Logiciels de traduction automatique: protection, responsabilité
The aim of this research is to take stock of the state of the Canadian law and its perspectives for the future in relationship with computer-generated work. The terminology tool chosen is the multilingual automatic translation software that, because of its complexity, drifts out of the most from "creative" programs. In fact, it is closer to creations that cannot be directly c1aimed for by linguists and programmers. These tools and their work will be, according to us, the next technological tool to confront the law. Indeed in a foreseeable future, considering technological evolution, these software will produce texts with an added market value and then some people will realize their "interests" not only on texts but also on technology. To achieve this, we will start by a historical return on the technology and its origins. After we will analyse the present protection accorded to software, data banks and translations they create. We will then determine who is responsible for the texts produced in relation with the original text and its resultant at the level of the copyright and that of the third party liability. This study will conclude that the present law is "unsuited" with respect to protection and responsibility. According to us, these conclusions will have to command a return to the fundamental principles of law. This legal fundamentalism will be the price we have to pay for legal sufficiency. Indeed, particularly regarding copyright, we will conclude that it needs to cease being a "rag-bag" for intellectual property law and it needs to become again what it should be : a right that protects creativity. This forward-Iooking approach will take its roots from the fact that we will be obligated to conclude that Canadian jurists have, from our perspective, incorrectly refused to send back to the patent world the methods and processes, new and inventive. As an effect, this has introduced useless problems that exacerbate uncertainty. Finally, our line of thought will direct us to the responsibility law where we will submit that the provider cannot actually be responsible for the text created because he does not participate directly to the choices and he does not go to the content. This is in summary the heart of our study that half-opens a Pandora's box.
Intelligence Artificial Bank Creation Intelligence Mechanical Originality Patent Program System