IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/32698.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Intellectual Property and Creative Machines

Author

Listed:
  • Gaétan de Rassenfosse
  • Adam B. Jaffe
  • Joel Waldfogel

Abstract

The arrival of creative machines—software capable of producing human-like creative content—has triggered a series of legal challenges about intellectual property. The outcome of these legal challenges will shape the future of the creative industry in ways that could enhance or jeopardize welfare. Policymakers are already tasked with creating regulations for a post-generative AI creative industry. Economics may offer valuable insights, and this paper is our attempt to contribute to the discussion. We identify the main economic issues and propose a framework and some tools for thinking about them.

Suggested Citation

  • Gaétan de Rassenfosse & Adam B. Jaffe & Joel Waldfogel, 2024. "Intellectual Property and Creative Machines," NBER Working Papers 32698, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:32698
    Note: PR
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w32698.pdf
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text is generally limited to series subscribers, however if the top level domain of the client browser is in a developing country or transition economy free access is provided. More information about subscriptions and free access is available at http://www.nber.org/wwphelp.html. Free access is also available to older working papers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicholas Bloom & Charles I. Jones & John Van Reenen & Michael Webb, 2020. "Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(4), pages 1104-1144, April.
    2. Silverberg, Gerald & Verspagen, Bart, 2007. "The size distribution of innovations revisited: An application of extreme value statistics to citation and value measures of patent significance," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 139(2), pages 318-339, August.
    3. Nicolas van Zeebroeck & Bruno Van Pottelsberghe & Dominique Guellec, 2008. "Patents and Academic Research: A State of the Art," Working Papers CEB 08-013.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    4. Pierre Azoulay & Joshua Krieger & Abhishek Nagaraj, 2024. "Old Moats for New Models: Openness, Control, and Competition in Generative AI," NBER Chapters, in: Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy and the Economy, volume 4, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Luis Aguiar & Joel Waldfogel, 2018. "Quality Predictability and the Welfare Benefits from New Products: Evidence from the Digitization of Recorded Music," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(2), pages 492-524.
    6. Erik Brynjolfsson & Danielle Li & Lindsey Raymond, 2023. "Generative AI at Work," Papers 2304.11771, arXiv.org.
    7. Ashish Arora & Andrea Fosfuri & Alfonso Gambardella, 2004. "Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262511819, December.
    8. Eric Budish & Benjamin N. Roin & Heidi Williams, 2016. "Patents and Research Investments: Assessing the Empirical Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(5), pages 183-187, May.
    9. Mansfield, Edwin & Schwartz, Mark & Wagner, Samuel, 1981. "Imitation Costs and Patents: An Empirical Study," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 91(364), pages 907-918, December.
    10. Liebowitz, S J, 1985. "Copying and Indirect Appropriability: Photocopying of Journals," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(5), pages 945-957, October.
    11. Gaétan de Rassenfosse & Adam B. Jaffe, 2018. "Are patent fees effective at weeding out low‐quality patents?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 134-148, March.
    12. Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2008. "The Impact of Uncertain Intellectual Property Rights on the Market for Ideas: Evidence from Patent Grant Delays," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 982-997, May.
    13. Abhishek Nagaraj & Imke Reimers, 2023. "Digitization and the Market for Physical Works: Evidence from the Google Books Project," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 428-458, November.
    14. Joshua S. Gans, 2024. "Copyright Policy Options for Generative Artificial Intelligence," NBER Working Papers 32106, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Christian Peukert & Florian Abeillon & Jérémie Haese & Franziska Kaiser & Alexander Staub, 2024. "Strategic Behavior and AI Training Data," CESifo Working Paper Series 11099, CESifo.
    16. Christian Peukert & Florian Abeillon & J'er'emie Haese & Franziska Kaiser & Alexander Staub, 2024. "Strategic Behavior and AI Training Data," Papers 2404.18445, arXiv.org.
    17. Luis Aguiar & Joel Waldfogel, 2021. "Platforms, Power, and Promotion: Evidence from Spotify Playlists," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(3), pages 653-691, September.
    18. Feng Shi & James Evans, 2023. "Surprising combinations of research contents and contexts are related to impact and emerge with scientific outsiders from distant disciplines," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, December.
    19. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Palangkaraya, Alfons & Webster, Elizabeth, 2016. "Why do patents facilitate trade in technology? Testing the disclosure and appropriation effects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1326-1336.
    20. Kenneth L. Sokoloff & Naomi R. Lamoreaux, 2001. "Market Trade in Patents and the Rise of a Class of Specialized Inventors in the 19th-Century United States," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 39-44, May.
    21. Amil Merchant & Simon Batzner & Samuel S. Schoenholz & Muratahan Aykol & Gowoon Cheon & Ekin Dogus Cubuk, 2023. "Scaling deep learning for materials discovery," Nature, Nature, vol. 624(7990), pages 80-85, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carlos J. Serrano & Rosemarie Ziedonis, 2018. "How Redeployable are Patent Assets? Evidence from Failed Startups," NBER Working Papers 24526, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Laurie Ciaramella & Catalina Martínez & Yann Ménière, 2017. "Tracking patent transfers in different European countries: methods and a first application to medical technologies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(2), pages 817-850, August.
    3. Pontus Braunerhjelm & Roger Svensson, 2010. "The inventor’s role: was Schumpeter right?," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 413-444, June.
    4. Aaron K. Chatterji & Kira R. Fabrizio, 2016. "Does the market for ideas influence the rate and direction of innovative activity? Evidence from the medical device industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(3), pages 447-465, March.
    5. Marco, Antonio De & Scellato, Giuseppe & Ughetto, Elisa & Caviggioli, Federico, 2017. "Global markets for technology: Evidence from patent transactions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1644-1654.
    6. Timo Fischer & Gaétan de Rassenfosse, 2011. "Debt Financing of High-growth Startups," DRUID Working Papers 11-04, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    7. Appio, Francesco Paolo & Baglieri, Daniela & Cesaroni, Fabrizio & Spicuzza, Lucia & Donato, Alessia, 2022. "Patent design strategies: Empirical evidence from European patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    8. Figueroa, Nicolás & Serrano, Carlos J., 2019. "Patent trading flows of small and large firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1601-1616.
    9. Ceccagnoli, Marco & Lee, You-Na & Walsh, John P., 2024. "Reaching beyond low-hanging fruit: Basic research and innovativeness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1).
    10. Baron, Justus, 2020. "Counting standard contributions to measure the value of patent portfolios - A tale of apples and oranges," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3).
    11. Marie-Laure Allain & Emeric Henry & Margaret Kyle, 2011. "Inefficiencies in technology transfer: theory and empirics," Working Papers hal-03473787, HAL.
    12. Carlos J. Serrano, 2010. "The dynamics of the transfer and renewal of patents," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 41(4), pages 686-708, December.
    13. Grimpe, Christoph & Sofka, Wolfgang, 2016. "Complementarities in the search for innovation—Managing markets and relationships," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 2036-2053.
    14. Christian Peukert & Florian Abeillon & Jérémie Haese & Franziska Kaiser & Alexander Staub, 2024. "Strategic Behavior and AI Training Data," CESifo Working Paper Series 11099, CESifo.
    15. Schwiebacher, Franz, 2013. "Does fragmented or heterogeneous IP ownership stifle investments in innovation?," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-096, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    16. Ashish Arora & Sharon Belenzon & Andrea Patacconi & Jungkyu Suh, 2020. "The Changing Structure of American Innovation: Some Cautionary Remarks for Economic Growth," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 20(1), pages 39-93.
    17. Darcy, Jacques & Krämer-Eis, Helmut & Guellec, Dominique & Debande, Olivier, 2009. "Financing technology transfer," EIB Papers 10/2009, European Investment Bank, Economics Department.
    18. Peters, Bettina & Marks, Hannes & Trunschke, Markus & Grimpe, Christoph & Sofka, Wolfgang & Czarnitzki, Dirk, 2023. "Schwerpunktstudie Technologiemärkte," Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem 9-2023, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin.
    19. Iain M. Cockburn & Megan J. MacGarvie & Elisabeth Müller, 2010. "Patent thickets, licensing and innovative performance," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(3), pages 899-925, June.
    20. Iain M. Cockburn & Megan J. MacGarvie, 2009. "Patents, Thickets and the Financing of Early‐Stage Firms: Evidence from the Software Industry," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(3), pages 729-773, September.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:32698. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.