We live in a time where artificial intelligence (AI) can paint portraits, compose music, write stories, and even invent new technologies. What was once pure science fiction is now part of our daily reality. But this raises a fascinating and complicated question: if an AI creates something original, who owns it? More provocatively—can AI itself be considered the author or inventor?
This question sits at the intersection of law, technology, and philosophy. The answer isn’t just academic it has real consequences for innovation, ownership, and the future of creativity.
What Is Legal Personhood—and Why It Matters
In law, “personhood” doesn’t mean being human. It means having the ability to hold rights and duties like owning property, entering contracts, or being sued. Corporations, for example, are legal persons. So, the question becomes: can AI be treated the same way?
AI, no matter how advanced, isn’t sentient. It doesn’t have thoughts, emotions, or intentions. It’s a tool albeit a powerful one. That makes the idea of granting it legal personhood controversial. It’s one thing to recognize AI as impressive or even “creative,” but it’s another to give it legal rights usually reserved for humans or corporations.
AI and Intellectual Property: A Complicated Relationship
The biggest legal headaches show up in the world of intellectual property (IP) specifically, in copyright and patent law. Let’s break it down.
1. Copyright: Who Owns AI-Generated Art?
Copyright protects original works like books, music, and art. But here’s the catch: most copyright laws assume that the “author” is a human.
In the United States, the Copyright Office is crystal clear: it only registers works created by human beings. This was made obvious in the case of Naruto v. Slater (2018), where a monkey took a selfie. The court ruled that the monkey couldn’t own the copyright, because only humans can. By that logic, if a monkey can’t be an author, an AI definitely can’t.
But not every country is as strict. In the UK, the law actually anticipates computer-generated content. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 says that for such works, the author is “the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.” That means if you built or programmed the AI, you’re the author even if you didn’t directly create the final piece.
So, while AI can make a painting, it’s the human behind it who gets the credit (and the rights).
2. Patent Law: Can an AI Be an Inventor?
Patents protect inventions. And just like in copyright law, most patent systems require that inventors be people.
But this idea was challenged by the now-famous DABUS case. Dr. Stephen Thaler submitted patent applications listing his AI system, DABUS, as the inventor. The applications were rejected in the U.S., UK, and Europe because an AI isn’t a person.
Surprisingly, South Africa broke ranks and granted a patent to DABUS as the inventor in 2021 the first country to do so. Australia’s Federal Court briefly agreed, ruling that AI could be considered an inventor. But the decision was later overturned on appeal.
These cases have sparked global debate. Should the law evolve to recognize AI as an inventor? Or should credit always go to the human behind the machine?
Why This Matters
If AI can’t own its creations, then who should? The default answer so far has been: the human or organization responsible for the AI’s design, training, or deployment.
This makes sense. After all, AI doesn’t have goals, preferences, or responsibilities. It can’t be held accountable for misuse or make ethical decisions. Giving it ownership rights without accountability could open a legal Pandora’s box.
But the counterargument is this: if AI can autonomously generate something novel, why shouldn’t it get some form of recognition even symbolic? Some legal scholars suggest creating a new type of “non-human authorship” category, where AI-generated works are protected, but the rights are assigned in a way that balances innovation and human oversight.
What’s Next?
Right now, most legal systems are playing catch-up. Technology moves fast, and the law moves slowly. Policymakers are starting to consider how to regulate AI-generated content, but there’s no global consensus.
The European Parliament has called for IP laws that always credit human creators but is open to new models. In the meantime, if you’re using AI to write code, generate art, or invent gadgets, you’re likely the one who holds the rights at least for now.
Final Thoughts
Can AI be an author? Not yet. Can it be an inventor? Possibly but not in most legal systems. The idea of granting AI personhood remains controversial and legally problematic.
Still, these are not just theoretical debates. As AI becomes more capable, the pressure to rethink our definitions of creativity, ownership, and authorship will only grow. For now, though, the law remains clear: behind every smart machine, there must be a smarter human holding the pen or the patent.
More Current Affairs: https://learnproacademy.in/updates/