INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE DIGITAL AGE: WHO OWNS AI-GENERATED CREATIVITY?

Published on 20th January 2025

Authored By: Gunturu Kiran Manohar
National Law University, Visakhapatnam

 

ABSTRACT  

In the digital age, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative force, capable of creating unique inventions and redefining the boundaries of creativity. This article explores the intersection of AI and intellectual property rights (IPR), delving into global case studies and legal frameworks to address the contentious issue of ownership over AI-generated works. Notable examples such as DABUS, DeepMind’s AlphaFold, and RAGHAV demonstrate AI’s capacity to innovate across diverse fields. However, existing IPR laws, including those in India, predominantly recognize human creators, leaving AI-generated works in a legal grey area. The article highlights global perspectives, such as the UK’s and China’s diverging stances on copyright and patent laws, and examines the ambiguity surrounding India’s IPR framework. By proposing amendments, new regulatory frameworks, and international collaborations, this study underscores the urgent need for legal clarity to harness AI’s potential while ensuring equitable recognition of intellectual contributions.

INTRODUCTION

In the era of digitalisation where computer programmes are capable of doing miracles, one question echoes louder than ever: Who owns creativity in the age of artificial intelligence? The involvement of Artificial Intelligence in today’s inventions is highly necessary. AI systems have the ability to solve complex problems, create inventions and further enhancing the daily living of an individual. This results in a unique problem where it is difficult to distinguish the inventions of AI systems and those that result out of the human efforts.

Intellectual property rights are legal rights given to persons over their creations. These Intellectual Property Rights give the creator exclusive authority over his/her inventions for a certain period of time. Copyrights, trademarks, patents, geographical design are some of the intellectual property rights. The point of legal debate is whether ownership can be extended to non-human counterpart, i.e, Algorithms, etc. The existing Intellectual Property Rights in India have no specific provisions recognising the AI inventions for protection.

This article explores the connection between AI and IPR by examining various AI systems’ inventions, Global perspective, analysing various case laws and by understanding the importance of IPR in the AI era.

ARTIFICAL INTELLIGENCE AND ITS TRANSFORMATIVE POTENTIAL

Artificial Intelligence is a set of technologies that enable the computer systems to perform various advanced functions. AI systems can accomplish activities that require human skills like learning, understanding, solving problems or even making decisions.

AI has the potential ability to accelerate growth in numerous spheres including medicine, farming, learning, entertainment, etc. AI tools being able to drive scientific and technological research is equivalent of billions of researchers. The economic growth that the AI inventions catalyse would enable more resources to create even better AI tools. The ability of AI is expected to expand exponentially in the coming decades in the coming decades redefining the boundaries of creativity.

AI INVENTIONS: CASE STUDIES OF DABUS, DEEPMIND AND RAGHAV

There has been a transformation in how AI is used to create various new inventions. AI systems has played crucial role in enhancing our day to day living by creating such inventions. Some of these include DABUS, Deep Mind’s AlphaFold, RAGHAV.

DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) is an AI system created Stephen Thaler. It has two products – first, a food container which is constructed with the help of fractal geometry, enables rapid reheating; and the second one is a flashing beacon which helps in the situation of an emergency by attracting attention. It is capable of accommodating trillions of computational neurons which contain interrelated memories. It is used in many fields of biology to accelerate research such as plastic pollution, understanding diseases, protecting honey bees, etc.[1]

DeepMind’s AlphaFold is an AI system which has revealed millions of 3D protein structures and helps in discovering a set of antibiotics for more efficiency. Proteins have unique complex 3D structure which will take several years to figure out and huge amount of money. This AI systems has solved this problem with its ability to predict protein structure within minutes. This helps researchers understand what individual proteins do and their interaction with other molecules. [2]

RAGHAV stands for robust artificially intelligent graphics and art visualiser. It is an AI driven art system designed to create unique and intricate artwork. One of its prominent works is creation of the artwork “Suyast”. [3]

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES AND CASE LAWS ON AI-GENERATED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

With the growth of AI and its ability to invent, there is a question worldwide upon the ownership of its creation. It is important to understand the stand of countries in this regard with the help of case law.

  1. UNITED KINGDOM

In the case of Thaler v Comptroller General of Patents, Trade Marks And Designs[4], Stephen Thaler filed patents for inventions created by DABUS (an AI system) and listed DABUS as the inventor. The UK Supreme Court unanimously dismissed DABUS’ appeal to allow AI to be named as a patent inventor based on the interpretation of the Patents Act 1977. The court ruled that an inventor must be a natural person.

 However this decision was taken before the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 came into existence.

The UK has explicitly recognized the copyrightability of computer-generated works under Section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988, which states that in the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken. [5]

  1. CHINA

In the case of Beijing Film Law Firm v Baidu Network Technology Co., Ltd.[6], the Beijing Internet Court held that only that work which is created by a natural person is protected under the Copyright Law. Since the inventions in this case were created by AI software instead of natural person, it cannot be protected under the Copyright law.

However, in the case of Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. V Shanghai Yingxun Technology Co., Ltd.[7], the judgement passed by the Shenzhen Nanshan Court made a significant shift in the stance of the protection of AI- created works.

Tencent developed an AI system known as Dreamwriter which creates about 300,000 articles per year. When there was a dispute raised about the protection of this invention, the court held that Dreamwork satisfied the protection requirements for literary works under the Copyright Law and therefore should be protected.

This was first judgement under the Copyright law, which acknowledged the contribution of human labour in generating AI created works and protecting those which met the requirements of the copyright law. However, this judgement fails to provide a standard for determining copyrightable AI-created works.

  1. UNITED STATES

In the case of DABUS, patent applications which were filed on the inventions were refused by the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) by stating that only natural persons can be named as inventors in a patent application.

In the case of Naruto v Slater which revolves around whether a copyright could be held by a monkey for a selfie took using photographer’s camera, the court insisted about the requirement of a human authorship for a patent application to be filed.

THE AMBIGUITY SURROUNDING AI AND IPR IN INDIA


India’s intellectual property rights regime has not been prepared to absorb the breakneck pace of progress in artificial intelligence. While AI is increasingly being transformed into a disruptive force in most industries, the legal framework in India remains ambiguous in this regard. The lack of clarity results in serious challenges to innovation, investment and the balanced distribution of recognition for creative contributions in the age of AI.

The Indian laws concerning intellectual property rights, including the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Patents Act, 1970 are drafted with respect to human creators specifically. No such statutes do exist to include status positions for AI as a potential creator or inventor. As Section 2(d) of the Copyright Act itself declares an “author” to be a human entity, no scope is left there for creating a status for AI as an independent creator. Similarly, the Patents Act require a creator to be a human. This lack of explicit provisions creates uncertainty about whether AI-generated works or inventions can receive legal protection in India.

India’s approach to AI-generated works has been inconsistent. The 2020 case involving the AI system RAGHAV highlighted this ambiguity. Initially, RAGHAV’s artwork, Suryast, copyright protection was refused because it did not have a human author. Later, it was granted protection after a natural person was included as a co-author. However, this decision was eventually challenged and exposed the gap within Indian Jurisprudence and lack of standardized approach towards works generated through artificial intelligence.

Businesses and developers may hesitate to deploy resources in this field because of the absence of clear legal protection for AI-generated works in India. This hesitancy could disturb the progress in key areas such as healthcare, renewable energy, and creative industries, where AI’s contributions are invaluable.

The ambiguity surrounding AI and IPR in India highlights the urgent need for legal clarity. By aligning its laws with the realities of the AI era, India can unlock the full potential of AI-driven innovation while ensuring that intellectual property rights remain a robust and fair system. Without decisive action, India risks being left behind in the global push towards an AI-powered future.

SUGGESTIONS AND REGULATIONS FOR AI AND IPR IN INDIA

It is important to address these challenges by a forward-thinking approach. Below are some of the regulations and measures that could bridge the gap:

  1. Amendments to the existing law:

There should be clarity about the definition of author in the existing IPR laws such as the Copyright Act, 1957, Patents Act, 1970, etc. It should include provisions addressing AI-generated works and inventions. Necessary reforms should be taken by considering AI as a contributor to various inventions. It is also important to make sure that these amendments provide clear guidelines for attributing ownership of AI-generated creations.

  1. Creation of a New Legal Framework:

Creating a new legal authority that controls and regulates AI-generated works which will also help simplify the process of granting rights and make sure that there is no ambiguity.

  1. AI-Specific IPR Office:

To establish a regulatory body with the IPR system to handle cases related to the AI-generated works. This will help in perfect administration and would provide assistance in the adjudication process for such cases.

  1. Global Collaboration:

 India should collaborate with international organizations and countries leading in AI regulation to harmonize standards and learn from best practices. This could include participation in global discussions on AI and intellectual property.

  1. Public Awareness and Education:

To encourage compliance and healthy development of AI and extensions, people should be made aware more about the AI-driven work and the emerging trends of the legal system.

  1. Ethical Considerations:

The set rules and norms for applying AI technologies in creative and industrial practices can help avoid improper usage and guarantee that breakthroughs made with AI’s help will be useful to everyone.

As a result, India can support AI development while protecting the rights of creators and inventors by implementing these measures. This approach will safeguard the position of the country in the global environment of this beneficial technology as well as reap the benefits of the next technological revolution that is Artificial Intelligence.

CONCLUSION

Artificial intelligence and intellectual property rights exist in a new legal realm Calling for corrections on the ownership and protection of works produced by artificial intelligence. Internationally, the analysis of similar laws across nations shows that there is no universal approach to recognizing AI as a creative contributor. The existing law in India adds to this confusion, which hinders the development of AI and investments in valuable sectors related to it. To achieve the protective goal of securing creative rights, India should accept transitional changes in current laws, setup the regulatory bodies for AI, and engage in international cooperation. The aforementioned steps also will not only encourage technological advancement but will guarantee an appropriate property rights distribution on the Artificial Intelligence age, as well. Failing to act now, the country is in danger of losing its place at the forefront of Artificial Intelligence’s evolution.

 

References

[1] Meet DABUS: The world’s first AI system to be awarded a patent, ECONOMIC TIMES, August 8 2021, https://brandequity.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/digital/meet-dabus-the-worlds-first-ai-system-to-be-awarded-a-patent/85149000.

[2] Olga Fink, Thomas Hartung, SangYupLee, Andrew Maynard, AI for scientific discovery, WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM, 25 june 2024, https://www.weforum.org/publications/top-10-emerging-technologies-2024/in-full/1-ai-for-scientific-discovery/.

[3] Tugce Kucukali, RAGHAV: First (Registered) AI Author, THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, 3 may 2022, https://iplaw.allard.ubc.ca/2022/05/03/raghav-first-registered-ai-author/.

[4] Thaler v. Comptroller Gen. of Patents, Trade Marks & Designs, [2021] EWCA Civ 1374.

[5] Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, c. 48, § 9(3) (UK).

[6] Beijing Film Law Firm v. Baidu Network Tech. Co., Ltd., 2018, (Beijing Internet Court) Jing 0491 Min Chu No 239 (China).

[7] Shenzhen Tencent Computer Sys. Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Yingxun Tech. Co., Ltd., 2022, (Beijing Internet Court), Y0305MC No. 14010 (China).

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top