Mission Impossible: The Judge’s Role in Defining the RTBF regarding AI Applications

Author: Fouad Abdelrazek (LLD Candidate)

Research Group: Law, Technology and Design Thinking

Fouad Abdelrazek

Nowadays, the economic growth and prosperity of nations are increasingly linked to the deployment and efficacy of artificial intelligence (AI). The effectiveness of AI is directly proportional to the volume and quality of data available to it. As such, the more personal data that is fed into an AI system, the greater its accuracy and efficiency.[1]

Thus, the deletion of such data could significantly impact the efficiency and effectiveness of AI models. Accordingly, it could have severe implications for the economy in the long run.[2]

On the other hand, the issue of protecting personal data is a matter of utmost importance, as it is considered a fundamental human right.[3] Hence, the regulation of technology is a crucial aspect to ensure the protection of individuals. Nevertheless, it is important to guarantee that such regulations do not become an obstacle to development but rather support it.

Achieving the balance between these two interests is a complex matter that requires careful consideration and implementation of appropriate policies and regulations.

In my opinion, it also relies on the role of judges in interpreting the text of regulations. This ensures that regulations can be effectively applied to emerging technologies while also providing a level of flexibility necessary to promote innovation and development.

This significant role clearly appears in interpreting the right to be forgotten (RTBF), especially regarding AI applications. The RTBF is one of the most powerful rights that the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has given under the name of the right to erasure (Article 17). This right gives EU and EEA residents the power to control their personal data.[4]

However, the concept of the RTBF presents a significant challenge in terms of its definition and implementation in relation to AI applications. This is because the requirement for data deletion, which is a fundamental aspect of the RTBF, is not easily applicable to AI systems. Unlike humans, AI systems and applications do not “forget” data in the same way, and the data deletion process in AI contexts is far more complex.[5] As a result, various conflicts and debates have emerged concerning the interpretation of the RTBF in the context of AI, making it a topic of significant academic interest.

There is an ongoing debate about interpreting “erasing” data differently, each with varying levels of difficulty to implement. A strict interpretation would demand erasing all copies of the data and removing them from any derived or aggregated representations to the extent that it is impossible to recover the data by any known technical means. This may not be feasible with some technologies. A more nuanced and pragmatic interpretation could permit encrypted data copies to persist as long as they remain indecipherable to unauthorized parties. A gentler and even more pragmatic interpretation could permit unencrypted data copies to last as long as they are no longer publicly visible in indices, database queries, or search engine results.[6]

Here, the judges have an essential role in interpreting the definition of the RTBF and directing the organization about how it should execute the verdict. This interpretation will directly impact AI.[7]

Roughly speaking, there are two methods of interpreting a legal text: the first is textualism, and the second is purposivism. Textualism is to stick to the statute's text in interpretation, whereas purposivism (or intentionalism) considers text-external purposes and legislator intentions.[8]

In this context, can judges’ emotional bias affect their interpretation of the RTBF to either decrease or increase the deletion of personal data to improve the economy?

People might unconsciously favour evidence that aligns with their existing viewpoints while disregarding or devaluing evidence that contradicts them.[9] From a classical legal realist perspective, the judge's decision can be biased without the judge knowing.[10] Despite judges' claims that their emotions do not impact their decisions,[11] it's unlikely that emotions cease to exist when they act in court. Emotions are a significant source of intuition, and their impact on decision-making is robust and valuable.[12] One judge has expressively stated, "Judges, being flesh and blood, are subject to the same emotions and human frailties as affect other members of the species."[13]

Hence, the issue of how judges interpret the RTBF in the context of AI is a complex and multifaceted one. The judgment of the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) Google Spain case (C‑131/12) suggests that each case of the RTBF should be interpreted in its own context (judgement addressing Question 3, para. 99). This provides judges with much interpretive leeway in determining the meaning of the RTBF in the context of every case. However, this leeway may lead to different interpretations in similar cases.

Judges have to emphasize either of the two methods of interpreting a legal text to define the RTBF. However, interpretations of these two methods will raise different challenges for implementing the RTBF regarding AI.

On the one hand, under textualism, where the judge must adhere strictly to the statute's text, the text unequivocally calls for the erasure of the individual’s personal data. This may seem to have a harmful impact on the economy. It may lead to the erasure of a massive amount of data, which AI depends on in its efficiency, which will significantly impact the economy. However, are such verdicts technically executable in the first place? In some cases, it is very difficult to ensure that the personal data is erased from the model.[14] However, naturally, such an interpretation will increase trust in the judicial system, encouraging individuals, in turn, to give their personal data to these organizations.

On the other hand, a purposive interpretation might lead to a very broad interpretation of the text, which may negatively impact the trust between individuals and the judicial system. Through the lens of purposive interpretation, the RTBF may be interpreted such that data is not necessarily physically destroyed or overwritten; rather, it is merely made inaccessible or not readily retrievable through normal means. This could imply that, in practical terms, data marked for deletion in databases may still exist in some form and is merely concealed, awaiting potential overwriting in the future.[15] This will not lead to the actual erasure of personal data. Consequently, this will make individuals more reluctant to give their personal data to these organizations, which will affect the efficiency and accuracy of AI and also negatively impact the economy.

In conclusion, implementing the RTBF in the context of AI requires a nuanced and balanced approach. Considering this challenge, it would be useful if the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) established clearer guiding criteria for judges to follow when interpreting the RTBF and its implementation, aiming to reach a balance between people's interests and the economy, especially in the context of AI. Although the ECJ presented its opinion, in practice, it is still debatable whether it was right or not. From this perspective, the lack of clear criteria for the RTBF, coupled with the rising number of cases and varying circuits that handle them, will result in a significant difference in interpretations of the RTBF in similar cases.

The existence of clear criteria would ensure that judgments are unified and consistent, ensuring trust and fairness, and avoiding conflicts and negative economic impacts.

---

[1] Mangini, V., Tal, I., & Moldovan, A. N. (2020, August). An empirical study on the impact of GDPR and right to be forgotten  organisations and users perspective. In Proceedings of the 15th international conference on availability, reliability and security (pp. 1–9).

[2] Salami, E. (2023). Artificial Intelligence: The end of Legal Protection of Personal Data and Intellectual Property?: Research on the countering effects of data protection and IPR on the regulation of Artificial Intelligence systems.

[3] Rodotà, S. (2009). Data protection as a fundamental right. In Reinventing data protection? (pp. 77–82). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

[4] Post, R. C. (2017). Data privacy and dignitary privacy: Google Spain, the right to be forgotten, and the construction of the public sphere. Duke LJ, 67, 981.

[5] Villaronga, E. F., Kieseberg, P., & Li, T. (2018). Humans forget, machines remember: Artificial intelligence and the right to be forgotten. Computer Law & Security Review, 34(2), 304–313.

[6] Sandra, I. A. The enforcement of right to be forgotten at the EU level by using search engines.

[7]Aghion, P., Jones, B. F., & Jones, C. I. (2018). Artificial intelligence and economic growth. In The economics of artificial intelligence: An agenda (pp. 237–282). University of Chicago Press. It is stated on the business Bank of America site that “AI will contribute more than $15 trillion to the global economy by 2030” https://business.bofa.com/en-us/content/economic-impact-of-ai.html#

[8] Aalto-Heinilä, M. (2016). Fairness in statutory interpretation: Text, purpose or intention?. International Journal of Legal Discourse, 1(1), 193–211.

[9] Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of general psychology, 2(2), 175–220.

[10] Wistrich, A.J. and Rachlinski, J.J., 2017. Implicit bias in judicial decision making how it affects judgment and what judges can do about it. Chapter, 5, pp.17–16; Epstein, D.Z., 2014. Rationality, legitimacy, & the law. Wash. U. Jurisprudence Rev., 7, p.1.

[11] Maroney, T. A. (2011). Emotional regulation and judicial behavior. Calif. L. Rev., 99, 1485.

[12] Wistrich, A. J., & Rachlinski, J. J. (2017). Implicit bias in judicial decision making how it affects judgment and what judges can do about it. Chapter, 5, pp. 17–16

[13] Maroney, T. (2016). The emotionally intelligent judge: A new (and realistic) ideal. Revista Forumul Judecatorilor, 61.

[14] Graves, L., Nagisetty, V., & Ganesh, V. (2020). Does AI Remember? Neural Networks and the Right to be Forgotten.

[15] Villaronga, E. F., Kieseberg, P., & Li, T. (2018). Humans forget, machines remember: Artificial intelligence and the right to be forgotten. Computer Law & Security Review, 34(2), 304-313.

Our experience attending the Summer School at PUCP in Peru!

Authors: Sophia Macnamara, Miila Lumijärvi, Ines Pramming, Anni Martinmäki and Mariel Tähtivaara

Authors are law students at the University of Lapland, Faculty of Law.

The visit is part of the Faculty's INCLUSION project.

Sophia Macnamara

Miila Lumijärvi

Anni Martinmäki

Mariel Tähtivaara

General

Embarking on a remarkable journey to Lima, Peru, a group of six students from the University of Lapland immersed themselves in a captivating exploration of Indigenous Rights, Responsibilities and Ethics from January 22 to 26, 2024. This immersive week-long course aimed to unravel the complexities surrounding the rights of indigenous peoples. Sponsored by the Team Finland Knowledge Programme and coordinated by the University of Lapland in collaboration with the University of Helsinki and the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú (PUCP), our adventure was fuelled by a shared thirst for knowledge and cultural exchange. During the week, in addition to the lessons, we got to experience the local university life and culture, as well as enjoy the fantastic culinary delights and hot weather offered by the bustling metropolis of Lima.

Day 1: First Day at the International School in Peru

As we stepped into the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, we were filled with a mixture of excitement and nervousness. It was the beginning of a week-long program on "Indigenous Rights, Responsibilities, and Ethics," and we were eager to dive into this enriching experience. The opening session commenced with warm welcome remarks from professors Yovana Reyes Tagle, Rosa Maria Ballardini, and Elmer Guillermo Arce Ortiz, who heads the Department of Law at PUCP.

The speech given by Ambassador Antti Rytövuori, representing Finland, was very interesting. His insights into the diplomatic relations between Finland and Peru provided a fascinating backdrop for our discussions on indigenous people's rights. Navigating through the workshops and presentations, we encountered a few challenges. The sweltering heat of the Peruvian classrooms was a stark contrast to the cool climate of Finland, and the seven-hour time difference left us grappling with jet lag. Moreover, some of the guest speakers delivered their presentations solely in Spanish, posing a language barrier.

However, amidst these challenges, we found solace in the kindness and support of our Peruvian classmates. Their willingness to assist and their warm hospitality made us feel welcome in this new environment. Together, we delved into discussions on indigenous rights in the Inter-American Human Rights System, the Andean Community, and the protection of traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources in Peru. As the day came to a close, we reflected on the richness of diversity and the power of collaboration. Despite the language barrier and cultural differences, our shared commitment to learning and understanding brought us together as a community. In the coming days, we looked forward to further exploration, growth, and meaningful connections with my peers from around the world.

Day 2: Deep dive into the preservation and use of traditional knowledge 

After a hot Monday, it was decided to move the rest of the week's lectures to an air-conditioned lecture hall – a relieving decision to us Finns. On Tuesday morning, the first lecture had to be cancelled due to problems with the internet connection. However, the timetable was smoothly changed on the fly.

In the morning, we learned from Dino Girardi about the importance of open data policies for indigenous culture, especially in relation to the preservation and use of traditional knowledge. This was a new topic for us. A lot of work is still needed to understand and solve the challenges it poses.

The second lecture was particularly interesting for us. It dealt with various aspects related to development, trade, and the involvement of Indigenous Peoples in the context of international trade agreements, particularly focusing on the World Trade Organization (WTO) and some other trade agreements. Indigenous Peoples' issues have gained prominence, evidenced by case law in Australia, Indonesia, and the EU. However, ongoing challenges include participation in the political process, protecting substantive rights, and enhancing access to trade channels. The day was a reminder of the complex interplay between development, trade, and Indigenous Peoples' rights. Much work remains to be done underscoring ongoing challenges. In particular, efforts to promote inclusion and sustainability must be emphasised.

Day 3: Visit to the Embassy of Finland, Lima

On the third day of the course, we had the opportunity to learn about the UN Human Rights System, the value of indigenous peoples in the economies of APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) Forum, and biopiracy and the protection of traditional knowledge associated to genetic resources in Peru. In addition, we learnt about indigenous peoples, intellectual property rights, and the work of INDECOPI (National Institute for the Defense of Free Competition and the Protection of Intellectual Property, Peru) with the development of Traditional Knowledge registers and Indigenous people’s rights as a social sustainability policy in the business. These were all really interesting topics. Especially the lectures on the UN human rights system and on indigenous peoples in APEC countries were fascinating.

The lectures taught the participants a lot about legislature and culture, as well as economic affairs related to indigenous people. A conversation that really stood out was one during the APEC lecture. We discussed the effect of free trade agreements (FTAs) on indigenous peoples and had the unique opportunity to hear perspectives from members of some indigenous groups in Peru, as well as from a member of the Sami in Finland.

After the lectures, we had the incredible opportunity to visit the Embassy of Finland in Lima and meet the Ambassador of Finland. In the Embassy, we had intriguing conversations about differences in Peruvian and Finnish culture and were treated with different Peruvian and Finnish delicacies. Especially these types of conversations were eye-opening and made us appreciate how unique this course has been and how it lucky we have all been to be able to participate in this.

Day 4: Ius Inter Gentes and Visit to the International Potato Center

Our fourth day began with an early meeting with Ius Inter Gentes, a students' association of international law and international relations at the PUCP Faculty of Law. The association introduced us to their activities and research publications. It was interesting to see the differences in student-lead activities in different universities. The type of activities themselves may differ from those offered by Finnish student associations, but the enthusiasm shared by the students towards them felt identical.

Our lecture that morning was given by Dr. Victoria Soyan Peemot, a research fellow in Indigenous Studies at the University of Helsinki, on Sympoiesis in the Mongolian Taiga, sharing valuable insights into topics of ethical research, and their work with the Tukha people of Northern Mongolia. The provided lecture worked perfectly as a wrap-up for all we had learned that week, though the atmosphere was somewhat bitter-sweet, as it was to be the final lecture of the course.

Our programme for the afternoon was a visit to the enigmatic International Potato Center's (CIP) headquarters, located at the edge of the city in the arid La Molina district, surrounded by several other research centres and universities, and bordered by majestic hills. With the mid-afternoon sun beating down on us and the temperature reaching a balmy 30 degrees Celsius, Lima's status as a tropical desert city could not go unnoticed. CIP is a research facility founded in 1971, with a focus on potato, sweet potato and Andean roots and tubers. Beyond their extensive gene bank, which is home to over sixteen thousand cultivars and wild relatives of Andean root and tuber crops, the centre strives to offer solutions that enhance access to affordable nutritious food, opportunities for inclusive and sustainable business practices and climate-forward food systems.

We were offered a tour of the fascinating facilities in Lima, and insight by its researchers into the CIP's mission and work in both Peru and abroad. The centre not only conserves genetic varieties of the potato and its relatives, but works to conserve the traditions, innovations and knowledge that have fostered this diversity – or bio-cultural heritage. Conserving this knowledge and repatriating native potatoes to Andean communities plays a role in maintaining the unique ecological and cultural characteristics of the region.

Day 5: Student workshops

Our last day consisted of student workshops, where we got to hear short presentations from other students and got some feedback from our professors. It was interesting to hear the other students' presentations, and we especially feel like we learned a lot from the Peruvian students, who had studied indigenous rights in their own country. We think that such cultural exchange is the core value in projects like these. This was also the day we had to say goodbye to our Peruvian classmates, who made us feel very welcome at their university.

All in all, we are very grateful to having been a part of the Summer School and having the chance to travel all the way to Peru to learn more on indigenous rights. The experience was of course educational, but more than that it was fun and exciting, and meeting the Peruvian students was a great way to experience a different culture.

Finally, we would like to offer a huge thank you to the all of the organizers and professors of this course. It has really been incredible!

Copyright Must Win

Author: Artha Dermawan (Indonesia-qualified Lawyer, Doctoral Student at the University of Lapland (Finland), funded by the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (Germany), and Visiting Researcher at the Australian Intellectual Property Institute, the University of Melbourne)[1]

Research Group: Law, Technology and Design Thinking

In the rapidly evolving landscape of technology and creativity, the advent of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has presented unprecedented challenges and opportunities to the domain of copyright law.[2] 

Artha Dermawan

At the heart of this technological revolution lies a critical question: does copyright, a centuries-old legal framework designed to protect the rights of creators, still hold its ground in encouraging and safeguarding creative works? This blog post argues affirmatively, positing that copyright is not only relevant but essential for the sustenance of human authors and the vibrancy of the economy, drawing lessons from the transformative impact of copyright in China's economic resurgence.[3] 

Copyright law was conceived as a delicate balance between the rights of creators to control and benefit from their creations and the public's interest in accessing knowledge and culture.[4]  This principle, rooted in the notion that incentivizing creativity through exclusive rights would lead to a richer cultural tapestry, has been the cornerstone of copyright since its inception.[5] 

However, the rise of GenAI, with its ability to produce original works reminiscent of human creativity, has stirred a debate on the relevance of copyright in the digital age. Critics argue that the ubiquity and efficiency of GenAI in generating outputs might render human creativity obsolete, undermining the economic rationale for copyright.[6] However, this perspective overlooks the intrinsic value of human authorship, which encompasses not only the creation of content but also the expression of human experience, emotions, and cultural nuances that GenAI cannot replicate. Copyright plays a pivotal role in ensuring that human authors are recognized and rewarded for their contributions, thereby motivating continued creative endeavors.[7]

The economic argument for copyright is further reinforced by the experience of China, where the introduction and enforcement of copyright laws have been instrumental in propelling the country's economy.[8] Prior to the adoption of robust copyright frameworks, piracy and the unauthorized use of intellectual property were rampant, stifling innovation and creativity. The enactment of copyright laws catalyzed a cultural and economic renaissance, fostering an environment where creativity could flourish, and innovators could reap the rewards of their labor. This transformation underscores the economic benefits of copyright in stimulating growth, encouraging investment in creative industries, and enhancing the country's competitive edge on the global stage.[9]

Moreover, copyright is not a zero-sum game that stifles innovation in the name of protectionism. On the contrary, it provides a structured framework within which innovation could thrive. The law allows for fair use, exceptions, and limitations that ensure the public's access to creative works while protecting creators' rights.[10] This equilibrium is crucial in the digital age, where the dissemination and remixing of content can serve as a catalyst for further creativity and innovation.

In the context of GenAI, copyright must evolve rather than be discarded. Legal frameworks need to adapt to the nuances of AI-generated outputs, distinguishing between outputs that are genuinely independent creations of GenAI and those that are derivative of human creativity. This differentiation is vital in ensuring that copyright continues to protect human authors without stifaring the potential of GenAI as a tool for augmenting human creativity.

In conclusion, the assertion that copyright must win in the era of GenAI is not a call for resistance against technological progress but a recognition of the enduring value of human creativity and its role in driving economic prosperity. As we navigate the complexities of the digital age, copyright remains a crucial mechanism for safeguarding human authors, ensuring that they are at the heart of the creative process, and sustaining the economic vitality of creative industries. Therefore, the preservation and adaptation of copyright laws are imperative for the continued flourishing of human creativity and economic development in the age of GenAI.

Copyright must win, and in the symphony of technological innovation, copyright remains our cultural compass, guiding the fusion of human creativity and economic prosperity.

__________________________

[1] This blog post is inspired by the policy framework proposed by the author in ‘AI v Copyright: How Could Public Interest Theory Shift the Discourse?’ published in volume 19(1) of the Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice in 2024 and ’Text and Data Mining Exceptions in the Development of Generative AI Models: What the EU Member States Could Learn From the Japanese “nonenjoyment” Purposes?’ Forthcoming in Journal of World Intellectual Property in 2024. The latter article was awarded second place in the 2022 Essay Competition organized by The International Association for the Advancement of Teaching and Research in Intellectual Property (ATRIP), sponsored by the International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys (FICPI). Unless specified otherwise, all internet references were last accessed on February 10, 2024.

[2] From the training data perspective, see, Artha Dermawan, ’Text and Data Mining Exceptions in the Development of Generative AI Models: What the EU Member States Could Learn From the Japanese “nonenjoyment” Purposes?’ (Journal of World Intellectual Property, 2024). On the egenral observations, see also, Annemarie Bridy, ‘Coding Creativity: Copyright and the Artificially Intelligent Author (5 Stanford Technology Law Review 1-28, 2012); Emmanuel Salami, ‘AI-generated Works and Copyright Law: Towards a Union of Strange Bedfellows’ (16(2) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 124-135, 2020); Artha Dermawan and Péter Mezei, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Consensus-Based Remuneration Regime in Southeast Asia’ (2023). Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4625850; Mark Lemley and Bryan Casey, ‘Remedies for Robots’ (86 University of Chicago Law Review 1311-1396, 2019); Peter Yu, ‘The Algorithmic Divide and Equality in the Age of Artificial Intelligence’ (72 Florida Law Review 331-388, 2020); Vincenzo Iaia, ‘To Be, or Not to Be … Original Under Copyright Law, That Is (One of) the Main Questions Concerning AI-Produced Works’ (71(9), GRUR International, 793-812, 2022); Pamuela Samuelson, ‘Allocating Ownership Rights in Computer-Generated Works’ (47 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 1185-1188, 1986); Péter Mezei, ‘You AIn’t Seen Nothing yet' – Arguments against the Protectability of AI-generated Outputs by Copyright Law’ in Maurizio Borghi and Roger Brownsword (eds.), Informational Rights and Informational Wrongs: A Tapestry for Our Times (Routledge, Abingdon, 126-143, 2023).

[3] See, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), ‘The Impact of Copyright on the National Economy Should not be Underestimated’ (2022). Available at: https://www.wipo.int/about-wipo/en/offices/china/news/2022/news_0027.html.

[4] Artha Dermawan, ‘AI v Copyright: How Could Public Interest Theory Shift the Discourse?’ (19(1) Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 2024) p. 56. The article underscores the necessity of defining clear objectives for copyright law, advocating for an evidence-based, consensus-driven, and morally grounded approach to balance creators' rights with public access to creative works.

[5] See, Christophe Geiger, ‘Freedom of Artistic Creativity and Copyright Law: A Compatible Combination?’ (8(3) UC Irvine Law Review, 2018).

[6] See, e.g., Anna Shtefan, ‘Creativity and Artificial Intelligence: A View from the Perspective of Copyright’ (Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2021) pp. 720-728; Daniel J. Gervais, ‘The Human Cause’ in Ryan Abbott (ed.), Research Handbooks on Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence (Edward Elgar, 2022); Mark Lemley, ‘How Generative AI Turns Copyright Law on its Head’ (2023). Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4517702.

[7] Artha Dermawan, n.4. See, Martin Senftleben, ‘Generative AI and Author Remuneration.’ (54 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2023). See, Nicola Lucchi, ‘ChatGPT: A Case Study on Copyright Challenges for Generative Artificial Intelligence Systems.’ (European Journal of Risk Regulation, 2023) pp. 17-21. See also, Christophe Geiger, To Pay or Not to Pay (for Training Generative AI), That is the Question, (JOTWELL, 2023) (reviewing Martin Senftleben, Generative AI and Author Remuneration, 54 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2023). Available at: https://ip.jotwell.com/to-pay-or-not-to-pay-for-training-generative-ai-that-is-the-question/.

[8] The relevance of copyright laws in boosting the Chinese economy is well-documented and multifaceted. According to the WIPO, innovation, creativity, and intellectual property, including copyright, are pivotal for economic recovery and sustainable development. The copyright industry significantly contributes to the GDP and employment, with China's copyright industry ranking among the top five globally. This industry not only plays a crucial role in China's innovation-driven development but has also positioned China from a follower to a leader in the global copyright arena. The development of industries with local characteristics, such as textiles and ceramics, showcases China's experience and contributions to global copyright governance, offering unique Chinese solutions to copyright challenges​. WIPO, ibid.

[9] Moreover, the theoretical rationales for IP protection emphasize the encouragement and reward for creative work. Copyrights and related rights cover literary and artistic works, granting legal protection to creators, thus fostering a culture of innovation and creativity. This protection is deemed crucial for stimulating inventive activities, with the protection of IP rights ensuring that creators can reap the benefits of their investments. In China, modern IPR regulation has evolved significantly since the 1980s, with improvements in legal frameworks and enforcement mechanisms aimed at fostering a conducive environment for the protection of intellectual property​. Muehlfeld Katrin and Wang Mei, ‘Intellectual Property Rights in China—A Literature Review on the Public's Perspective’ (7 Frontiers in Sociology, 2022). Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2022.793165/full.

[10]  Artha Dermawan, n 4.