In the project, which he accessed The Observerthe leader of 711 pointed out that “the proposal arises from the need to adapt the application of traditional copyright principles to a technological reality that did not exist at the time of approval of the current regulations, guaranteeing that technological innovation is developed in harmony with the protection of intellectual creation.”
Carballo argued that AI’s ability to produce texts, images and music “has transformed the way information is created, distributed and consumed.” “However, the operation of these systems depends on the processing and analysis of enormous volumes of data, among which are often works protected by copyright, such as books, articles, illustrations, editorial publications and other expressions of human creativity.”
The legislator stated that “the use of protected works during the training of artificial intelligence models raises questions about the scope of the economic rights of the authors, the conditions under which said works can be used and the need to guarantee adequate mechanisms for the effective exercise of the rights recognized by current legislation.”
Despite its “remarkable capacity for adaptation,” Carballo indicated that Law 9,739 “does not contain specific provisions referring to the use of protected works for the training and development of artificial intelligence systems,” which “generates uncertainty regarding the way in which the rights and obligations provided for by the law should be applied in this new technological context.”
“The lack of regulatory clarity can affect both rights holders and developers of artificial intelligence systems, making it difficult to build a predictable and balanced framework for action,” he said in this regard.
Carballo pointed out that his project “starts from the premise that technological development and copyright protection should not be understood as conflicting objectives,” but rather that they can and should coexist within a legal framework that provides security and predictability to all actors involved.”
The senator justified that “it seeks to reaffirm that the use of protected works in training, development or operation processes of artificial intelligence systems is included within the scope of protection of economic rights recognized by author legislation.” Try to avoid interpretations that may raise doubts about the applicability of said rights in the face of new technologies.”
The leader also proposes recognizing “the importance of the consent of rights holders as a guiding principle of the intellectual property system.” For this reason, it was considered convenient to expressly establish that the use of protected works for purposes linked to the development of artificial intelligence systems must be carried out with the corresponding authorization of their owners, except in those cases in which the legislation itself provides for specific exceptions.
The senator listed that it contemplates “the right of authors to receive fair remuneration when their works are used for commercial purposes in processes related to artificial intelligence”, in order to “preserve the balance between those who develop new technologies and those who generate the intellectual content that contributes to the functioning” of AI.
Carballo in turn intends to incorporate the “principle of transparency” given that “effective protection of copyright requires that there is sufficient information about the works used in the training and development processes of artificial intelligence systems.”
“Without adequate transparency mechanisms, it is extremely difficult for rights holders to know if their works have been used and to exercise the powers granted to them by current legislation. For this reason, the proposal establishes the need to adopt mechanisms that allow identifying the protected works used in these processes and facilitate inspection by the competent authorities,” he noted.
Carballo clarified that it does not intend to “hinder the advancement of AI or restrict technological research and innovation,” but rather “strengthen legal certainty, promote more transparent relationships between developers and rights holders, and ensure that technological evolution continues to develop in line with the fundamental principles that inspire the Uruguayan intellectual property protection regime.”
The project specifically involves adding to article 5 of the current law the requirement for prior authorization, the right to fair remuneration and the principle of transparency. A second article seeks to empower the Executive Branch to regulate these mechanisms in order to “guarantee the effective protection of recognized rights.”
