REPORT ON PANEL DISCUSSION OF INTELLECTUAL

PROPERTY AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Submitted to

Dr Prateek Deol

For
Jurisprudence of Tech Law Assignment

Submitted by:

Aniket Arora, R.NO.- 45823210006

1. INAUGURATION

On November 23rd, 2023, a panel discussion on Intellectual Property and Information

Technology took place. The panel included Dr. Raman Mittal, an IT professional and professor
at DU, as the chief guest, and Mr. Shobhit Aggarwal, an associate partner at Anand and Anand,
an IP firm, and Mr. Khushhal Kaushik, CEO of Lisianthus Tech, as guests of honor.

The seminar began with a lamp lighting ceremony, followed by Dr. Vijay Singh, Dean of the Law
Faculty, presenting mementos to the chief guest and guests of honor. Dr. Singh then introduced
the chief guest and guests of honor and initiated the discussion. He also discussed the two
newly inaugurated centers, the Centre for Intellectual Property and the Centre for Information
Technology.

Centre for Intellectual Property

Dr. Prateek highlighted several key features of the center that will empower the University to:
1. Guarantee patent protection for stakeholders involved in the center's activities.
2. Collaborate with the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) on intellectual
property matters and establish a university-wide journal.
3. Foster public awareness and understanding.
4. Facilitate interdepartmental and intra-University collaboration.

2. ADDRESS BY DR RAMAN MITTAL

Dr. Raman Mittal discussed the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and copyright
law in India, focusing on copyright issues arising from the interplay between human
creativity and AI-generated content. He introduced the concept of generative AI, a
platform for producing various forms of creative content, such as literature, music, art,
and films. Generative AI utilizes text prompts as input and produces corresponding
output illustrations. He demonstrated this concept by showcasing an AI-generated
image of a cat driving a car in New York, along with a similar image reimagined in Van
Gogh's artistic style.

The central question Dr. Mittal posed was whether AI-generated content can be
copyrighted, considering that copyright protection is typically granted to human-created
works. He delved into the complexities of attributing copyright ownership to AI-
generated content, given the involvement of both human input and AI algorithms.

The image of the cat driving a car in New York.

The debate surrounding the copyright ownership of AI-generated content was explored
through the analysis of two scenarios. In the first case, a text prompt provided by Dr.
Raman served as the input for an AI system, which subsequently produced creative
output. The question arose as to whether Dr. Raman, the software vendor, the software
inventor, or the machine itself held the copyright for the resulting work.

The discussion concluded that the AI's role extended beyond mere mechanical
execution and into the realm of creativity. This observation was further reinforced by the
second scenario, where an AI system produced a poem reminiscent of Rabindranath
Tagore's style.

The question of copyright infringement was also raised in the context of AI-generated
content. The AI team asserted that their work was original and not a derivative of any
existing sources. They further claimed that the work would not be flagged by plagiarism
detection tools.

The discussion concluded that the AI-generated content constituted a copy, regardless
of whether it originated from a single or multiple source.

Is machine learning only memory based?

Machine learning mirrors human learning by leveraging data and algorithms to

continuously enhance its performance. Just as humans learn from experience, machine
learning algorithms refine their accuracy by processing vast amounts of data. This
iterative process, akin to human learning, leads to improved outcomes and increased
creativity.

The Copyright Act1, defines:

S2(d)(iv) defines author to include, “in relation to any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic
work that is computer-generated, the person who causes the work

S16 of the Act of states that no other Copyright will be provided other than provided in this Act.

Juris of Creativity and AI

The Labor Theory of Value states that every person is entitled to the full value of their
labor.

1
The Copyright Act, 1957 (Act 14 of 1957)
 In a related case, a monkey took a selfie at a zoo. This raised the question of whether
an animal can be considered an author. The case, "Naruto v. Slater," established that
animals cannot file copyright infringement lawsuits. The court debated who should be
considered the author of the selfie: the monkey, the photographer, or the camera
technology.

The court ruled that the monkey cannot be considered the author because copyright law
does not recognize animals as authors.

3. ADDRESS BY KHUSHHAL KAUSHIK

The was then addressed by Mr Khushhal Kaushik, who spoke about various issues:

 Our society's dependence on technology has grown exponentially.

 Public awareness of cyber threats remains alarmingly low.
 The vast majority of cybercrime, approximately 80%, targets financial transactions.
 Inadequate data protection measures leave users vulnerable to cyberattacks.
 Malware embedded in Chinese devices poses a significant espionage threat.

4. ADDRESS BY MR. SHOBHIT AGGARWAL

Mr. Shobhit Aggarwal gave a presentation on emerging trends in the field of intellectual
property and information technology, with a focus on cyber crimes. He discussed the
importance of website interfaces and how they can be used to deceive users. He
showed examples of fake websites, such as a fake PlayStation website that stole users'
financial data. He also discussed how cyber criminals can use social media to
impersonate legitimate businesses and deceive users. Finally, he discussed how cyber
criminals can use fake domain names, bank account names, and UPI IDs to commit
fraud.

Authorship in Case of Fraud

Cyber criminals can use a variety of methods to commit fraud, including:

 Fake domain names: Cyber criminals can create fake websites that have domain
names that are similar to the domain names of legitimate businesses. This can deceive
users into thinking that they are visiting a legitimate website.
 Social media impersonation: Cyber criminals can create fake social media accounts that
impersonate legitimate businesses. This can deceive users into thinking that they are
interacting with a legitimate business.
 Bank account name: Cyber criminals can change the name of a bank account to make it
look like the account belongs to a legitimate business. This can deceive users into
sending money to the cyber criminals.
 UPI ID: Cyber criminals can change the UPI ID of an account to make it look like the
account belongs to a legitimate business. This can deceive users into sending money to
the cyber criminals.

Use of IP in Metaverse and NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens)

The anonymity provided by Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs), Deepfake videos, and

Generative AI has led to an increase in crimes that are difficult to prosecute. These
crimes are often committed from remote locations, leaving no physical evidence behind.
The ease and affordability of technology has also made it easier to create and distribute
counterfeit or harmful content. In conclusion, the rise of these new technologies has
created an environment in which crimes are becoming increasingly difficult to identify
and prosecute.

Factors Contributing to the Rise of Unidentifiable Crimes

 Anonymity: The person behind the creation of NFTs, Deepfakes, and Generative AI is
often unidentifiable, making it difficult to prosecute them.

 Location: These crimes are often committed from remote locations, making it difficult to
track down the perpetrators.

 Lack of Physical Evidence: Since these crimes are committed in the digital world, there
is often no physical evidence left behind.

 Ease and Affordability of Technology: It is easy and affordable to create and distribute
counterfeit or harmful content using technology.

 Access to IT Resources and Knowledge: Many people have access to IT resources and
the knowledge to use them, which they may misuse.

Legal Framework:
  The Trademarks Act lacks a clear definition for non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and other
contemporary terms commonly employed in criminal activities.
 While remedies exist, their efficacy is often limited.

Civil Remedies:

 Suits for Infringement

 Injunction Orders
 Takedown Directions
 Dynamic Injunction Orders

Criminal Remedies:

 Cyber Complaints
 Police Raids
 Seizure of Resources
 Arrest

Efforts by the Government:

To combat the proliferation of fraudulent domains and safeguard online brand

reputation,

1. NIXI (National Internet Exchange of India) has implemented a mandatory Know-Your-

Customer (KYC) procedure for domain registration. This measure aims to verify the
identities of domain registrants and curb the creation of fake domains that impersonate
well-known brands.

2. Regulatory bodies like the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) are issuing
advisories to prevent the misuse of trademarks. These advisories inform internet users
about the risks associated with counterfeit websites and urge them to exercise caution
when interacting with such sites.
3. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) provides a robust
dispute resolution system for addressing trademark infringement cases involving
domain names. This system allows brand owners to file complaints against domain
registrants who are misusing their trademarks.

4. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeITy) is organizing

consultation meetings to gather stakeholders' input on the evolving domain name
landscape and develop effective strategies to protect intellectual property rights in the
digital realm.

5. QUESTION & ANSWER

The session concluded with a question-and-answer session. Dr. Yatin Kathuria spoke at
the closing ceremony and introduced the Centre for Information Technology (CIT). The
CIT's objectives are as follows:

 To bridge the gap between law and technology

 To foster a harmonious coexistence of law and technology
 To provide a platform for research
 To gain an understanding of the legal framework
 To organize events and activities