Összefoglaló. A tanulmány kezdő axiómája a mesterséges intelligencia
biztonságos alkalmazása. A biztonságos alkalmazás egyik aspektusa a jogi
biztonság, az a jogi környezet, amelyben a felmerülő jogi kérdések rendezésére
alkalmazható keretrendszer áll rendelkezésre. A tanulmány a Semmelweis Egyetem
projektjében fejlesztett mesterséges intelligencia alkalmazásának olyan polgári
jogi problémáit vizsgálja, amelyek a mindennapi hasznosítás során merülhetnek
fel. A tanulmány következtetése szerint a vizsgált mesterséges intelligencia
szerzői műnek minősül és több védelmi forma is alkalmazható. A jogi szabályozás
de lege ferenda kiegészítésre szorul a szerzői mű folyamatos változása okán.
Szükséges rögzíteni egy referenciapontot, amely a felelősség kiindulópontjául
szolgál.
Summary. The starting point of the study is the safe use of
artificial intelligence. Legal certainty is one aspect of safe usage, the legal
environment in which a framework is available that can be used to resolve legal
issues. The paper examines the civil law issues that may arise in the everyday
use of the artificial intelligence application developed within the Semmelweis
University project. The study will first focus on the legal protection of the
Semmelweis AI, including whether this protection is currently international,
regional (European Union) or national and which of these is the optimal choice.
The study also reflects on the legislative preparatory work of the European
Union in this regard. Our hypothesis is that the majority of civil law areas
concerning AI can be regulated within a contractual framework. The AI software
developed by the project is a forward-looking medical and practical solution. If
we want to use a legal analogy, we can imagine its operation as if we had a
solution that could analyse all the national court decisions in each legal field
and provide an answer to the legal problem at hand, while simultaneously
learning and applying the latest court decisions every day. For this AI
solution, the diagnostic process must be carefully examined in order to identify
the legal problems. I believe that the optimal solution is to classify this AI
application as ‘software’ because this allows property rights to be acquired in
their entirety and it opens the door to clarifying individual associated usage
and copyright by contract. An important civil law question arises in relation to
parallel copyright protection, when the individual personal contributions
(creative development work) to the software cannot be separated. Therefore, it
is important to record the process and to separate the individual contributions
protecting by copyright. The AI plays a questionable role in the diagnostic
process. If the software itself cannot make a decision, but only provides a
framework and platform, then it will not be entitled to co-ownership relating to
the diagnostic images (e.g. just as a camera will not own the rights to the
pictures taken with it). However, if the algorithm is part of the
decision-making (e.g. the selecting of negative diagnoses), it would possibly be
co-owner of the right, because it was involved in the development of the
classification. All this should be clearly stated in the licence agreement,
based on full knowledge of the decision-making process. However, de lege
ferenda, the legal regime needs to be supplemented in view of the constant
changes of the copyright work and the changing authors. There is a need to
establish a specific point in the legislation that serves as a reference point
for liability and legal protection. The issues under consideration are of a
legal security nature, since without precise legal protection both the creator
of artificial intelligence and the persons who may be held liable in the event
of a malfunctioning of such systems may be uncertain.
Ethical Management of Artificial Intelligence
