Author: AKSHAYA SINGH, NBT LAW COLLEGE, NASHIK
SHORT SUMMARY
The emerging fast developments in the Artificial Intelligence made a major change in the creative industry. Arts like music, fine arts, inventions, coding and so on are just casually done by AI within few minutes. This majorly questions the dominance of Artificial Intelligence on human Intelligence works. The core of Intellectual Property law is to protect the original works of humans, but the emerging issue of Artificial Intelligence is the autonomous content which it creates, raise questions who owns the ownership of the work. In the case Thaler Vs Perlmutter, May 18, 2025 the D.C. Circuit affirms that the U.S copyright law is applicable to the human creations and ruled AI cannot be considered as legal creator or author of the work. Contradictorily, the UK law which is Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act, 1988 recognizes computer-generated works by permitting the person who creates the work through AI as the owner of the work. But the copyright of the AI work only last for 50 years unlike standard works, which has 70 years off copyright, but the UK government treats this as ambiguous as still working on whether to create separate law for AI based works or should grant limited rights.
ABSTRACT
The development in the Artificial Intelligence is creating new challenges in the Intellectual Property law. According to the IP (Intellectual Property) Law human creation is only considerable and will declare the owner or author could be humans. But, in today world the role of AI is massive it can generate any creation with or even without the involvement of humans. This raise questions that who will be the owner of AI creations? Or AI should be considered as the owner? Or should there be a change in IP laws according to today’s reality?. This article explores the tension between human creation and AI creation in Copyright and Patent law.
IMPACT OF AI IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
As per Copyrights, Patents, trademarks, and trade secrets focuses on protecting the human invention, innovation, and creativity. But due to the involvement of AI in these areas, it creates chaos. The system of Patent, Copyright, and trademark only recognizes humans as the owner of invention and creativity to provide protection. But still AI systems like DABUS (Device for Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) challenged the nature of Patent law. Though multiple countries reject the idea of recognizing AI as right holder. This circumstance also triggers the need for update in laws, which recognizes AI creations.
FRICTIONS IN RECOGNIZING AI CONTRIBUTIONS
Traditionally the IP laws mandates in both copyright and patent law, the human must have used his creative and inventive mental effort in order create a work. AI don’t possess such abilities, which just works according to its datasets and program. They create works without the intention or consciousness. Since Artificial Intelligence lacks such human abilities, which is considered as the core requirement for rights so it challenges validity of AI as a creator.
IMPACT ON HUMAN CREATIVITY
The raising involvement of AI in creation of music, art, literature, and invention may cause massive impact on human society. If machines replace humans in creative field, the need for humans will reduce drastically, which eventually leads humans to face marginalization in both economically and culturally. Recognizing the contribution of AI also questions the accountability, when the AI infringe the IP laws. Who will be held accountable? Will that be the user or developer or AI system.
HUMAN AUTHORSHIP IS THE CORE FOR IP LAW
USA:
As per U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) human creation is the essential source for copyright protection. AI generated works are qualified under copyright only if the contribution of human is sufficient, but merely issuing text prompt is not considered as sufficient contribution, because prompt are just instructions to express idea, which cannot be copyrighted. The USCO affirmed that the current laws of copyright is sufficient to handle issues on Artificial Intelligence creations and concluded that no new legislation is needed.
UK:
The UK IP law comparing to US is considered flexible. According to The Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act, 1988, includes the rights for computer-generated, but in order gain the rights there are some conditions which the creator has to fulfill. The creator has to exercise sufficient works like arrangements or modifications. But there is still unclear how this law applies to autonomous AI system.
CHINA:
China is limitedly flexible with IP laws, when it comes to AI involvement. In Artificial Intelligence assisted based works are occasionally recognized under copyright law in the courts. China’s patent system also maintains the core purpose which is the intervention of natural person, and also China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) rejects patents that consider AI as an inventor. Contradictorily, China has also enforced content regulation frameworks for example the 2022 AI Algorithm Regulation, which place responsibility on developers, but do not extend legal authorship to AI.
CONCLUSION:
The development in Artificial Intelligence is indeed one of the greatest deals in today’s world. But indulging AI in creative industry and inventive work is a debatable topic. Across the world, most of countries majorly like USA, UK, China, India, Canada, Australia consider the core of authorship or ownership is a Natural Person. The major or essential requirement has always been in the IP law are intention, creativity, and legal responsibility to enforce law. Ultimately, AI is only reshaping how we produce knowledge, art, and technology, but it has not yet reshaped the legal definitions of authorship or inventorship. For now, IP systems around the world are holding firm to the principle that human creativity remains the foundation of protectable intellectual property. Future legal reform may bring new models or categories of protection for AI-generated works, but such developments will require careful balancing of innovation, accountability, and human rights.
LEGAL JARGONS:
Intellectual Property Law: A legal framework that protects creations of the mind—such as inventions, artistic works, designs, and trademarks—by granting exclusive rights to their creators.
U.S. Copyright Office (USCO): A federal agency that oversees copyright registration and policy in the United States; it requires that copyrightable works be created by human authors.
China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA): China’s official agency responsible for patents, trademarks, and IP policy; it does not recognize AI as an inventor or author, but allows protection for AI-assisted works with human involvement.
FAQS
1. Can AI be considered for authorship for patent?
In almost all jurisdictions, including the U.S., EU, UK, China, India, Canada, and Australia, only a natural person can be legally recognized as an inventor. Courts have held that inventorship requires human mental conception and intent—qualities AI does not possess.
2. Does Copyright protect the creations done by AI?
Generally, no—unless there is substantial human creative input. Most copyright laws around the world require that a work be the product of human authorship. Purely AI-generated content, such as text, images, or music produced without meaningful human control, is typically not eligible for protection.
3. What happens to AI-generated works that are not protected by IP law?
They are likely to fall into the public domain, meaning anyone can use, reproduce, or modify them without permission. This raises concerns about authorship, ownership, and fair use, especially in commercial and artistic industries.
4. Who owns the works done by AI?
Ownership usually lies with the human or legal entity that either created the AI, trained it, or directed its use—depending on the level of control. However, laws are not yet harmonized globally, and ownership questions are increasingly being debated in courts and policy circles.
5. Is there any country that recognizes AI as an inventor or author?
Only South Africa has granted a patent to an AI (DABUS), but this was due to a non-examining patent system and lack of legal definition of “inventor.” The decision is widely considered to be a procedural exception and not a global precedent.
