1 Ananya Shetty- 20010126816

INTERNAL ASSESSMENT – I
AI: LAW AND ETHICS

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Submitted to: Amol Sapatnekar

Submitted by: Ananya Shetty
Class: Fourth Year, Semester VII
Course: B.B.A. LLB. (Hons.) 2020-25
Division: B
PRN: 20010126816

1|Page
AI: LAW AND ETHICS
2 Ananya Shetty- 20010126816

Table of Contents
RESEARCH QUESTION ...................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ......................................................................................................... 3

Critical Analysis .................................................................................................. 3

The Data Protection Bill and AI ............................................................................................ 4

CONFLICT BETWEEN CONSENT AND AI...................................................................... 5

Legal Perspective ................................................................................................................... 6

Conclusion............................................................................................................ 8
RESEARCH QUESTION ...................................................................................................... 9

Introduction ......................................................................................................... 9

Critical Analysis ................................................................................................ 10

Contrasting viewpoints ........................................................................................................ 10

Deciphering the Puzzle of AI-Generated Work Ownership ................................................ 11

Legal Perspective ................................................................................................................. 12

Global Perspective And Indian Perspective ........................................................................ 13

Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 14

Bibliography ...................................................................................................... 15

2|Page
AI: LAW AND ETHICS
3 Ananya Shetty- 20010126816

RESEARCH QUESTION
“Discuss legal liability of AI in data protection, data privacy?"

INTRODUCTION

The intriguing technology known as artificial intelligence, or AI, uses data to carry out a variety
of functions. Consider AI systems similar to those employed by big businesses, which have
enormous data storage capacities and hold millions of users' and customers' personal
information, because this information directly affects our fundamental right to privacy, it must
be protected. Justice S.K. Kaul1 correctly noted that personal liberty and self-determination are
essential components of democracy. This includes being able to safeguard our dignity and
maintain control over our personal data2. Although the 'right to privacy' is not mentioned as a
fundamental right in the Indian Constitution, it is an intrinsic part of our Article 21 right to life
and personal liberty, according to a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court in 20173. The
government and industry in India have made a concerted effort to prioritise the advancement
and adoption of AI technology, motivated by its potential to improve quality of life. This dual
approach, however, creates a paradox. While there is a clear push towards widespread AI
development and implementation, there is also a growing awareness of the societal and ethical
implications of such rapid progress. The forthcoming Digital Personal Data Protection Bill
in India could be the latest clash between AI technology and privacy concerns. While the
bill does not specifically mention AI, its numerous provisions have significant
implications for AI's role in processing personal data. In essence, it is a direct challenge
to the use of personal data made viable by AI technology4.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

1
Justice K.S Puttaswamy V. Union of India, [Writ Petition (civil) No. 494 of 2012 vide order and judgement
dated 24 August 2017].
2
M.P. Sharma and Others V. Satish Chandra, 1954 AIR 300, 1954 SCR 1077.
3
Kharak Singh V. The State of Uttar Pradesh, 1963 AIR 1295, 1964 SCR (1) 332.
4
Victor M. Palace, What If Artificial Intelligence Wrote This: Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Law, 71 FLA.
L. REV. 217 (2019).

3|Page
AI: LAW AND ETHICS
4 Ananya Shetty- 20010126816

THE DATA PROTECTION BILL AND AI

In India, the proposed Digital Personal Data Protection Bill raises some intriguing questions
about consent and the processing of personal data for AI. In contrast to other countries where
data protection laws provide multiple legal bases for data processing, this bill is primarily based
on individual consent5. It does, however, introduce the concept of "deemed consent" in cases
where consent is deemed necessary. Compliance with legal orders, employment purposes,
public interest, and other "fair and reasonable" uses are examples of these. Surprisingly, none
of these scenarios explicitly mention AI processing by businesses for revenue generation6.
The term "public interest" is mentioned as a legal basis for certain situations, such as fraud
prevention, but it's unclear how it applies to business AI processing. The bill's requirements for
"fair and reasonable" purposes appear difficult to meet as well, requiring a careful balance of
legitimate interests, public interest, and individual expectations7. Furthermore, there are two
different definitions of "public interest" in the bill, making it even more complicated. In
practise, it appears that public authorities, rather than private businesses, may find it
easier to use this definition. Given the bill's stringent requirements, businesses must
consider whether they can rely on express consent as a legal basis for AI-related data
processing.

5
Yashraj Bais, Privacy and Data Protection in India: An Analysis, 4 INT'l J.L. MGMT. & HUMAN. 1793 (2021).
6
Adarsh Verma & Mansiz Sharma, Issues Pertaining to the Data Protection and Privacy Laws in India, 4 INDIAN
J.L. & LEGAL Rsch. 1 (2022).
7
D. Majumdar & H. K. Chattopadhyay, Emergence of AI and Its Implication towards Data Privacy: From Indian
Legal Perspective, 3 INT'l J.L. MGMT. & HUMAN. 1 (2020).

4|Page
AI: LAW AND ETHICS
5 Ananya Shetty- 20010126816

CONFLICT BETWEEN CONSENT AND AI

The Digital Personal Data Protection Bill establishes stringent consent requirements, including
that it be freely given, specific, and informed. These criteria, however, pose difficulties in the
context of AI applications, particularly when there is no direct interaction with data subjects.
For example, cloud service providers hosting data or websites such as SaaS, Cloud where
individuals submit personal information may find obtaining consent from each individual
impractical8. Even in cases where there is a direct relationship, obtaining precise consent for
complex AI operations can be extremely difficult, especially given the rapidly changing
technological landscape9.
Furthermore, the bill allows users to withdraw their consent, which adds another layer
of complication for organisations. When consent is withdrawn, data processing must stop
unless another compelling legal basis, such as a company's legitimate interest, can be
established10. The bill does include the concept of "deemed consent," which is a gentler
alternative to explicit consent intended for specific situations such as fair and reasonable
purposes.
In essence, consent alone may not be sufficient for AI applications to be supported under this
bill unless there is another compelling legal reason for data processing, such as a business's
legitimate interests or the concept of deemed consent11.

8
Mayuri Taware, Obligations of Data Fiduciary and Protection of Data: An Analysis, 5 INDIAN J.L. & LEGAL
Rsch. 1 (2023).
9
Abhijit Rohi, Intellectual Property Rights and Informational Privacy Rights: Conceptualising the Intersection
for the Data Protection Regulator in India, 11 Christ U. L.J. 1 (2022).
10
Sadaf Fahim & G. S. Bajpai, AI and Criminal Liability, 1 INDIAN J. ARTIFICIAL INTEL. & L 64 (2020).
11
Mireille Hildebrandt, Discrimination, Data-driven AI Systems and Practical Reason, 7 EUR. DATA PROT. L.
REV. 358 (2021).

5|Page
AI: LAW AND ETHICS
6 Ananya Shetty- 20010126816

LEGAL PERSPECTIVE
Despite the difficulties in obtaining consent, businesses may believe they can meet the criteria
for deemed consent required by the bill for AI-based data processing. AI-powered businesses,
on the other hand, may face significant challenges12. Many AI systems that rely on personal
data perform tasks such as statistical analysis, inference, or user profiling, which results in the
generation and processing of new personal data.
Unfortunately, the bill does not appear to permit these practises for two main reasons. To begin,
Section 18(2)(b)13 allows the government to decide whether to exempt processing for research,
archival, or statistical purposes. This is in contrast to privacy laws in other regions, where such
processing is permitted if certain conditions are met. In such cases, no additional legal basis is
required beyond the one that originally permitted data collection and use14. Businesses may not
be able to process personal data for AI research or statistical purposes under this bill unless the
government grants permission. Second, Section 18(2)(b)15 expressly states that the government
may grant an exemption if personal data is not used for specific user profiling decisions. This
has major implications for AI-based industries, as many Indian businesses rely on AI
applications that involve profiling, which the bill generally prohibits without exceptions.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The task force has issued a comprehensive set of recommendations aimed at accelerating the
development and use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in India. These recommendations centre on
the formation of a 'Inter Ministerial National Artificial Intelligence Mission' 16with a five-
year operational timeline and a budget of approximately 1200 crores (INR). This mission is
intended to serve as the country's central coordinating authority for all AI-related technological
activities.

12
Raghunath Ananthapur, India's New Data Protection Legislation, 8 SCRIPTed 192 (2011).
13
The Data protection bill, 2022, No. 18 (2) (b).
14
Ashish Chaturvedi, Defining Legal Responsibility in the Age of AI: Addressing Gaps in Data Privacy
Regulation, 3 INDIAN J. INTEGRATED Rsch. L. 1 (2023).
15
The Data protection bill, 2022, No. 18 (2) (b).
16
A. Amarendar Reddy, Legal Implications in Artificial Intelligence, 5 INT'l J.L. MGMT. & HUMAN. 1766
(2022).

6|Page
AI: LAW AND ETHICS
7 Ananya Shetty- 20010126816

The mission's multifaceted agenda is built on three main pillars:

• Promoting Academic and Industry Collaboration: Fostering collaboration between

academic and industry stakeholders is one of the primary goals. This initiative seeks to
establish a centralised repository for AI-related research while also providing critical
funding to support national-level AI studies17. Furthermore, it aims to raise societal
awareness of the utility and significance of AI technology.
• Improving Inter-Ministerial Coordination: The mission has been tasked with establishing
seamless coordination among various government ministries in order to facilitate the
widespread integration of AI systems across various sectors in India. This collaborative
approach aims to maximise the impact of artificial intelligence technology.
• Establishing Centres of Excellence: The mission will establish Centres of Excellence to
advance AI research capabilities and ensure standardised testing procedures for evaluating
AI performance. Furthermore, funds will be set aside for the development of self-driving
AI systems that will disseminate valuable information to the public, enriching their lives
through AI-driven insights.

The task force also emphasises the critical importance of data management and
standardisation in the AI ecosystem. To address this, the following suggestions have been
made:
• Digital Data Banks: It is proposed that digital data banks be established to facilitate the
collection of cross-industry data, allowing AI applications to leverage a larger dataset for
more accurate and effective decision-making.

17
Lawrence B. Solum, Legal Personhood for Artificial Intelligences, 70 N.C. L. REV. 1231 (1992).

7|Page
AI: LAW AND ETHICS
8 Ananya Shetty- 20010126816

• Data Ombudsman: A dedicated data ombudsman will be appointed within the Ministry of
Commerce and Industry to handle data-related issues relating to AI, ensuring ethical and
responsible data practises.
• Involvement of the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS)18: The Bureau of Indian Standards
(BIS) will actively participate in the implementation of international norms and standards
pertaining to AI systems, aligning Indian AI practises with globally accepted benchmarks.

CONCLUSION

In my opinion, the Data Protection Bill is necessary to prevent unethical data use, allowing us
to build responsible AI solutions that are diverse, inclusive, fair, ethical, trustworthy, and
governed. Such regulations will not slow the pace of AI adoption; rather, they will encourage
the continued use of technology and a human-centric approach. When we consider how deeply
AI technology has become ingrained in our daily lives, with nearly a billion smartphone users
in India, it is difficult to imagine what the compounding effect of data misuse could look like.
The responsible nature of AI technology begins with when data is collected, how it is accessed,
the purposes for which it is used, and the impact of those decision-making systems on various
groups of society. Once the bill is passed, organisations that use users' personal data
would be required to transform their data stack and pipeline to accommodate the policies
of consent-based data collection and data erasure. Organisations would then require the
right people who are subject matter experts in social science, data governance, and policy
development to redirect the organization's data strategy. Overall, the Data Protection
Bill is the much-needed regulation for organisations that use user data to build AI
assistants, decision-making systems, and personalization models to begin working
properly.

18
Nizan Geslevich Packin, Disability Discrimination Using Artificial Intelligence Systems and Social Scoring:
Can We Disable Digital Bias?, 8 J. INT'l & COMP. L. 487 (2021).

8|Page
AI: LAW AND ETHICS
9 Ananya Shetty- 20010126816

RESEARCH QUESTION

"Discuss the ownership of AI in patents and copyrights?"

INTRODUCTION

Enthralled with AI, enthusiasts are really stretching the boundaries of existing intellectual
property laws. Artificial intelligence technologies like DALL-E 2 and ChatGPT have amazed
us all with some really amazing artwork and content. The exciting thing is that these machine-
generated innovations and creations will only become more inventive in the future. According
to IP's Patent Strategy Survey, which was conducted in February 2019, 44% of in-house
patent lawyers working in ventures have recently documented an AI-related patent
application, and a further 25% intend to do so over the next five years19.

19
Prateek Joinwal, Patenting AI and Disruptive Technologies: Can the Law of Patents Keep up with the Perpetual
Advances in Technological Innovation?, 1 INDIAN J. ARTIFICIAL INTEL. & L 50 (2021).

9|Page
AI: LAW AND ETHICS
10 Ananya Shetty- 20010126816

ChatGPT, the OpenAI-created chatbot uses complex algorithms and data inputs to produce
responses. From the moment ChatGPT entered the market, the topic of copyright protection
for AI-generated content has been widely discussed.
The catch is that, according to copyright laws, a work must have been created by humans or
involve a significant amount of human interaction in order to be protected. And this presents a
problem for globally distributed AI-generated art. However, there are plans to alter things in
India. In their Report No. 161, "Review of the Intellectual Property Rights Regime in India,"
the Parliamentary Standing Committee recommended that the Copyright Act of 1957 be
updated to allow AI-generated works to be included in the copyright protection club20.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

CONTRASTING VIEWPOINTS
Two opposing points of view about AI-generated art emerge. From one angle, these creations
are merely the products of algorithms that adhere to preset guidelines; little to no human
creativity is involved. It basically makes the case that artificial intelligence (AI)-generated art
is devoid of the true "creative" elements of human artistic expression, such as sentimental,
arbitrary, or artistic choices21.

20
https://prsindia.org/policy/report-summaries/review-of-the-intellectual-property-rights-regime.
21
Bansal, A. PUBLIC INTEREST IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS. Journal of the Indian Law Institute,
55(4), 476–503, (2013).

10 | P a g e
AI: LAW AND ETHICS
11 Ananya Shetty- 20010126816

However, an alternative perspective recognises the role that human creativity plays in the
production of AI-generated art. This viewpoint acknowledges that although AI algorithms
generate the works themselves, the people who created and trained the algorithms are
primarily responsible for establishing the norms and regulations governing the creative
process. Though they don't directly create each one of the original works, humans'
creativity is still evident in the AI system's design and development22.
Some contend that the selection, curation, and interpretation of AI-generated works also
involves human creativity. The need for humans in the creative industries to evaluate and
analyse AI-generated works, choose the most interesting and valuable ones, and give them
context and meaning is growing as these works become more commonplace. This calls for a
different kind of creativity that is centred on comprehending and valuing the unique
characteristics and possibilities of AI-generated works of art.

DECIPHERING THE PUZZLE OF AI-GENERATED WORK OWNERSHIP

The issue of determining rightful ownership for AI-generated works is truly a fascinating and
complex puzzle that's sparking intense debates. In the world of copyright, the usual rule is that
the creator takes the ownership prize, but things get considerably murkier when artificial
intelligence is in the picture23. On one side of the argument, there's the idea that the big brains
behind the AI system or those who crafted its clever algorithms should be the rightful owners
of the copyright, even if they weren't hands-on in crafting the actual work. On the other side,
there's the intriguing notion that the copyright should belong to the person who provided the
initial data or inputs to the AI system, essentially igniting the creative process24. What's more,
some forward-thinking individuals suggest that AI-generated works should be seen as a
collaborative effort between humans and machines, with both parties deserving a slice of the
copyright pie25. To navigate this intricate landscape, some legal systems are working on
tailored rules for AI-generated creations, such as the European Union's Copyright
Directive, which spells out who should rightfully own the copyright. As AI technology
continues to evolve and play a larger role in the creative world, it's likely that we'll see

22
Abhimanyu Bhargava, Copyright Law and Artificial Intelligence Generated Works: Ownership and Liability,
5 INDIAN J.L. & LEGAL Rsch. 1 (2023).
23
Aakanksha Bhatia, AI and Copyright, 2 Jus Corpus L.J. 747 (2022).
24
Vaishali Singh, AI and Copyright: In the Direction of an Articulated Public Province, 3 INDIAN J.L. & LEGAL
Rsch. 1 (2021).
25
Devank Kumar Singh, IP Laws, Innovation and the AI Based Patents: US and EU, 4 INT'l J.L. MGMT. &
HUMAN. 5784 (2021).

11 | P a g e
AI: LAW AND ETHICS
12 Ananya Shetty- 20010126816

innovative laws and ethical guidelines emerge to address this ever-evolving question of
ownership.

LEGAL PERSPECTIVE
Judge Smith decided in Thaler v. The Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade
Marks (DABUS)26 that an AI system's owner could be able to legitimately claim patent
ownership for an invention generated by the AI system because they are the ones in charge of
and possess the AI system. This "AI-owner" strategy offers a fresh method for figuring out
who owns the intellectual property created by AI. Although the main concerns raised by this
court ruling in patent law were inventorship and ownership, copyright law is also greatly
affected by it.
The Delhi High Court examined whether AI-generated creations could be copyrighted in Ferid
Allani v. Union of India27. The court's unanimous ruling confirmed that AI-generated works
could claim copyright if they met the Copyright Act of 1957's strict originality and authorship
requirements. The court ruled that the programmer or user commanding the AI system should
claim authorship for AI-generated works.
The case of South Asia FM Limited v. Union of India28 changed the legal landscape. The
Delhi High Court considered whether an AI-composed song could be considered original under
the Copyright Act. Due to its lack of creativity, the court ruled that the AI-generated song could
not be copyrighted. To qualify for copyright, a work must show human creativity and ingenuity,
according to the court.
The Delhi High Court upheld AI-generated inventions' patentability if they met the Patents
Act's novelty, non-obviousness, and industrial applicability requirements in Gaurav Bhatia v.
Union of India29.
In contrast, In Nippon Steel Corporation v. Union of India30, the Bombay High Court ruled
that computer programmes that generate inventions or discoveries could not be patented
because they cannot be conceived by a human mind.

26
Thaler v. The Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2021] EWCA Civ 137.
27
Ferid Allani v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11867.
28
South Asia FM Limited v. Union of India, MANU/TN/5992/2018.

29
Gaurav Bhatia v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 8.

30
Nippon Steel Corporation v. Union of India ,2005 SCC OnLine Bom 1402.

12 | P a g e
AI: LAW AND ETHICS
13 Ananya Shetty- 20010126816

A drug discovery algorithm patent application complicated matters for the Indian Patent Office
in In Re: Sugen Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. It was rejected because Section 3(k) of the Patents Act
did not allow patents for computer programmes.
In Blue Gentian LLC v. Tristar Products (UK) Ltd31, the invention involved an expandable
garden hose, similar to an aircraft oxygen hose, for non-obviousness. The court ruled that a
garden hose planner used the aeroplane hose reference while brainstorming. The court stated
that the puzzle involved an aircraft and its remote location, not a garden water hose.

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE AND INDIAN PERSPECTIVE

Copyright and AI-generated works are global issues that are being addressed from a variety of
international perspectives. International treaties such as the Berne Convention and the World
Intellectual Property Organisation Copyright Treaty establish minimum standards for
copyright protection, but they do not explicitly address AI-generated works. Several countries,
including the European Union and the United States, have taken concrete steps to address these
concerns.32 For example, the European Commission has issued guidelines for dealing with
AI-generated works in the digital market, and the United States Copyright Office has
issued a report with recommendations for dealing with ownership and liability concerns
related to AI-generated works.
On the first criterion, Indian courts have remained silent on the legal position regarding
ownership of AI generated content, and this complex legal issue has yet to be tested in court.
However, one case drew widespread attention and provided a ray of hope to those seeking to
become AI registrants. Ankit Sahani, the owner of Raghav, an AI-based Painting App, filed
two copyright applications for Suryast, an AI-generated artwork.33 Raghav filed the first
copyright registration application, which was completely rejected by the copyright registry.
The other registration application was filed in Mr. Sahani's name, with Raghav as a co-author.
While the second Suryast application was registered, the Copyright Office later filed objections
and sought cancellation of the registration. Because the work is part of a parallel proceeding in
the United States, the Copyright Office's objections and responses to those objections are kept

31
Blue Gentian LLC v Tristar Products (UK) Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 746 (22 July 2015)
32
Abhimanyu Bhargava, Copyright Law and Artificial Intelligence Generated Works: Ownership and Liability,
5 INDIAN J.L. & LEGAL Rsch. 1 (2023).
33
Emerging legal issues in an AI-Driven World (no date) Gowling WLG. Available at:
https://gowlingwlg.com/en/insights-resources/articles/2019/emerging-legal-issues-in-an-ai-driven-world/
(Accessed: 23 September 2023).

13 | P a g e
AI: LAW AND ETHICS
14 Ananya Shetty- 20010126816

confidential. Such objections were most likely raised because Indian copyright law only
recognises humans as being capable of being authors of works.

CONCLUSION

In my opinion, the intricate web of inventorship and ownership in AI-generated inventions and
creations extends beyond patents and has a significant impact on the domain of copyright.
While complicated, this multifaceted issue provides opportunities to shape the future of
intellectual property law in the digital age. Extending copyright protection to AI-generated
works, similar to our suggestion for patents, can help prevent the concealment of AI
involvement and maintain the system's integrity. Ensuring that AI-generated works are
recognised under copyright law provides a transparent and equitable framework for both
creators and users.

An alternative approach could be to implement AI-based verification systems for copyright

claims. These systems could analyse the creative process, identify AI contributions, and
facilitate human scrutiny to validate copyright ownership. The challenge here, as with patents,
is in efficiently managing the associated data.

To begin, current laws on patent-qualified subject matter should be thoroughly examined

to determine whether they are detrimental34 to Al or AI-driven inventions. Assuming this
is the case, the legislation should look for potential changes in accordance with the
standard that can more easily accomplish the primary goals of the patent law, such as
advancing inventions, disseminating valuable data, and increasing interest in supportive
inventions. Future profits are calculated by weighing the potential negative social and
moral consequences of those changes. The legislature should also consider other
accessible systems for inventions and securing All inventions (for example, trademark or
copyright laws) to help evaluate whether any of the patent law's subject matter
qualification can be improved through alternative methods.

Furthermore, the duration of copyright protection for AI-generated works is critical. Given the
rapid evolution of digital content and the potential saturation of creative markets, shorter

34
Ben Hattenbach & Joshua Glucoft, Patents in An Era of Infinite Monkeys and Artificial Intelligence, 19 Stan.
TECH. L. REV. 32 (2015).

14 | P a g e
AI: LAW AND ETHICS
15 Ananya Shetty- 20010126816

copyright terms may be appropriate for these works. This approach encourages innovation
while avoiding the stagnation that can sometimes result from prolonged copyright protection.

In summary, the issues of inventorship and ownership in AI-generated inventions and creations
have far-reaching implications for both patent and copyright law.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Chandan Kamra, A Study on Whether Artificial Intelligence Is Capable of Possessing

Copyrights and Patents, 3 INDIAN J.L. & LEGAL Rsch. 1 (2021).
• Rajat Rashmi & Shilpi Sneha, Artificial Intelligence: IPR, Liability and Ethical Issues, 11
INT'l. IN-House Counsel J. 1 (2018).
• Haochen Sun, Artificial Intelligence Inventions, 50 FLA. St. U. L. REV. 61 (2022).
• Vempati, S. S. (2016). INDIA AND THE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
REVOLUTION. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep12855.

15 | P a g e
AI: LAW AND ETHICS
16 Ananya Shetty- 20010126816

• K. Mahesh, Shaping IPR Legality of Artificial Intelligence in India, 1 LAW Essentials J.

22 (2021).
• Chandan Kamra, A Study on Whether Artificial Intelligence Is Capable of Possessing
Copyrights and Patents, 3 INDIAN J.L. & LEGAL Rsch. 1 (2021).
• Mihail Caradaica, Artificial Intelligence and Inequality in European Union, 14
EUROPOLITY: CONTINUITY & CHANGE EUR. GOVERNANCE 5 (2020).
• Shubhi Trivedi, Implications of Artificial Intelligence on Copyright and Patent, 1
LEXFORTI LEGAL J. 48 (2019).

16 | P a g e
AI: LAW AND ETHICS