top of page

Coded Genius: Disputing the Legal Soul of Artificial Creation


Author: N. Pompi Devi, Institute of Law, Nirma University


Abstract

The evolution of artificial intelligence as a creative force has raised numerous legal, ethical, and philosophical questions. This article explores and analyzes the complex intersection between AI models and human input at various stages and the ascertainment of ownership in an ever-changing technical realm. The article also evaluates both Indian as well as global jurisprudence when it comes to affirming the status of ownership in such instances. Lastly, there is further imploration of the kind of legal framework that could be utilised in order to accommodate the increasing use of AI while also safeguarding the creative outputs of natural persons. 


Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, ownership, copyright, patent, intellectual property, AI, creativity, global jurisprudence, philosophy, AI, development, technology, natural person, authorship, innovation


Introduction

Developments have made way for multiple changes to take place. As such, when it comes to technical evolutions, there has undoubtedly been multiple reconstructions which has ultimately also led to the increased usage of Artificial Intelligence. 

The increasing access to artificial intelligence has blurred the lines between contributions made by humans and that made by AI. This distinction is what has opened up new perspectives as well as requirements to further delve into the status of patent eligibility and ownership. It has ultimately led to the multiple debates of actually trying to gain a strong foothold between the future of intellectual property law and AI generated content. 

During the month of April 2023, a supposed collaboration between Drake and The Weeknd titled “Heart on My Sleeve” went viral. However, to the astonishment of every listener, this collaboration actually was never between the two artists but was rather generated using artificial intelligence to mimic the distinct artistic vocals of both the artists. This is one of the many instances in which AI has been used to blur the lines between human contributions and machine participation. 

The current scenario presents AI as a mechanism capable of doing everything i.e., from generating music to composing literary works. This has however, brought about much confusion with regards to patent and ownership framework. 


Indian Framework

AI systems, for instance, those which are based on deep learning or natural language processing, possess the capability of producing content that even rivals human produced works. For instance, image producing models are capable of generating images with remarkable clarity. India, where rapid technological advancements are seen, AI models are increasingly being used for digital content creation. As such, it becomes important to look at the existing legal scenario of whether AI can be considered as a nominee for becoming an author or attaining the rights of ownership. 

In India, Section 2(1)(p) of the Indian Patent Act points to humans being inventors. Its implications completely exclude anything else potentially being responsible for the prospect of ideation. The law heavily relies on the inventor being a person. However, at the aspect of the inventor being a machine, it does not provide a black and white print. 

The lack of a solid framework to back AI generated works leads to multiple challenges. For instance, given that AI are not regarded as inventors, then who will be liable to get the ownership? Will it be the programmers handling the user interface of the AI or the users generating the content by asserting certain inputs? Moreover, an important debate also arises on how to maintain the rights of human innovation.

The Copyright Act (1957) also defines authorship as that which is rooted in the human creation of artworks, literatures, theatrical works, music, etc. This showcases that India has assertively been more inclined as a human-centric framework and aligning with international conventions like that of Berne Convention, to which India has ratified as well. 

But the increasing access to AI has made it able to produce musical, theoretical, artistic works with minimal prompt inputs. In India, as well, the generative use of AI has proliferated multiple industries.

Despite such developments, the human-centric framework of India when it comes to ownership has remained dominant. Within the Copyright framework, human invention is required and therefore, anything produced by AI remains outside of its legal interpretation. The case remains similar even within the ambit of the Indian Patent Law in which the Indian Patent office requires a natural person to be named as the inventor. The existing laws do not address situations in which the creative process is initiated by AI models, which inherently raises an important question to the constitution of “authorship.”

In the case of Eastern Book Company vs. D.B Modak (2008), the Supreme Court held that copyright and its rights can be given if there is a “modicum of creativity.” This judgement essentially also ascertains that such a creativity can be attributed when only humans are involved which thereby, excludes the inclusion of AI systems. Hence, copyright can only be given to natural persons and not AI models under the Indian jurisdiction.


Practical implications

The clarity required to the evolving changes of generating works has put pressure on the current framework to address its practical implications. Who will actually attain the ownership rights in cases where AI is considered to be the generator of works that could rival human production? 

One of the solutions under consideration and in alliance with some foreign jurisdictions is to provide the ownership rights to the natural persons that offer the main infrastructure for the AI generated work to take place. For instance, it could be granting ownership rights to the developer who built the AI applications. But this solution does not offer a one-size fits all answer in situations where the AI applications possess the capability to function in an autonomous manner. It may overlook the various levels of human deployment levels. 

AI does have positive impacts. For instance, India is a multi-lingual nation having a very rich oral literature over decades. In such cases, AI can help translate regional languages or assist in the process of doing so. But again, questions arise that even in such case scenarios, if an AI model translates any regional folk lore, then who possesses the rights to the newly translated work? Will it impact the cultural rights of the community that possesses the original work? 

Additionally, it becomes important to inspect the aspect of liability. In cases where AI generated works infringe upon the rights of any existing works and their authors, who is responsible? In the Indian context, in cases of liability the existence of a natural person is required. But in cases where the AI model may even function in a semi-autonomous manner, the lines to attribute responsibility becomes indistinctive. On one hand, the persons associated with the main infrastructure may claim their models to be functioning at the behest of the end users whereas, the end users may claim that they had no control over the final outputs generated. As such, it becomes extremely pertinent to bring about legal frameworks that can allocate liabilities on the aspects of that of intent as well as the role of control enforced. 


International Perspective

The international jurisprudence too is in a dilemma at the face of such technical debates. The United Copyright Office has claimed that any form of work created by agents other than humans cannot be granted copyright protection. The pre-requisite of human creativity remains dominant. The famous case of Stephen L Thaler v. Comptroller General of Patents, Design and Trade Mark is a famous interpretation of the multiple jurisdictions to reject the application of an AI being the inventor of original ideation. Between the years 2019 to 2022, the developer of an AI by the name of DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience), Dr. Stephen Theler filed patent applications in multiple jurisdictions like that of US, UK, etc. under the guise of DABUS being the inventor. However, the application was rejected due to the reasoning that inventorship can only be attained by natural persons. The Indian framework too subscribes to such an interpretation. This means that only natural persons quality and not their AI assistants, no matter how sophisticated it may be, is subject to patent rights.

Additionally, the USPTO guidelines (2024) with regards to inventions by AI models strictly require that patent eligibility can be ascertained if there are major contributions done by humans in the products generated by AI systems. But in cases where there is no human contribution and the works are completely generated by AI systems, then patent applications cannot be filed in the very first place. However, some experimentations by the UK regulators have been brought into debates as in the absence of human inventors with regards to computer generated works, those persons by whom the creation of the AI generated work could be undertaken will be granted rights. 

As such, under the USPTO Guidance it becomes pertinent to understand the difference between AI-Generated works and AI-Assisted works. Under AI-Generated works, the AI model functions autonomously and there is no substantial role of human creativity. On the other hand, the latter deals with works in which the creative outlook, ideation, and control is central to human input and AI primarily is simply associated with assisting in such tasks. 

For instance, if an AI model generated an image on the basis of a simple prompt input by a person, then this falls under the category of AI-Generated works and therefore, cannot attain copyright. On the other hand, if an artist prompts an AI system to produce pictures and then uses these pictures to edit, compile, etc. in order to create a whole another work, then this is considered to fall under the realm of AI-Assisted work since the majority contribution on the creative aspect is done by the natural person.


Philosophical Reflections

The dawn of the 21st century has seen AI be interwoven with every aspect of human invention. Historically, the ideation of creativity is largely confined to human abilities. It presents a complex interplay of intuition, cultural contexts, and conscious agency. However, the advent of AI systems has led to innovators, creators, philosophers, legislators, authors, artists, etc. to reconsider the meaning behind what it means to attain authorship. 

Rather than putting man and machine at two opposite sides of a spectrum, a more nuanced philosophical understanding has emerged. This middle ground is important to understand in order to sustain and cohabitate changes. 

This spectrum deals with the more “traditional” creation in which humans are the sole creators and innovators on one hand and the complete autonomous generation by AI on the other hand. Lying between these two sides is the aspect of human-ai collaboration in which there is an interplay between human ideas and assembling by data sets. It gives rise to multiple as well as a diverse range of partnerships. For instance, musicians may use AI models to generate music or tempos that can be utilised in their work pieces or artists may use AI-Generated images to then come up with other ideas which will be incorporated in their original paintings. As such, the middle grounds present a form of fluidity between AI and human invention within the whole realm of creative output. 

The philosophical implications that arouse doubts are what exactly constitutes creativity and where does it start as well as end in this kind of partnership where the roles of human creativity and AI assembling is so deeply intermingled? Some theorists opine that such a transaction reflects a form of co-creativity in which there is mutual exchange of tasks done. For instance, the human puts in prompts based on their own ideas which then forms the basis of AI generation. The generated content then prompts the human to develop further ideas. This co-creativity ascertains outputs that neither could have produced autonomously. As such, it raises important questions of where the locus of creativity begins. Who or which aspect of the spectrum will be susceptible to gaining the rights of ownership? Is creativity harboured right at the beginning of the whole process or is it considered during the synthesis of the ideas? 

Co-creativity if done successfully opens up possibilities beyond the interpretation of simple minds. However, such possibilities can cost the diminishment of a natural person’s own intuition and originality. As such, maintaining the thin line of balance between AI augmentation and human interception is important. Developers must ascertain that the AI systems so built must ensure support rather than the diminishing of ideas and creativity. 

Apart from this, ethical dilemmas also arise. Such questions take us to consider at what point does the utilization of AI dilute the ethical responsibility of man. For instance, if the AI system is used to generate content that causes societal racism, then at what point will the ethical responsibility of such a generation be borne by the natural person? At what point will creativity be ascertained to be that of either AI systems or that of man if every input, every processing is a result of all the minute roles played by both AI and man in every stage of the output? 


Conclusion

The analysis of various cases, scenarios and present evolution of technology presents a clear picture that AI systems will have their usage be increasingly elevated in the coming future. As such, the solution to ownership problems is not to grant AI systems the rights to it but rather focusing on building a legal framework that accommodates AI outputs and at the same time, also respecting the work put out by humans solely on the basis of creative freedom and intellect. 

This will ensure that there is continued human innovation, societal upliftment, safeguard creations and ensure that technical advancements are used to serve man’s ideas rather than diminishing them. 


References



Related Posts

Also read:

EDUCATING FOR EQUALITY: WHY LGBTQ+ INCLUSIVE SEX EDUCATION MATTERS

Also read:

Satyama Dubey v. Union of India (Hathras Gang Rape Case)

bottom of page