01 Exploring the Global IP Landscape: Insights from WIPO’s
2023 Report
In the fast-paced realm of innovation and creativity,
intellectual and industrial property rights
(“IPRs“) stand as cornerstones for
safeguarding and incentivizing advancements across various sectors.
The World Intellectual Property Organization
(“WIPO“) has published its annual World
Intellectual Property Indicators Report of 2023
(“Report“), offering a comprehensive
analysis of global IPR-related activities and developments.
The Report covers patents, utility models, trademarks,
industrial designs, microorganisms, plant variety protection and
geographical indications. It is built on 2022 data obtained from
national and regional IP offices, survey data and industry sources.
This article evaluates the key findings and implications outlined
in the Report.
1. New Record in Global Patent Filings
The Report unveils a surge in global patent filings, with 3.46
million applications recorded in 2022, showing a 1.7% increase
compared to the preceding year. This is the highest number of
patent filings ever recorded. There is a consistent upward
long-term trend in global patent applications. The number of patent
applications was 1 million in 1995, doubling in 2010 and then
climbing to 3.5 million in 2022. This growth underscores the
pursuit of innovation and technological breakthroughs across
diverse industries.
The China IP Office, with 1.6 million applications, received
almost half of all patent applications (i.e., 46.8%). It was
followed by the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO“) with around 600,000
applications. Together with the Japan IP Office, the Korean IP
Office and the European Patent Office
(“EPO“), they comprise the top five
offices, receiving almost 85% of all patent applications
worldwide.
The top five technologies referred to in global patent
applications in 2022 were computer technology, electrical
machinery, measurement, medical technology and digital
communication. In principle, a patent is granted for 20 years as of
the application date. As of 2022, around 17.3 million patents were
in force in 137 jurisdictions covered in the Report.
Utility model applications have also increased by 2.9% in 2022,
reaching 3 million applications worldwide. 2.95 million of these
were filed before the China IP Office.
Turkish Patent Statistics
In 2022, the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office
(“TPTO”) received 9,119 patent applications. The TPTO
granted patents for under half of all applications reviewed in
2022. Türkiye, along with China, had the largest proportion of
women inventors in 2022 within the scope of the published Patent
Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”) applications. Türkiye is
ranked fourth globally in utility model applications, with 5,558
applications filed in 2022, showing a double-digit growth (i.e.,
+23.8%) in comparison to the previous year.
2. A Decline in Global Trademark
Applications
In 2022, the total number of trademark applications plummeted by
16% compared to the previous year. Around 11.8 million trademark
applications were filed worldwide. In addition to the number of
trademark applications, the total number of classes specified in
applications declined from 18.2 million in 2021 to 15.5 million in
2022. Although the 12-year growth trend that has continued since
2009 has ended, the long-term trend in trademark filings is still
positive.
Similar to patents and utility models, the China IP Office
received the most trademark filings in 2022. It was followed by the
USPTO, India, Brazil and Korea IP Offices.
According to the Nice classification statistics, the top five
classes specified in global trademark filings in 2022 were class
09, covering scientific instruments, recording equipment, computers
and software; class 35, including advertising, business management,
business administration and office functions; class 42, covering
scientific and technological services, design, and development of
computer hardware and software; class 41, including education,
entertainment and sporting activities; and class 05, covering
pharmaceuticals and dietary supplements.
Türkiye as a Significant Player in Trademarks
Landscape
In 2022, Türkiye emerged as a significant player in the
global trademark landscape, demonstrating remarkable growth in
trademark filing activity. With more than 485,000 trademark
applications, Türkiye secured the fourth position worldwide,
showcasing a 11.8% growth rate compared to the previous year and
surpassing the European Union Intellectual Property Office
(“EUIPO“).
Non-resident applications contributed around 8% of all trademark
filings in Türkiye. Türkiye ascended from seventh to
fourth place in trademarks filed by residents. Türkiye also
recorded the highest ratio of resident-application class count per
million population. The top three sectors specified in trademark
applications filed before the TPTO in 2022 were service,
agriculture and business.
3. A Minor Decline in Global Industrial Design
Filings
In 2022, design applications globally saw a slight decline of
3%, totaling 1.1 million applications. China was the top among the
IP offices, with 798,112 design applications, followed by the EUIPO
and Türkiye. The majority of design applications originated
from Asia, comprising 70.3% of all filings, while Europe and North
America accounted for 22.4% and 4.4%, respectively. Similar to
trademarks, there is a long-term positive trend in global design
filings.
In comparison to 45 classes in the Nice classification system
for trademarks, there are 32 Locarno classes for designs. The
global design filing activity in 2022 concentrated on four industry
sectors, namely furniture and household goods, textiles and
accessories, tools and machines, and electricity and lighting,
respectively.
A Sharp Growth in Türkiye
Türkiye emerged as a significant player in global design
filing activity in 2022. With 84,111 industrial design
applications, Türkiye secured the third position on the global
scale, marking a significant advancement of two positions compared
to the previous year. Notably, Türkiye recorded a 27.6%
increase in design filing activity, showcasing a strong growth
rate. The top sectors in design applications filed before the TPTO
were advertising, furniture and household goods, and textiles and
accessories.
4. Publishing Industry: Copyrights
The Report also offers publishing industry data from 30 nations
that participated in the 2023 global publishing industry survey.
Furthermore, 28 national publisher organizations and copyright
authorities disclosed their 2022 data. The top five countries in
terms of sales income were the US (USD 26.2 billion), Germany (USD
9.9 billion), the UK (USD 5 billion), Italy (USD 3.6 billion) and
France (USD 2.9 billion).
Data on the total number of titles published in 2022 covering
both the trade and educational sectors are provided by 20
countries. Among them, Türkiye reported a combined 206,674
titles published in 2022. The share of digital/audio-formatted
titles was 12.5%. In terms of the data on children’s books,
Türkiye was a close second, with 17,238 children’s books
published, right behind France, with 18,535 children’s books
published.
5. Regional Dynamics and Sectoral Trends
Asia continues to be prominent in the global IP landscape, with
the China IP Office receiving the most patent, utility model,
trademark and industrial design applications. South Korea and Japan
also demonstrated significant contributions, further solidifying
Asia’s position. In Europe and North America, the US, Germany,
and France played pivotal roles in patent and trademark filings,
collectively accounting for a substantial portion of global IP
activity. These regions remain vital contributors to the innovation
ecosystem, fostering collaboration and cross-border partnerships to
drive technological advancements.
The Report highlights the growing influence of digital
technologies, including artificial intelligence, blockchain, and
the Internet of Things in driving IP filings worldwide. This trend
portrays the critical role of technology-driven solutions in
addressing complex challenges and driving economic growth in the
digital age. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical sectors also
continued to witness robust patent activity, reflecting ongoing
investments in research and development.
6. Conclusion
Asia continues to be prominent in the global IP landscape, with
the China IP Office receiving the most patent, utility model,
trademark and industrial design applications. South Korea and Japan
also demonstrated significant contributions, further solidifying
Asia’s position. In Europe and North America, the US, Germany,
and France played pivotal roles in patent and trademark filings,
collectively accounting for a substantial portion of global IP
activity. These regions remain vital contributors to the innovation
ecosystem, fostering collaboration and cross-border partnerships to
drive technological advancements.
The Report highlights the growing influence of digital
technologies, including artificial intelligence, blockchain, and
the Internet of Things in driving IP filings worldwide. This trend
portrays the critical role of technology-driven solutions in
addressing complex challenges and driving economic growth in the
digital age. The biotechnology and pharmaceutical sectors also
continued to witness robust patent activity, reflecting ongoing
investments in research and development.
02 Recent Global Regulatory Developments in Artificial
Intelligence and Deepfakes
1. Introduction
Deepfake can be defined as a technology based on artificial
intelligence (“AI“) that uses deep
learning techniques for altering multimedia artifacts through
manipulation or creating new ones1. Deepfake has
numerous applications across various industries, such as education
and entertainment2. In recent years, the rise in its use
resulted in challenges to different laws and their application. For
instance, the use of AI in moviemaking to de-age actors or simulate
previous performances has become a common phenomenon, resulting in
concerns over the protection of one’s digital
likeness3. Last year’s Hollywood strikes4
have illuminated compelling challenges at the nexus of AI,
intellectual property rights (“IPRs“),
personal rights and privacy. Deepfakes are also a matter of public
debate, in particular, with regard to intimate images and videos.
This has sparked a wider discussion regarding the ethical
ramifications of AI.
AI has a lot of potential applications, including improved
healthcare, cleaner and safer transportation, more productive
manufacturing and more affordable and sustainable energy. Yet, the
exponential rise in the use of AI across different industries also
presents complex ethical considerations, challenges traditional
legal principles and prompts policymakers worldwide to reassess the
legal status quo. Against this background, this article discusses
the recent developments in AI in general and deepfakes in
particular in various jurisdictions.
2. Deepfakes, Copyrights and Personal
Rights
In principle, copyright protects original works bearing its
authors’ characteristics. On the one hand, deepfakes make it
easier for original works to be altered and reproduced without
permission and be shared online, presenting a challenge to the
enforcement of copyrights. On the other hand, the use of
copyrighted works in bulk to train deep learning algorithms without
permission leads to disputes between the creators of AI systems and
rights holders.
AI can also be used to create new works from existing
copyright-protected works, blurring the boundaries of typical
copyright infringement. AI-generated music that mimics the style of
famous musicians highlights its potential to lead to complex
disputes. For instance, in the US, the fair use
doctrine5 is considered in determining the legality of
deepfake creations from a copyright law perspective. Indeed,
deepfakes can potentially qualify for protection under the concept
of transformative use, similar to parodies. However, the broad
application of fair use also raises issues regarding deepfakes
created for malicious purposes, highlighting the need for finding a
balance between the protection of copyright and freedom of
expression.
Deepfake presents unprecedented threats to personal rights and
privacy, which include one’s voice and personal features. The
unauthorized use of AI to manipulate and disseminate disseminate
individuals’ images and videos challenges existing legal
protections and jurisdictional boundaries. Comprehensive legal
frameworks are needed to provide adequate safeguards against the
unauthorized manipulation of personal identities. Deepfakes also
create substantial risks of defamation by fabricating false
narratives and false and misleading representations.
3. Addressing the Legal Challenges
Deepfakes challenge the legal systems globally, with some
jurisdictions crafting specific legislation to address these
issues. In the US, President Biden’s Executive Order on
AI6, in the European Union
(“EU“), the AI Act7, and in
the UK, the Online Safety Act8, reflect a growing
recognition of the challenges posed by AI and the need to mitigate
the adverse effects through regulatory measures.
3.1 US: President Biden’s Executive Order on the
Safe, Secure and Trustworthy Development and Use of
AI
The Executive Order addresses various aspects of AI development,
deployment and regulation. While the Executive Order covers a wide
range of AI-related topics, including privacy, safety and ethics,
its implications for IPRs and deepfakes are notable.
In terms of IPRs, the Executive Order underlines the importance
of nurturing innovation and protecting IPRs in the AI ecosystem. It
encourages collaboration between government agencies, industry
stakeholders and academic institutions to promote responsible AI
development while protecting IPRs. This includes initiatives to
support AI research, development and commercialization while
ensuring IP laws adequately address the unique obstacles that
emerged as a result of the rapid development in the field of
AI.
Concerning deepfakes, the Executive Order emphasizes the need
for enhanced detection and mitigation strategies to combat the
spread of AI-generated misinformation and disinformation. It
focuses on promoting AI transparency, accountability and security
to address the misuse of deepfake technology. By promoting the
development of AI tools and techniques for detecting and
authenticating digital content, the Executive Order aims to
mitigate the harmful effects of deepfakes on individuals,
businesses and society in general9.
3.2 EU’s AI Act
The EU’s AI Act is the first comprehensive regulation on AI
by a major regulator. The EU intended to regulate AI as part of its
digital strategy to improve the environment for the advancement and
application of this cutting-edge technology. The AI Act was
approved by the European Parliament on March 13, 2024. Once the
regulatory process is completed, it will be published in the
Official Journal of the European Union.
The AI Act is a significant step forward in safeguarding the
safety and security of citizens from the potential harms of AI
systems and protecting individual privacy and human rights. The AI
Act aims to classify and regulate AI applications according to
their risk level. This classification includes four risk categories
(“unacceptable”, “high”, “limited”
and “minimal”) and an additional category for
general-purpose AI10:
- AI applications considered to represent unacceptable risks are
prohibited. This includes AI applications that manipulate human
behavior, those that use real-time remote biometric identification,
including facial recognition in public spaces, and those used for
social scoring and ranking individuals primarily based on their
private characteristics, sociomonetary repute or behavior. - High-risk refers to AI applications that pose significant
threats to the health, safety or fundamental rights of individuals.
In particular, they consist of AI systems that are used in health,
education, recruitment, critical infrastructure management, law
enforcement and justice. They are subject to conformity assessments
and adhere to safety, transparency and quality requirements. The
list of high-risk AI applications can be expanded. - Limited-risk AI applications are subject to transparency
obligations aimed at informing users that they are interacting with
an AI system and allowing them to exercise their choices. This
category includes, for example, AI applications that make it
possible to create or manipulate images, audio or video (such as
deepfakes). Except in a few cases, free and open-source models with
publicly available parameters fall under this category and are not
subject to special requirements. - Minimal-risk AI applications are used, for example, for video
games or spam filters. They are not regulated and Member States are
prevented from regulating them further through maximum
harmonization. - For general-purpose AI, transparency requirements apply, with
additional and comprehensive assessments when they represent
particularly high risks.
3.3 Developments in the UK:
In December 2022, the UK government amended the Online Safety
Bill to outlaw all nonconsensual explicit images. It introduced a
new duty of care for online platforms, requiring them to act
against harmful content. Platforms that fail to fulfill this duty
can be fined up to £18 million or 10% of their annual
turnover, whichever is higher. It also gives OFCOM (Office of
Communications) the power to block access to certain websites. The
law also obliges platforms to protect access to and not remove
journalistic or “democratically important” content, such
as user comments on political parties and issues11. The
Online Safety Bill was amended on January 31, 2024, and deepfakes
are now covered and defined under law. More serious offenses are
also foreseen in cases of sharing explicit images with the intent
to cause harm, humiliation and distress.
4. Conclusion: Finding the Balance
As technological developments surge exponentially, laws must
quickly adapt to protect individuals’ rights without barring
innovation. By embracing a comprehensive legal, technological and
ethical strategy, societies can navigate the complexities of an
AI-driven world while preserving the balance between personal
rights and privacy, IPRs and freedom of expression. As such,
deepfakes represent a formidable challenge, but with proactive
measures and collaborative efforts, it is possible to forge a path
forward that preserves the balance in the digital age. Addressing
the unique challenges posed by AI and deepfakes requires a
multifaceted approach. Strategies may include expanding existing
legal protections, developing new legal doctrines tailored to AI,
fostering responsible and moderated innovation, enhancing public
awareness and establishing effective reporting mechanisms.
03 New AI Guidelines have been published the European
Commission, and IP Rights are a Big Part of it
Artificial intelligence (AI) has been a topic of discussion for
quite some time. While the actual existence of the AI has found
some place between myth and science fiction in the past, it is very
much our reality in the modern day. From conducting driverless cars
to writing academic articles in seconds, AI has managed to take a
place in our lives and our minds, so much so that the authorities
around the world sought the need to take action on how to handle
AI. A recent development came from the European Commission with the
document titled “Living guidelines on the Responsible Use of
Generative AI in Research”
(“Guidelines“), and IP rights are a big
part of it. You can access the full text of the Guidelines via this
link.
In the Guidelines, the European Commission cites the following
principles for the responsible use of generative AI in research,
which are identical to the principles in the European Code of
Conduct for Research Integrity:
- Reliability: This principle aims to ensure
overall quality of the research by confirming the accuracy of the
information handled by AI. - Honesty: This basically means that research
using AI must be conducted transparently. - Respect: While this principles to refers to
respect for many other subjects and persons, it is vitally
important for IP because it specifically states respect for the
intellectual property of others in research using AI. - Accountability: This principle refers to
owning up the results of the research conducted by the AI from
start to finish.
Despite being the first document drawing concrete lines for
handling AI in research, the Guidelines touch upon various
subjects, from recommendations for researchers to recommendations
for research organizations. Although it is not yet clear how the
inclusion of the intellectual and industrial property rights of
third parties in AI-based research will be handled, it is really
promising that authorities such as the European Commission has
begun taking this topic more seriously.
It is undeniable that we need changes both in the national
legislation and in international treaties to disperse any doubts
regarding liability issues in AI-based IP infringement cases. For
example, we know that certain AI tools are commonly used by people,
especially students, to write essays or papers. However, it is not
yet known what the consequences of plagiarism issues deriving from
AI-created work will be. To our knowledge, Turkish courts are yet
to face such challenges, and even if they do, it is not known how
they would decide.
In our opinion, it is especially important not to infringe
patent rights in AI-led research, as patented products are most
likely to be the subject of another scientific research. So, will
the AI be able to differentiate the patented products from common
products? It is the responsibility of the person handling the AI to
input correct commands into AI’s system, so that the AI will
know its limitations. Will the AI be able to access national and
international IP databases to assess the risk of IP infringement?
All these questions remain to be answered, even in the Guidelines
of the European Commission. It is a good thing that the European
Commission has ensured the public that the Guidelines will be
updated as the AI technology advances, and they will be reshaped
upon the feedback of the public.
We are curious as to whether Turkish authorities will follow
this example and issue a guideline of their own in the coming days.
It goes without saying that such guidelines will be indispensable
as the AI technology becomes more of a part of our lives, and it
will require harmonization across the region, especially with the
European Union.
04 Precedent Decision of the Court of Cassation’s General
Assembly Of Civil Chambers on the Infringement of a Trademark Right
with the Usage of a Sign Subject to Another Trademark Right in a
Trade Name
1. Introduction
Whether the usage of a sign subject to a trademark right by a
third party as an essential element of a trade name constitutes
infringement of the trademark right has been frequently discussed
in doctrine and in judicial decisions, during both the period when
the Decree Law No. 556 on the Protection of Trademarks
(“Decree“) was in force, and since the
entry into force of the Industrial Property Law No. 6769
(“IPL“).
During the period when the Decree was in force, it was widely
accepted that the usage a sign subject to a trademark right by a
third party as an essential element of a trade name would only
cause an infringement of the trademark right if the disputed trade
name was used in a trademark sense. As a matter of fact, the
concept of “trademark use” can be defined in the doctrine
as “the use of the trademark in such a way as to make it
possible for buyers to understand that the goods and/or services
bearing the mark are intended to distinguish them from other goods
and/or services in terms of their origin.”1
On January 10, 2017, with the entry into force of the IPL,
discussions on the conditions to be sought for the use of the sign
subject to the trademark right in the trade name to constitute
infringement of the trademark right continued. At the heart of this
discussion was whether the occurrence of infringement of the
trademark right was conditional upon the use of the disputed trade
name in the trademark sense, just as it was when the Decree was in
force. The ongoing discussions were concluded in detail in the
decision of the Court of Cassation’s General Assembly of Civil
Chambers (“CCGACC“) dated February 8,
2023 with the File No: 2021/446 and Decision No: 2023/61. The Court
of Cassation’s General Assembly of the Civil Chamber ruled that
if the sign subject to the trademark right is used by a third party
as an essential element of a trade name, infringement of the
trademark right may occur without the condition that the disputed
trade name is used in the trademark sense.
2. Dispute Subject to the Decision of the Court of
Cassation
The subject matter of the relevant decision of the Court of
Cassation’s General Assembly is whether there will be
infringement of the trademark right and unfair competition against
the plaintiffs due to the use of a trademark registered on behalf
of the plaintiffs before the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office
(“TPTO“) in the trade name of the
defendant, which operates in the same or similar sectors with the
services covered by the plaintiff’s registration. Pursuant to
the decision of the Ankara 3rd Civil Court of Intellectual and
Industrial Rights (“3rd IP Court of
Ankara“) dated December 21, 2017 with the File No:
2017/94 and Decision No: 2017/603, it has been determined that the
use of the plaintiffs’ trademark in the trade name of the
defendant will not cause infringement of the trademark right
against the plaintiffs, as the plaintiffs have not presented any
evidence showing that the disputed trade name is being used in a
trademark sense. However, the 3rd IP Court of Ankara, which
determined that unfair competition would arise due to the use of
the trademark registered on behalf of the plaintiffs as an
essential element of the defendant’s trade name, partially
accepted the case and decided to abandon the trade name subject to
the case in accordance with Article 52/1 of the Turkish Commercial
Code No. 6102
The plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Ankara Regional Court
of Appeal’s (“RCA“) 20th Civil
Chamber against the decision of the Ankara 3rd IP Court, and as a
result of the appeal examination, the court ruled that the decision
of the 3rd IP Court of Ankara should be annulled, and that if the
sign subject to the trademark right is used as an essential element
of the trade name of a third party, infringement of the trademark
right may occur even if the relevant trade name is not used as a
trademark. The defendant appealed against the decision of the 20th
Civil Chamber of Ankara RCA. As a result of the appellate review by
the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, in line with the
jurisprudence during the period when the Decree was in force, the
decision of the appellate authority was reversed on the grounds
that the use of the sign subject to the trademark right as an
essential element of a third party’s trade name may only cause
infringement of the trademark right if the disputed trade name is
used in a trademark sense. The 20th Civil Chamber of Ankara RCA
decided to resist. The decision of the Court of Appeal was appealed
by the defendant, and the case came before the Court of
Cassation’s General Assembly
(“GA“).
3. Court of Cassation’s General Assembly
Decision
Within the scope of the review made by the Court of
Cassation’s GA, it was emphasized that there is no reference to
the concept of “trademark use” in Articles 7 and 29 of
the IPL, which contain regulations on trademark right infringement,
and that the regulation in Article 7/3(e) of the IPL essentially
consists of the use of the sign as a trade name or business name in
the field of commerce, and that this use will cause trademark right
infringement pursuant to Article 29/1(a) of the IPL. Although it
was accepted that the use of the sign subject to the trademark
right by a third party as an essential element of a trade name
during the period when the IPL was in force could only cause
infringement of the trademark right if the disputed trade name is
used in the trademark sense, the Court of Cassation’s GA
accepted that infringement of the trademark right will occur if the
sign is “used as a trade name in the field of commerce”
rather than a trademark use with the entry into force of the IPL.
In this context, the Court of Cassation’s GA determined that
the principle that should be taken as a basis in the interpretation
of the relevant provisions of the IPL is the “use of the
disputed trade name as a trade name in the field of commerce”
rather than the use of the disputed trade name as a trade name or
trademark, and stated that this principle means the use of the
trade name in the commercial field in order to obtain economic
gain.
In line with the above-mentioned findings, the Court of
Cassation’s GA concluded that pursuant to Article 7/2(a) of the
IPL, in order for the use of a sign subject to the trademark right
by a third party as an essential element of a trade name to
constitute infringement of the trademark right, the relevant trade
name must be used in the commercial field for the goods or services
covered by the trademark registration and for the purpose of
obtaining economic gain. The use of the disputed trade name in the
commercial field includes the concept of trademark use, but it has
a much broader meaning.
In addition to the trademark use of the disputed trade name, any
use of the disputed trade name that may harm the other functions of
the trademark may constitute infringement of the trademark right
pursuant to Articles 7/3(e) and 29/1(a) of the IPL. In particular,
in the case of the use of the disputed trade name on service
offerings in the commercial field, even if such uses do not qualify
as “trademark use,” since such uses may fulfill the
functions of showing the origin of the service offered and/or
distinguishing the services in question from the services of other
undertakings, it has been determined that the relevant uses may
cause infringement of the trademark right consisting of the same
phrase, covering the same or similar services with an earlier date.
Accordingly, the Court of Cassation’s GA upheld the decision of
the 20th Civil Chamber of Ankara RCA.
4. Conclusion
Within the scope of the decision of the Court of Cassation’s
GA dated February 8, 2023 with the File No: 2021/446 and Decision
No: 2023/61, the Court of Cassation concluded that, unlike the
jurisprudence during the enforcement period of the Decree, it is
not necessary for the disputed trade name to be used in a trademark
sense in order to cause infringement of the trademark right. In
this respect, the precedent decision of the Court of
Cassation’s GA clearly establishes that the condition of
“trademark use,” which was in force during the
enforcement period of the Decree, will not be sought in terms of
Articles 7/3(e) and 29/1(a) of the IPL.
Footnotes
1. İbrahimli, K. (2023), (pages 11-12) Arising
Liability Of Use Of Produced Audios And Images By Deepfake
Technology. Istanbul University Institute Of Social Sciences
Department Of Private Law, master’s thesis.
2. Thorne, C. D. (November 10, 2022), Deepfakes and
intellectual property rights. Trademark Lawyer Magazine. https://trademarklawyermagazine.com/deepfakes-and-intellectual-property-rights/.
3 .Stasa, B. (2023), The deepfake conundrum: Balancing
innovation, privacy, and intellectual property in the Digital age.
JD Supra. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-deepfake-conundrum-balancing-2505505/.
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Hollywood_labor_disputes
5. The Copyright Law of the US Title 17
§107.
6. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/10/30/executive-order-on-the-safe-secure-and-trustworthy-development-and-use-of-artificial-intelligence/
7. https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/
8. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/enacted
9. FACT SHEET: President Biden Issues Executive Order on
Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence | The White
House
10. EU AI Act: first regulation on artificial
intelligence | Topics | European Parliament (europa.eu)
11. New laws to better protect victims from abuse of
intimate images – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
1. Prof. Dr. Sabih ARKAN, Marka Hakkına Tecavüz
– İşaretin Markasal Olarak Kullanılması
Zorunluluğu,BATİDER, Yıl 2000, C XX, sayı 3, s.
459.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
#Quarterly #Newsletter #Issue #Trademark
