YAYICI & YAYINCI DİLEMMASI: YAPAY ZEKANIN OLUŞTURDUĞU HABERİN TELİFİ

Öz

Basın yayıncılarının ilk çıkan gazeteden beri hukuki koruma talepleri karşılıksız kalmıştır. Haberin dijital mecralara geçmeye başlaması ile bu talepler artmıştır. Zira artık internetin kapı bekçisi durumundaki Google ve Facebook(META) gibi küresel şirketler internette haberin yayıcısı konumuna gelmişlerdir. Geldikleri bu konum itibariyle tiraj ve reklam geliri anlamında kan kaybeden basın yayıncıları, yapmış oldukları yatırımların korunması için yayınları üzerinde talep ettikleri hukuki koruma konusu yeniden gündeme gelmiştir. Ancak tarihten bu tarafa haberin telifi ilk defa karşılıksız kalmayarak Avrupa Birliği tarafından bir yönerge ile hukuki kapsam içine alındı. Artık basın yatırımcısının da bağlantılı hak sahibi olarak değerlendirildiği günümüzde yapay zekanın konumu bir kez daha soru işaretleri doğurmaya başlamıştır. Çünkü hem basın yayıncılarının haber metni oluşturmalarında hem de dijital haber yayıcılarının haber derlemelerinde ve snippet oluşturmasında yapay zeka kullanılmaktadır. Yapay zekanın ürettiği haberin ya da kategorize ederek tüketiciye sunduğu haber metinlerinden doğan hakların kim tarafından kullanılacağı konusunda dünyadaki yasalar, yargı kararları ve doktrin araştırılarak karşılaşılan hukuki sorunlara uygun çözüm yollarının araştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Basın yatırımcısına getirilen bağlantılı hakların yapay zekanın ürettiği haber metinlerini hangi şekillerde etkileyeceği ve bunlardan doğan hakların kim tarafından kullanılacağı da makalemizin konusunu oluşturmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• telif
• fikri mülkiyet
• haber
• servis sağlayıcı
• yayıcı
• yayıncı
• google news
• snippet
• hiperlink

DISSEMINATORS & BROADCASTERS DILEMMA: COPYRIGHT OF NEWS AS PRODUCTION OF ARTICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Abstract

Press publishers' requests for legal protection have remained unanswered since the first newspaper was published. These demands have increased as news started to move to digital channels. Because global companies such as Google and Facebook (META), which are now the gatekeepers of the internet, have become the disseminators of news on the internet. The issue of legal protection requested by press publishers, who have lost blood in terms of circulation and advertising income due to their current position, for their publications in order to protect the investments they have made, has come to the fore again. However, for the first time in history, the copyright of the news did not remain unrequited and was included within the legal scope with a directive by the European Union. Nowadays, when press investors are also considered as related rights holders, the position of artificial intelligence has once again begun to raise question marks. Because artificial intelligence is used both in press publishers' creation of news text and in digital news publishers' news compilation and snippet creation. It is aimed to investigate appropriate solutions to the legal problems encountered by researching the laws, judicial decisions and doctrine in the world about who will exercise the rights arising from the news produced by artificial intelligence or the news texts it categorizes and presents to the consumer. The subject of our article is how the related rights brought to the press investor will affect the news texts produced by artificial intelligence and who will use the rights arising from these.

Keywords

• copyright
• intellectual property
• news
• service providers
• disseminator
• broadcaster
• google news
• snippet
• hyperlink

References

1. ABD Telif Hakkı Bürosu. “Compendium II of Copyright Office Practices.” Erişim tarihi Nisan 09, 2023. https://www.copyright.gov/history/comp/compendium-two.pdf.
2. Ali Haydar Efendi. Dürer’ül-Hükkâm Şerhu Mecelleti’l-Ahkâm. İstanbul: Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı, 2016. Asaro, Peter. “Robots and Responsibility from a Legal Perspective.” IEEE 4, no. 14 (2007): 1-5, http://www.roboethics.org/icra2007/contributions/ASARO%20Legal%20Pe rspective.pdf.
3. Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı 4.D. Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening, E. Case C-5/08.16. 07.2009. (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62008CJ0005).
4. Axelspringer. “International Publishers Sign ‘Hamburg Declaration to Protect Intellectual Property Rights’.” Erişim tarihi Nisan 07, 2023. https://www.axelspringer.com/en/ax-press-release/international-publishers-sign-hamburg-declaration-to-protect-intellectual-property-rights.
5. Beijing Internet Court. Feilin v Baidu. E. Jing 0491 Min Chu No. 239, 25.04.2019. https://english.bjinternetcourt.gov.cn/2019-05/28/c_168.htm.
6. Belada, Nurullah Enes Süheyl. “Yapay Zekânin Meydana Getirdiği Ürünlerde Eser Sahipliği.” Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. İstanbul: İstanbul Medeniyet Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, 2022.
7. Belçika Fikri Mülkiyet Konsili. “Belge Avis Du Conseil De La Propriété Intellectuelle Du 19 Juin 2020.” Erişim tarihi Nisan 09, 2023. https://economie.fgov.be/sites/default/files/ Files/Intellectual-property/Avis%20Conseils%20Propri%C3%A9t%C3% A9%20intellectuelle/Avis-CPI-19062020.pdf.
8. Bryson, Joanna. “Robots Should Be Slaves.” İç. Close Engagements With Artificial Companions: Key Social, Psychological, Ethical And Design Issues, ed. Yorick Wilks, 63-74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2010.

9. CCIA. White Paper: Understanding ‘Ancillary Copyright in the Global Intellectual Property Environment. Washington: CCIA, 1972. http://www.ccianet.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/CCIA-Understanding-AncillaryCopyright.pdf.
10. Delvaux, Mady. Report with Recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics. Strazburg: European Parliement, 2017. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0005_EN.pdf.
11. Dremliuga, Roman, Pavel Kuznetcov ve Alexey Mamychev. “Criteria for Recognition of AI as a Legal Person.” Journal of Politics and Law 12 (2019): 105-112.
12. EUR-Lex. “Digital Single Market Directive (EU) 2019/790.” Erişim tarihi Mart 07, 2023. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019L0790.
13. EUR-Lex. “Dijital Tek Pazarda Telif Hakları ve Bağlantılı Haklar.” Erişim tarihi Mayıs 17 2024, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52016PC0593.
14. EUR-Lex. “Dijital Tek Pazarda Telif Hakları.” Erişim tarihi Nisan 08, 2023. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019L0790.
15. European Publishers Council. Hamburg Declaration Regarding Intellectual Property Rights. Berlin: EPC, 2009. https://www.fieg.it/upload/documenti_allegati/Hamburg_Declaration.pdf.
16. Federal Court of Australia. Thaler v Commissioner of Patents. E. FCA 879, 30.07.2021. https://haugpartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Australia-Thaler-v-Commissioner-2021-FCA-879.pdf.
17. Furgal, Ula. “The Emperor Has No Clothes: How the Press Publishers’ Right Implementation Exposes Its Shortcomings.” GRUR International 72, no. 7 (2023): 650-664. https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikad025.
18. Furgal, Ula. “The Eu Press Publishers’ Right: Where Do Member States Stand?” Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 16, no. 8 (2021): 887-93. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpab105.
19. Geiger, Christophe, Oleksandr Bulayenko ve Giancarlo Frosio. “Opinion of the CEIPI on the European Commission’s Copyright Reform Proposal, with a Focus on the Introduction of Neighbouring Rights for Press Publishers in EU Law.” SSRN (2016). https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2921334.
20. Güz, Nurettin. “Gazeteler ve Yazılı Basın Tarihi.” İç. İletişim Tarihi ve Sosyolojisi, 1-25. Erzurum: Atatürk Üniversitesi AÖF, 2012.
21. Hubbard, F. Patrick. “Do Androids Dream?’: Personhood and Intelligent Artifacts.” Erişim tarihi Mayıs 17, 2024. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1725983.
22. Hugenholtz, P. Bernt. “Neighbouring Rights Are Obsolete.” IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 50, no. 8 (2019): 1006-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-019-00864-3.
23. İbn Haldun. Mukaddime. İstanbul: İlgi Kültür Sanat Yayınları, 2015.
24. Lee, Ju Yoen. “Can an Artificial Intelligence Chatbot Be the Author of a Scholarly Article?.” Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions 20 (2023): 1-6, https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2023.20.6.
25. Matulionyte, Rita ve Jyh-An Lee. “Copyright in Ai-Generated Works: Lessons from Recent Developments in Patent Law.” SCRIPTed: A Journal of Law, Technology and Society 19 (2022): 5-35.
26. Nederland Hoge Raad. Arka Koltuk Davası. E. ECLI:NL:PHR:2008:BC2153, 30.05.2008. https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:HR:2008:BC2153.
27. News Corp. “News Corp and Google Agree To Global Partnership On News.” Erişim tarihi Şubat 17, 2021. https://newscorp.com/2021/02/17/news-corp-and-google-agree-to-global-partnership-on-news/.
28. NTV. “İki Devlik Tekel Sona Eriyor: Google Ve Meta Internet Reklam Pazarının Yarısını Daha Azını Kontrol Ediyor.” Erişim tarihi Nisan 07, 2023. https://www.ntv.com.tr/teknoloji/iki-devlik-tekel-sona-eriyor-google-ve-meta-internet-reklam-pazarinin-yarisini-daha-azini-kontrol-ediyor,3NLx8RAL1kq9AazHso0UUA.
29. Ortutay, Barbara. “Facebook to Invest $300 Million in News, Focusing on Local.” AP NEWS. Erişim tarihi Ocak 15, 2019. https://apnews.com/article/----5a70617ac06b4b65ad32dc2e4d372eed.
30. Pagallo, Ugo. “Vital, Sophia, and Co.—the Quest for the Legal Personhood of Robots.” Information 9, no. 9 (2018): 230. https://doi.org/10.3390/info9090230??.
31. People’s Court of Nanshan District of Shenzhen. Tencent v. Shanghai Yingxun Technology Co. Ltd. E. Yue 0305 Min Chu No. 14010, 24.12.2019. https://www.chinajusticeobserver.com/law/x/2019-yue-0305-min-chu-14010.
32. Podszun, Rupprecht. “Searching the Future of Newspapers: With a Little Help from Google and IP Law?.” IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 44, no. 3 (2013): 259-62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-013-0037-2.
33. Rendas, Tito. “Does Size Matter? The Press Publishers’ Right and the Implementation of the ‘Very Short Extracts’ Limitation.” Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 17, no. 6 (2022): 473-74. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpac040??.
34. Senftleben, Martin ve Laurens Bujitelaar. “Robot Creativity: An Incentive-Based Neighboring Rights Approach.” SSRN (2020): 1-24.
35. Shakuntla, Sangam. “Legal Personality for Artificial Intelligence with Special Reference to Robot: A Critical Appraisal.” Indian Journal of Law and Human Behavior 6, no. 1 (2020): 15-22.
36. South Corean Copyright Act. S. 18547 (2021). https://www.copyright.or.kr/eng/laws-and-treaties/copyright-law/act.do.
37. Statista. “Global Search Engine Desktop Market Share 2023.” Erişim tarihi Nisan 07, 2023. https://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-share-of-search-engines/.
38. Suluk, Cahit. “Avrupa Birliği Hukukunda Basın Yayıncılarına Tanınan Bağlantılı Haklar.” İstanbul Medeniyet Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 7, no. 12 (2022): 169-227.
39. Suluk, Cahit. “Haber İçin Google’ın Telif Ödemesi.” Erişim tarihi Temmuz 26, 2022. https://fikrimulkiyet.com/haber-icin-googlein-telif-odemesi/.
40. Talke, Armin. “The “Ancillary Right” for Press Publishers: The Present German and Spanish Legislation and the Eu Proposal.” IFLA WLIC (2017): 1-6. http://library.ifla.org/1849/1/119%20talke%20en.pdf.
41. UKIPO (İngiliz Patent Ofisi): DABUS Kararı – E. GB1816909.4/GB1818161.0, BL O/741/19, 04.12.2019, https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-challenge-decisionresults/o74119.pdf.
42. Visa A.J., Kurki. A Theory of Legal Personhood. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.
43. Xalabarder, Raquel. “The Remunerated Statutory Limitation for News Aggregation and Search Engines Proposed by the Spanish Government - Its Compliance with International and EU Law.” SSRN (2014): 1-40. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2504596.