia's Leading Law & Technology Review

Tag: Generative AI Page 1 of 2

Deng Haiying: The challenges and impact of generative AI on copyright law

Reading time: 16 minutes

Written by Deng Haiying | Edited by Josh Lee Kok Thong

LawTech.Asia is proud to collaborate with the Singapore Management University Yong Pung How School of Law’s LAW4060 AI Law, Policy and Ethics class. This collaborative special series is a collection featuring selected essays from students of the class. For the class’ final assessment, students were asked to choose from a range of practice-focused topics, such as writing a law reform paper on an AI-related topic, analysing jurisdictional approaches to AI regulation, or discussing whether such a thing as “AI law” exists. The collaboration is aimed at encouraging law students to analyse issues using the analytical frames taught in class, and apply them in practical scenarios combining law and policy.

This piece, written by Deng Haiying, seeks to tackle challenges that generative AI brings to copyright law. In doing so, Haiying’s paper explores the current state of the law in Singapore on generative AI and copyright, factors to be taken into account when exploring regulatory reforms in this area, and possible regulatory solutions to tackle the copyright challenges posed by generative AI.

Joel Ko: Copyright ownership for AI-generated material

Reading time: 30 minutes

Written by Joel Ko Chin Kye | Edited by Josh Lee Kok Thong

LawTech.Asia is proud to collaborate with the Singapore Management University Yong Pung How School of Law’s LAW4060 AI Law, Policy and Ethics class. This collaborative special series is a collection featuring selected essays from students of the class. For the class’ final assessment, students were asked to choose from a range of practice-focused topics, such as writing a law reform paper on an AI-related topic, analysing jurisdictional approaches to AI regulation, or discussing whether such a thing as “AI law” exists. The collaboration is aimed at encouraging law students to analyse issues using the analytical frames taught in class, and apply them in practical scenarios combining law and policy.

This piece, written by Joel Ko, argues that it is important for laws to be developed to accommodate the interplay of generative AI and copyright law. In doing so, Joel studies whether copyright can subsist in works purely generated by generative AI be treated; and whether we should allow works derived from AI-generated content to be copyrightable, particular in situations where there is sufficient human editorial control.

Kaelynn Kok: Reassessing the balance between creator’s rights and innovation in the age of generative AI

Reading time: 29 minutes

Written by Kaelynn Kok Chu Shuen | Edited by Josh Lee Kok Thong

LawTech.Asia is proud to collaborate with the Singapore Management University Yong Pung How School of Law’s LAW4060 AI Law, Policy and Ethics class. This collaborative special series is a collection featuring selected essays from students of the class. For the class’ final assessment, students were asked to choose from a range of practice-focused topics, such as writing a law reform paper on an AI-related topic, analysing jurisdictional approaches to AI regulation, or discussing whether such a thing as “AI law” exists. The collaboration is aimed at encouraging law students to analyse issues using the analytical frames taught in class, and apply them in practical scenarios combining law and policy.

This piece, written by Kaelynn Kok, considers several legal issues around the use of copyrighted material in generative AI training. These include: (a) the appropriate balance Singapore should strike between protecting the rights of creators and supporting AI innovation; (b) whether Singapore’s existing copyright defences are applicable to protect AI developers from copyright infringement claims; and (c) the best approach for Singapore to take.

Delvine Tan: Exploring and analysing Japan’s approach to AI regulation

Reading time: 17 minutes

Written by Delvine Tan Hui Tien | Edited by Josh Lee Kok Thong

LawTech.Asia is proud to collaborate with the Singapore Management University Yong Pung How School of Law’s LAW4060 AI Law, Policy and Ethics class. This collaborative special series is a collection featuring selected essays from students of the class. For the class’ final assessment, students were asked to choose from a range of practice-focused topics, such as writing a law reform paper on an AI-related topic, analysing jurisdictional approaches to AI regulation, or discussing whether such a thing as “AI law” existed. The collaboration is aimed at encouraging law students to analyse issues using the analytical frames taught in class, and apply them in practical scenarios combining law and policy.

This piece, written by Delvine Tan Hui Tien, explores and analyses Japan’s approach to AI regulation. It examines the principles, reasons and examples behind Japan’s approach to traditional AI and generative AI.

Andrea Christine Suki: Law Reform Paper on Criminal Liability and Generative Artificial Intelligence

Reading time: 19 minutes

Written by Andrea Christine Suki | Edited by Josh Lee Kok Thong

LawTech.Asia is proud to collaborate with the Singapore Management University Yong Pung How School of Law’s LAW4060 AI Law, Policy and Ethics class. This collaborative special series is a collection featuring selected essays from students of the class. For the class’ final assessment, students were asked to choose from a range of practice-focused topics, such as writing a law reform paper on an AI-related topic, analysing jurisdictional approaches to AI regulation, or discussing whether such a thing as “AI law” existed. The collaboration is aimed at encouraging law students to analyse issues using the analytical frames taught in class, and apply them in practical scenarios combining law and policy.

This piece, written by Andrea Christine Suki, examines whether criminal law should evolve or adapt to mitigate a range of harms posed by generative AI, and seeks to provide recommendations where the existing criminal framework is found to be possibly inadequate.

Page 1 of 2

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén