{"id":6997,"date":"2024-03-04T14:06:49","date_gmt":"2024-03-04T13:06:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.eteach-thueringen.de\/wp\/?page_id=6997"},"modified":"2024-04-04T19:04:27","modified_gmt":"2024-04-04T17:04:27","slug":"artificial-intelligence-legal-aspects","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.eteach-thueringen.de\/en\/kuenstliche-intelligenz-rechtliche-aspekte\/","title":{"rendered":"Artificial intelligence: legal aspects"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Artificial intelligence: Audit law aspects <\/h1>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

As the use of AI and AI tools is currently handled and interpreted differently at each university and no legally binding guidance is available, no binding recommendations can (yet) be made at this point.<\/p>

Larger universities in particular have issued recommendations within their sphere of influence. Individual legal opinions and guidelines from higher authorities such as the\u00a0University Forum on Digitization<\/a>, the Center for Higher Education Development or the German Society for Higher Education Didactics are available. However, there is not (yet) any uniformity or even a binding standard. The following explanations therefore represent an inventory that is constantly being reviewed and updated.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Authorship of AI content<\/h3>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The use of AI tools to create content of all kinds offers new opportunities for teachers and students at universities. From a copyright perspective, the use of AI tools primarily raises the question of authorship of the work if it was produced exclusively or partially using AI. The work as the subject of copyright protection is defined as a personal, intellectual creation of the author in accordance with Section 2 (2) UrhG. A creation is personal if it was created by a human being. The decisive factor for the creation of a protectable work by means of AI tools is therefore the predominance of the human contribution in the creation process.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Labeling of AI content<\/h3>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

There are no standardized solutions for the labeling of AI content in examinations (theses) and academic publications. Universities should develop and define an individual regulatory framework in accordance with their fundamental stance on the use of AI in order to create legal certainty for lecturers and students. For guidance on the correct citation of AI content, the Handout from the University of Basel<\/a> are recommended.<\/p>

Furthermore, additional labeling obligations may arise from the license and terms of use of the AI software used. By using the AI software, users undertake to comply with the license and terms of use and thus to implement the labeling requirements.\u00a0<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Compliance with the rules of good scientific practice<\/h3>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

If third-party content is used, it must be identified with the corresponding source and copyright. It must always be possible for third parties to identify the source. This also applies to content that has been developed in whole or in part using AI applications.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Adaptation of students' declarations of independence<\/h3>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The obligation to state the (permitted) aids used in examinations (final theses) for students is generally based on the students' declarations of independence. In order to maintain the principle of equal opportunities and to avoid attempts at cheating, it is recommended that these be extended to include the point \"Use of generative AI tools as permitted aids\". If AI-generated content is used, documentation of the AI tools used (list of AI tools; list of prompts) must also be submitted in addition to the declaration of independence. In addition, students' personal responsibility for the use of AI-generated content should be particularly emphasized and the consequences under examination law of unauthorized use should be pointed out.<\/p>

>>> Here you can find for example the Status of dealing with AI<\/a> and the\u00a0Declaration of independence
<\/a>\u00a0of the FSU Jena.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Clarification of university regulations and statutes<\/h3>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

The regulations on (un)permitted aids are mostly defined in the institutional framework examination regulations or, in particular, in the examination regulations of the degree programs. It is recommended that the examination regulations on generative AI as an aid in examinations be made more precise. This could take the form of a list of permissible and impermissible AI tools, for example. Furthermore, a labeling requirement for AI-generated content and other mandatory requirements, e.g. the specification of prompts (= input commands), can be defined for the case of use.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

Dealing with attempts to deceive in suspected cases<\/h3>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

If there is a suspicion of attempted cheating through the unauthorized use of generative AI tools as an aid, this must be reported to the examination board immediately. Attempted cheating is difficult to prove in practice. Even the use of technical solutions, such as the use of recognition software, does not currently guarantee reliable or sufficient evidence for the detection of attempted cheating. In cases of suspicion, prima facie evidence applies (= facts which, on the basis of general experience, only permit cheating), but this can be refuted by a counterstatement from the examinee. If there is no clear evidence of cheating, the examination must be assessed despite the suspicion.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

1) General legal aspects (framework conditions)<\/h4>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Note: Since the use of AI and AI tools is currently handled and interpreted differently at each university and no legally binding guidance is available, no binding recommendations can (yet) be made at this point.<\/em><\/p>

Larger universities in particular have issued recommendations within their sphere of influence (see, for example, various dossiers from the Hochschulforum Digitalisierung). Individual legal opinions (e.g. Ruhr University Bochum) and guidelines from higher-level bodies such as the aforementioned Hochschulforum Digitalisierung, the Centrum f\u00fcr Hochschulentwicklung or the Deutsche Gesellschaft f\u00fcr Hochschuldidaktik are also available. However, there is currently no uniformity or even binding nature (yet).<\/p>

The core fields concerned and their interpretations range between the following positions:<\/p>