Intellectual property rights are granted to a work that involves a creative and innovative process. The most important step in that work is the involvement of Human intelligence, which results in the development of a new or a better version of a work. The author or the owner of the work is granted ownership under the Intellectual Property Rights. Artificial intelligence finding its peak in the current era, and questions have been raised to the nations for the grant of ownership rights to the works created by an AI. Computer machines are known for creating inventive and artistic works by themselves without the involvement of the human author.[1] The development of artificial Intelligence poses significant advantages to society as a whole in generating new ideas through its creative or inventive works.[2] However, the legislative frameworks of most countries grant rights to works involving a human author. Any creations by a Non-human do not fall within the scope of the legal framework and fall in the public domain.[3] The object behind such IP frameworks is to provide incentives to the creators and also to promote inventions of new ideas in posing development in society. Granting ownership rights to such AI generated works creates confusion and challenges in the legal framework. This article will discuss the importance and challenges in granting such ownerships to AI generated works and will also suggest methods to recognize such works.
AI GENERATED WORKS:
Artificial Intelligence systems are those that replicate human intelligence and create works on their own.[4]AI provides similar responses as that of a man when similar inputs are provided to both.[5] A test named “Turing Test” was undergone by Sir Alan Turing and found that computer machines can synthesise human intelligence on inputs.[6] The AI generated works can be classified into two categories. Firstly of works generated by human input and then secondly of works created autonomously. The matter of issue discussed in this article are subject to the first category which involves work generated with human input. Autonomous works so far have not found a place in any legal frameworks of the nations. The Indian IPR framework does not provide ownership to Non-human works. The arguments of various propounders are to provide an ownership right to the person authorising input to the AI system in creation of the work.
AI GENERATED WORKS AND IPR FRAMEWORK:
In the Indian IPR framework, ownership rights are recognized for the works created by a Human author. All the terms like “Author”, “owner”, and “person” in the acts signify humans and not machines. This means that any work created by a non-human will fall into the public domain. It’s time to relook into the framework, redefine the term “author” to include works of an AI system and provide ownership rights to the owner of such system. Now, let us have a look at separate legal framework rights for such AI systems and how changes be brought.
1) AI AND COPYRIGHT PROTECTION:
Under the Copyright Act, of 1957, a work to subsist must be of in tangible form and not a mere idea.[7] One important condition to be looked after is that such work must be done by a human author. AI systems are capable of making literature, art, music and videos either by way of a person’s input or autonomously. But that doesn’t apply within the meaning of the term “author” defined in the act. The term Author imposes two specific conditions, one that the work must be original and the other is that it must be created by a human author.[8]As we can clearly note the term of copyright provides for the author’s lifespan and sixty years in addition.[9] Also, the right of the work is transmitted based on the will of the Author to any other legal person or his legal heirs.[10]This clarifies that the present Copyright framework only authorises humans as “authors”. Many scholars proposed the doctrine of “Made for Hire” to be used to grant copyright to the owner of the AI system.[11] This doctrine proposes to treat AI generated works in the context of an employer-employee relation, where the right of a work created by the employee in the course of employment belongs to the employer. AI generated works can be brought under the legal framework by reinterpreting the act with the “Made for Hire” doctrine.
2) AI AND PATENT PROTECTION:
The Patent Act, of 1970 grants patent rights to an inventor for his inventions. Under the act, Invention means any creation of a new product or process that involves a creative step and is capable of industrial application.[12]At this age of technology, any computer system or machine using AI can be trained to create an invention.[13]Unlike the Copyrights, the patent right does not apply to the person who uses an AI system to make an invention. Only the actual inventor, who invents the product can claim patent rights.[14] Even the applicability of the “Made for hire” doctrine seems impossible. Another challenge is that the act requires an inventor to be a human and not of any machine. The patent right cannot be passed or claimed by legal heirs other than the inventor himself. The object behind the grant of a patent is to encourage new inventions and development on one hand and use it as an incentive by the patentee. This very object is defeated if the patent right is granted to an AI system. Some legal scholars argue that granting such right to the owner of such AI system for its creation is used as an incentives to increase such technology in future.[15]
MADE FOR HIRE – FIRST OWNER OF COPYRIGHT:
One of the ways to extend the scope of IPR laws to include AI works is to reinterpret the Made for Hire doctrine used in the U.S legislations.[16] The doctrine provides the employer the right to own the work done by the employee during employment. In the context of this article, let the developer of the AI system be the employer and the AI system be the employee making creations. In this way, AI generated works be included under the IPR framework. Getting into the Indian context, the Copyright Act, of 1957 enshrines such rights to be owned by the first owner of the work.[17] The author who is employed in a work to create a literary work, art, music or cinematographic film, the proprietor who employed the author is the first owner of the copyright.[18] Unless an agreement already exists between them, the employer is the one who owns the right to the work. Therefore, the act can be reinterpreted, to include works of computer systems (AI) and grant the ownership to the owner or developer of the system.[19]
OWNERSHIP DEBATE: DEVELOPER, OWNER OR USER?
If ownership rights are granted to an AI generated work, then an important question of challenge is being raised. On whom the authorship lies? The developer, the owner or the end user.[20] The developer of the AI system is the one who creates source code and trains it to use intelligence to create works. On the other hand, Companies or large firms invest hugely in creating such AI systems with the help of such developers. Meanwhile, the end users are the ones who provide input to generate works with the AI system. The object behind granting such ownership is to provide incentives to such authors to encourage more development and progress in innovation. The person who has a higher contribution in attaining such an object is the rightful to get ownership right.[21]Granting ownership to the Company or a firm that made an investment in such AI systems is the one who makes huge investment on such other technologies, paving the way for innovation. The developers of an AI system also has rightful contribution to obtain the ownership, as they play big role in development of AI system. Let the developer and the Owners distinguish their rights similar to an employer–employee aspect.[22]The end users do not contribute much in attaining such objects, as most companies will restrict access if the end users can get rights with such AI systems. Companies will no longer make investments leading to a reduction in innovations.
PUBLIC POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATION:
With the increase in the challenges for the grant of ownership rights of AI generated works, there’s a need for reinterpretation or amendment to be made in the current IPR framework. As discussed earlier, these rights are granted to the authors or inventors not just for incentives, but to encourage innovation and creativity in the progressive society. Machines do not require any incentives, but humans do.[23] The inclusion of the terms “AI assisted “and “AI generated” and defining these terms can facilitate and enhance its scope. The terms “Author” and “inventors” need reinterpretation. Its scope can be extended with the inclusion of the concepts of computer systems work. Let the authorship be decided in terms of employer-employee relations.[24] In this way, any legal challenges or criminal liabilities are enforced on the person who claims it. A dispute resolution mechanism should be provided for any infringement or challenge raised on such AI works. The licensing terms between the developer and users lie as of contractual enforcement.
CONCLUSION:
Innovations in technology are needed for the progression of a developing society.[25] Man needs incentives to get motivated. This leads to creation and development. This is the reason for the introduction of IP rights, which are granted to the authors as incentives.[26] There will be an increase in creation and innovation in a progressive way. The capabilities of computer machines are not a matter of dispute now. Getting into the prime age of AI, policies are needed to acknowledge it’s work. With the rapid growth in technology, framing regulations to enforce the rights of computer machines becomes non-negotiable. At present, nations need to address their IP frameworks, make discussions, frame policies and recommendations to resolve the prevailing issues.
[1] Stephen thaler, neural networks that create and discover, PC Ai, May/June 1996, at 16,18
[2] KalinHristov, Artificial Intelligence and the Copyright Dilemma, (the journal of the Franklin piece centre of Intellectual Property, Vol. 57,No.3, 2017)
[3] Naruto vs. Slater, 2016 U.S. Dist. ( N.D. Cal. Jan 23. 2016)
[4] SwapnilTripthi and ChandniGhatak, Artificial intelligence and Intellectual property law, Christ university law journal 2017, vol. 7, no.1, 84, ISSN 2278-4332X
[5] Raquel Acosta, Artificial Intelligence and authorship rights, HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW And TECHNOLOGY (feb 17, 2012)
[6] Alan Turing, Computing Machinery and Intelligence, 59 MIND 236, 433-60(1950)
[7]The Copyright Act, 1957, sec. 3
[8] The Copyright Act, 1957, sec. 2(d)
[9]The Copyright Act, 1957, sec.23
[10]The Copyright Act, 1957, sec.20
[11]Questions of Intellectual property in the Artificial intelligence realm, GönençGürkaynak, IlayYılmaz, TürkerDoygun, and EkinInce of ELIG law firm, Istanbul, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3295747
[12] The Patent Act,1970, sec.2(1)(j)
[13] Ralph D.Clifford, Intellectual Property in the era of the Creative computer program: will the true creator please stand up? TULANE LAW REVIEW, Vol. 71:1675
[14] The Patent Act,1970, sec.6
[15] SwapnilTripthi and ChandniGhatak, Artificial intelligence and Intellectual property law, Christ university law journal 2017, vol. 7, no.1, 96, ISSN 2278-4332X
[16] 17 U.S. Code § 101
[17] The Copyright Act, 1957, sec.17
[18] The Copyright Act, 1957, sec.17(a)
[19] Questions of Intellectual property in the Artificial intelligence realm, GönençGürkaynak, IlayYılmaz, TürkerDoygun, and EkinInce of ELIG law firm, Istanbul, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3295747
[20] Alexander Cuntz, Carsten Fink, Hansueli stamm, Artificial intelligence and Intellectual Property: An Economic Perspective, WIPO, Economic Research Working Paper No. 77/2024
[21]KalinHristov, Artificial Intelligence and the Copyright Dilemma, (the journal of the Franklin piece centre of Intellectual Property, Vol. 57,No.3, 2017)
[22]Industrial Disputes Act,1947,sec.2(g) & sec.2(s), no. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1947
[23]Ralph D.Clifford, Intellectual Property in the era of the Creative computer program: will the true creator please stand up? TULANE LAW REVIEW, Vol. 71:1675
[24] The Copyright Act, 1957, sec.17
[25] KalinHristov, Artificial Intelligence and the Copyright Dilemma, (the journal of the Franklin piece centre of Intellectual Property, Vol. 57,No.3, 2017)
[26] Alexander Cuntz, Carsten Fink, Hansueli stamm, Artificial intelligence and Intellectual Property: An Economic Perspective, WIPO, Economic Research Working Paper No. 77/2024
Author: SELVAKKUMARAN SR
Juris Centre 