Copyright is a legal right granted to the creator of an original work, and allows him exclusive rights to use and distribute the work. The law in Israel states that the first owner of the copyright is “the creator of a work”, while in a work created by an employee, “the employer is the first owner of the copyright” (similar arrangements exist in the world).
The increase in the number of artificial intelligence systems has brought with it a large amount of works created by a non-human creator. Because of this, the question arises, who owns the copyright in a work created by an artificial intelligence system? When an artificial intelligence system that thinks, learns and acts without the help of humans, creates a work, who will be considered the owner of that work? Is the law clear on the subject? Does the law provide an effective mechanism to deal with technological development? [1].
Today there are countless books, songs, visual art, inventions and computer programs that were created by artificial intelligence. The progress in the technological sector together with the development of new artificial intelligence methods will likely lead to a greater number of works produced by artificial intelligence, which will make the question of intellectual property rights in all these works and inventions an increasingly urgent issue for the owners and users of artificial intelligence. Programming an artificial intelligence system takes a long time and costs a lot of money. If creators of artificial intelligence systems cannot recoup their investment through the financial benefits associated with protecting intellectual property from the products that the artificial intelligence produces, many of them may avoid investing their time, money and expertise in developing artificial intelligence systems [2].
In this article we will explain what artificial intelligence is and how it creates, who owns the copyright in a work created by artificial intelligence, we will discuss the question of adapting the legal system to the legal challenges created by the new technology, and finally we will present the need to adapt the law to provide proper protection for artificial intelligence products.
What is artificial intelligence?
The field of artificial intelligence (Artificial intelligence – AI) is a branch of computer science, which focuses on computer operations that normally require human intelligence to perform them. It is important to emphasize that there is no agreed definition for this concept. For example, Marvin Minsky, one of the fathers of the field of artificial intelligence, believes that the field of artificial intelligence is a branch of computer science designed to “make a machine behave in a way that would be considered intelligent if a human behaved in this way”,[3] some believe that artificial intelligence is intelligence demonstrated by machines, In contrast to natural intelligence displayed by animals including humans.[4] Some use the term “artificial intelligence” to describe machines that mimic “cognitive” functions that humans associate with the human brain, such as “learning” and “problem solving”.[5]
By trying to define this field we can conclude that artificial intelligence has the computer’s ability to extract useful information from a data set and process it to produce results that match the response of a rational person. Generally, artificial intelligence includes abilities of learning, understanding languages, recognizing patterns, solving problems, responding to questions, trial and error.
The term “artificial intelligence” was coined for the first time in 1956 by John McCarthy at the Dartmouth conference. McCarthy defined artificial intelligence as the science and engineering of making intelligent machines. McCarthy explained that artificial intelligence is a technique of how to make a machine work and behave like humans.[6]
It is common to divide artificial intelligence into two main categories: narrow artificial intelligence (or weak artificial intelligence) and general artificial intelligence (or strong artificial intelligence).
Narrow AI is broadly programmed to only mimic human intelligence, while performing a narrow function. A well-known example of narrow artificial intelligence is Apple’s Siri software. It works algorithmically in a limited spectrum. In this type, the programmer pre-controls any output that may be created depending on the input he receives.
General artificial intelligence is inspired by the actions of neural networks in the brain. This system includes innovative thinking abilities and logical thinking abilities. General artificial intelligence is compared to a baby that learns by doing, acquiring skills and developing independence as it grows.[7]
(For more on see in the book: Y. Drori, “Patent Laws”, Perlstein Ginoser Publishing, pp. 313 to 332 (2023)).
Artificial intelligence as creator
There are two types of creations created by artificial intelligence. The first type is creations created by artificial intelligence with direct guidance or assistance from humans. In this type, the artificial intelligence is used as a tool to achieve a defined or predicted goal or result. In the case of a painting by an artist who chose the colors, the painting tools and to some extent entered his requirements into the algorithm of the artificial intelligence used to create the work, even though the artist cannot predict exactly the result of the painting, he directly contributed to it[9].
In the Burrow-Giles Lithographic case[10] judged by the United States Supreme Court in 1884, copyright protection was first extended to photography. The court ruled that the camera used by the photographer Napoleon Saroni to take the picture of the writer Oscar Wilde was considered a tool that helped the “author” in creating an “original work of art”. Since then, most of the cameras in use today are completely digital and have both a computer processor and software that makes photography an almost automatic process. However, the Burrow-Giles Lithographic ruling still serves as legal precedent justifying the granting of copyright to the millions of photographs taken every day. Since a photo taken with a digital camera or smart phone is actually created by computer software, it may be compared to a work of art created by an artificial intelligence system. Both processes are almost automatic, and it can be argued that an artificial intelligence system, like a camera, is merely a tool that works for the creator in order to express his idea in a tangible way[11].
The second type is works created by autonomous artificial intelligence (a type of strong artificial intelligence). Autonomous AI is AI where the only human inputs are its initial algorithms and “rules”. The computer programs responsible for the autonomous creation of works are the result of human ingenuity, and their source code may be protected by copyright as a literary work. However, the works created by these programs are not protected by copyright if they are not directly influenced by a human creator.
Opinions regarding the question of artificial intelligence as a creator
The British approach – granting copyright to a work created by an artificial intelligence system
Compared to most countries of the world, the British law (Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988) protects works created by a computer and do not have a human creator (section 178 of the British law). Article 9(3) of the British law states that the creator of the work is the person through whom the necessary arrangements for the creation of the work are made. When the law was proposed in 1987, Lord David Young (David Ivor Young, Baron Young of Graffham) stated that it was the first copyright legislation in the world that specifically tried to deal with the emergence of artificial intelligence. It was created specifically to provide protection for computer-generated works rather than as a “smart pencil”. It is designed to protect works created by artificial intelligence.
Although it was requested that more countries follow the UK’s lead, very few countries provide similar protection to the one granted in the UK for works created by artificial intelligence[12].
Literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works are protected by copyright only provided they are original. The contemporary approach in Britain states that in order for a work to be an original work, it must be the intellectual creation of the creator. That is, the work must stem from the creator’s free choices and emphasize his “personal touch”. Some argue that a separate definition of the concept of originality may be needed for works created by artificial intelligence.
By specifying a person’s name as the creator of the work created by artificial intelligence, the British approach separates the identity of the creator (Authorship) from creativity (Creativity). It is the artificial intelligence that created the original work, but the author of the work according to the law is a human being who did not make a creative contribution to the work. This does not fit with the modern approach to originality according to which creativity and the identity of the creator go together[13].
The American approach – the requirement of a human creator
The US Copyright Office does not recognize a non-human creator, no matter how sophisticated the artificial intelligence system. The American copyright law (The Copyright Act of 1976) states that the ownership of the copyright is first given to the creator or creators of the work. In 1973, the US Copyright Office published a set of best practices[14], according to which copyrighted works must originate with a “human agent”. This is the practice of the US Copyright Office to this day[15].
Although the policy of the US Copyright Office had no backing in law, federal courts have taken consistent views in interpreting the law. In the Reid matter[16] the Supreme Court interpreted the term “author” as the party who creates the work and explained that the creator must be a person who turns the idea into a permanent and tangible expression. In the matter of Uranti Foundation[17] for example, the author of the work was defined as the first person who collected, selected, compiled and arranged the work.
Since there was no backing in the law that the creator of the work had to be human, the courts in the United States gave high weight to the idea of “inspiration”, and started from the premise that only humans can have inspiration. In the Bleistein matter[18] the court explained that the unique personality of the creator and his response to nature is the essence of a work protected by copyright.
In 2014 the US Copyright Office published a collection of best practices[19] that posed a challenge for the registration of works created by artificial intelligence autonomously. Creative works created solely by artificial intelligence systems are not protected by copyright and do not meet the human creator requirements of the US Copyright Office. That is, unless works created by artificial intelligence can be directly attributed to a human creator, they will not be protected by copyright and will be placed in the public domain. Since artificial intelligence systems are becoming more and more sophisticated, they require less human intervention, and as a result many works do not receive copyright protection[20].
Artificial intelligence systems are usually used to produce works for personal or industrial purposes. As a result, the question arises, who owns the rights in the works created by artificial intelligence systems?
In May 2017, the Congress in the United States recognized that artificial intelligence is no longer science fiction and established the partisan conference for artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Caucus). The bipartisan conference was established to inform policymakers about the technological, economic, and social impact and benefits of artificial intelligence and to ensure that rapid innovation in artificial intelligence and related fields benefits Americans as fully as possible. However, this action did not provide guidance on copyright ownership in works created by autonomous artificial intelligence[21].
Does the creator of the artificial intelligence own the copyright in the creation?
According to copyright law, the first owner of the copyright in a work is the creator of the work. In the UK, New Zealand and Ireland there are special legal provisions regarding copyright ownership of computer generated works. Behind every artificial intelligence system there is a person who created it. The traditional approach to artificial intelligence supports that programmers should be considered the creators of the works created by the artificial intelligence systems they programmed. According to this view, the ownership and responsibility for the works created by artificial intelligence systems are given to the creators of the artificial intelligence systems. In Great Britain, for example, Section 9(3) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 states that in the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work created by a computer, the creator of the work shall be the person through whom the necessary arrangements are made to create the piece[22].
In the United States there is an approach according to which the ownership of the copyright in a work must be granted to the user, the programmer or the artificial intelligence company by expanding the “Work for hire” doctrine (a work created for the employer) in accordance with Section 101 of the American Copyright Act. This doctrine is equivalent to the provision of section 34 of the Israeli copyright law (“a work created by a worker”). Generally, copyright is granted to the creator of the work. However, according to Section 34 of the Copyright Law (and also according to Section 101 of the American Copyright Law), in the case where the work was created by an employee of the employer for the purpose of his work and during the course of his work, the copyright in it passes to the employer, unless otherwise agreed. According to Section 101 of the US Copyright Act, a work is considered a work created for the employer if it was created by an employee or if it was commissioned. This approach seeks to amend Section 101 of the American Copyright Act and claims that even a work created by artificial intelligence should be considered a work created for the employer (“Work for hire”)[23].
The Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU) in the United States was established to advise Congress when new technologies emerge that require a change in copyright law. The CONTU concluded that computers are simply tools that facilitate human creativity. According to this approach, a computer, like a camera, is only able to function when it is operated directly or indirectly by a human being, and its use does not affect the copyright status of a work any more than the use of a still or video camera, a tape recorder or a typewriter[24].
There are several advantages to this approach. First, according to this approach creators, programmers or artificial intelligence companies will be rewarded for their labor. Second, it could provide an incentive for programmers and AI companies to disclose any AI contributions to the creative process, as they might otherwise not disclose this information for fear of being copyrighted for the work. Third, the AI market will benefit from the incentives.
However, this approach also has several drawbacks. First, this approach may overreward users, programmers, and AI companies. The purpose of copyright law is to reward original intellectual concepts of the creator. For example, a parent does not receive a copyright on a work created by their child. The contribution of the user, the programmer or the artificial intelligence company is similar to the contribution of parents – they helped create the entity that created the work, but did not create the work themselves. Second, although this approach can develop the AI market, it may also lead to unequal access. According to this approach the “employer” of the artificial intelligence becomes the owner of the copyright. Artificial intelligence companies may decide to prevent access to autonomous artificial intelligence, in order to always remain the “employers” and thus the copyright owners[25].
Stefan Thaler’s attempt to register copyright in the US
In 2018, a man named Stefan Thaler filed a copyright application for a two-dimensional work called “A Recent Entrance to Paradise” to the US Copyright Office. The piece was created by an artificial intelligence system. Thaler defined the creator of the work as “Creativity Machine”, and defined himself as the requester alongside the transfer statement: “Ownership of the machine”. Thaler added to his application a statement that the work was created autonomously by a computer algorithm running on a machine and he is seeking to register a computer-generated work as “Work for hire” for the owner of the machine.
In August 2019, the US Copyright Office sent Thaler a letter of initial rejection according to which it does not accept Thaler’s request for copyright registration due to the lack of a human creator needed to support the request for copyright. Thaler asked the US Copyright Office to reconsider the initial rejection, arguing that the human creator requirement is unconstitutional and unsupported by either statute or case law. After considering Thaler’s arguments, in March 2020 the US Copyright Office ruled again that the work lacked a human creator required to apply for copyright, because Thaler did not provide evidence of sufficient creative input or intervention by a human creator in the work. Also, the US Copyright Office added that it will not abandon the Supreme Court’s and lower courts’ longstanding interpretation of US copyright law that a work meets the legal and formal requirements of copyright protection only if it was created by a human creator.
In May 2020, Thaler sent the US Copyright Office committee another request for reconsideration of the request, in which he reiterated his claims that the human creator requirement is unconstitutional and not supported by the ruling. The second request repeated the same arguments from the first request, and mainly arguments regarding public policy according to which the US Copyright Office should register copyrights on works created by a machine, because that would advance the basic goals of copyright law. In response to a citation from the US Copyright Office regarding the relevant case law relating to a human creator, Thaler argued that there is no binding authority prohibiting the granting of copyright to computer-generated works and that copyright law has previously allowed non-human entities to be listed as the creators of the work through the “Work for hire”. He also argued that the US Copyright Office relies on non-binding judicial opinions “from the Gilded Age” to answer the question of whether computer-generated works can be protected.
The committee accepted Thaler’s claim that the work was created autonomously by artificial intelligence without any creative contribution of a human being[26]. However, the committee determined that the copyright law protects only the “fruits of intellectual work” which are based on the creative powers of the human mind. The office will not register works created by machines or purely mechanical processes that operate without any input or creative intervention of a human creator, because according to the law, a work must be created by a human being. Therefore, the committee determined that Thaler was required to provide evidence that the work was the product of a human creator or convince the office to change the approach used in a century of copyright law. The committee determined that Thaler did not meet any of these requirements.
Thaler did not claim that the work was created by the contribution of a human creator. He argued that the ministry’s requirement for a human creator is unconstitutional and not supported by the case law. After reviewing the statutory text, the legal precedent and the long-standing practice of the US Copyright Office, the committee again came to the conclusion that the human creator requirement is a prerequisite for copyright protection in the United States, and therefore the work cannot be registered.
The committee explained that the American copyright law provides protection for original works of authorship established through tangible expression. The committee explained that the phrase “original works of authorship” was intentionally left undefined by Congress in order to preserve the standard of originality established by the courts under the Copyright Act of 1909. The concept is very broad but its scope is not unlimited. Congress chose this language to define a smaller set of works that can be protected.
The committee explained that the courts that have interpreted US copyright law, including the Supreme Court, have limited copyright protection to works created by human creators. Courts have been consistent in their determinations that nonhuman expression is ineligible for copyright protection.
Therefore, the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices has for years required the existence of a human creator in order to register a copyright. Although no section in the collection of procedures refers to artificial intelligence, the committee concluded that the policy and practice of the Copyright Office make the human creator a prerequisite for copyright protection.
Thaler argued that artificial intelligence can be created under copyright law because the “work for hire” doctrine allows non-human artificial personality companies to be the creators of the works. The committee did not accept this claim. First, it is clear that the work is not a work created for the employer (“Work for hire”) as defined in the American copyright law. The committee explained that a work created for the employer must be either a work created by an employee or by a party who expressly agreed in writing that the work be created for another. In both cases, the work is created as a result of a binding legal contract. Artificial intelligence cannot be a party to a binding legal contract and therefore does not meet these requirements. Second, the “Work for hire” doctrine refers only to the identity of the owner of the work, and not to the question of whether the work is protected by copyright. The committee explained that the law requires that a work contain a human creator. Therefore, the committee determined that the work is not a “Work of authorship” and is not a “Work for hire” and approved the rejection of the request to register the copyright on the work.
For more information on the subject, see an article regarding Stefan Thaler’s attempt to register patents created by artificial intelligence called DABUS: Decision of the Registrar of Patents regarding applications for patent registration No. 268604, 268605 Dr. Stefan L. Thaler (15.03.23).
Artificial intelligence system as a separate legal entity
Many scholars claim that an artificial intelligence system is qualified to be recognized as an independent legal personality, which should be responsible for the results of its actions or omissions. This conclusion is based on two assumptions. First, the properties of artificial intelligence systems – intelligence, logic, independence, etc. – are similar to the properties of humans. Therefore, artificial intelligence systems should be treated as independent personalities, with legal rights and obligations. Alternatively, artificial intelligence systems are compared to a corporation, which is a separate, non-human legal entity capable of possessing legal rights, benefits and responsibilities[27].
The approach according to which personality and consciousness should be attributed to artificial intelligence systems
Artificial intelligence has many characteristics similar to those of humans. The approach according to which personality should be attributed to artificial intelligence systems sees the artificial intelligence systems as capable of experiencing consciousness.
According to this approach, artificial intelligence systems are able to make decisions freely and therefore can be considered as having consciousness. The ability to produce consciousness – the ability to experience things, which exists both in humans and in artificial intelligence systems, is the ability to recognize, assign, organize and recall cognitive sources. This approach compares the human brain to a computer.
The corporate approach
A corporation is a legal entity subject to, among other things, corporate law, labor law and criminal law. Researchers have suggested that artificial intelligence systems will also be held responsible for the criminal offenses committed by them. If we evaluate this approach in accordance with copyright law, the result will be to give artificial intelligence systems ownership of the intellectual property products they produce. When an artificial intelligence system operates autonomously, it is the true creator of its products[28].
The technology is still immature
A legal personality is an entity to which the law has granted the power to bear legal rights and obligations. When a corporation, of its various types, is recognized as an artificial legal personality and this is due to the permanent human ownership in it – therefore, for example, in order to establish the corporation, shareholders who are human beings are needed either directly or through other corporations that own shares, that is, at the end of the chain there will always be a human factor.
We believe that at this stage the law and technology are not yet ripe to recognize an artificial intelligence system as a separate legal personality. The words of the president (retired) Aharon Barak regarding the judgment of the Mizrachi Bank (High Court of Justice 4593/05 Bank of the Mizrachi Ha’Echad Ltd. v. the Prime Minister (September 20, 2006)) are good in this regard, where it was determined that the right to property, as stipulated in the Basic Law: Human dignity and freedom are given to every legal personality and not only to a human being. Reasons for the verdict:
“First, behind every legal personality hides, in the end, a human being. Removing the legal entity that is not a human being from the scope of the constitutional status of human rights will severely harm human beings. Second, the right to association – which is also a constitutional right – will be emptied of any real content , if the corporation that will be established will not enjoy constitutional rights. Finally, the activity through legal entities that are not human beings is elementary in our society. A modern society cannot exist without them. Withholding human rights from these entities will severely damage the fabric of modern life.”
Barak disagreed and added that:
“Of course, sometimes the very essence of the right requires that it be granted only to a human being. Thus, for example, the provision according to which “no one takes away and does not restrict a person’s freedom in imprisonment, detention, or extradition” (Article 5) does not apply, by its very essence, to those who who is not human.”
It will be noted that in recent years there has been a trend to recognize the rights of animals and this with the understanding that animals have an independent consciousness, but we are far from recognizing animals as having separate legal personality.
In the book “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” From the writer Philip K. Dick about a futuristic world in which human-like androids with artificial intelligence began to be produced, which function as slaves, some of the androids try to escape their fate, and the author examines the moral dilemma that since androids have consciousness, empathy, feelings, why not recognize the rights of androids as empathetic beings.
It is possible that the human race will reach a similar stage in the future, but at this stage the existing artificial intelligence does not represent a being with consciousness, empathy and feelings, at a level that would justify the recognition of a separate legal personality with rights and obligations.
Should works created by artificial intelligence systems be copyrighted?
In 2019, the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI) asked its members whether works created by artificial intelligence should be protected by copyright[29]. The answers received highlighted the different approaches to this issue.
For example, the British representatives proposed that works created by artificial intelligence will be protected by a new right, which will apply for 25 years, which will recognize the investment that artificial intelligence developers have invested in this technology.
In contrast, representatives from other countries argued that copyright protection should only stem from human creation.
The decision made by the AIPPI on the subject emphasized the need for human intervention and originality:
Harmonization regarding the protection of works created by artificial intelligence should be preferred.
Works created by artificial intelligence should be protected by copyright only when there is human intervention in the process of creating the work and provided that the other conditions for copyright protection are met. Works created by artificial intelligence will not be protected by copyright when there is no intervention of a human creator.
Originality of a work created as a result of human intervention should be a condition for copyright protection.
In the case of copyright protection for works created by artificial intelligence, when the requirements specified in sections 2 (human intervention) and 3 (originality) above have been met, the protection regime should be the same as for other works protected by copyright.
Works created by artificial intelligence may be protected by non-copyright rights, even without human intervention. Works created by artificial intelligence should not be prevented from receiving protection by existing related rights just because they are created by artificial intelligence and should receive protection as long as they meet the criteria necessary for this protection. Different legal systems may provide protection for exclusive rights under their copyright laws, to the extent that such protection already exists. As the field of artificial intelligence is still developing, it is still too early to take a position on whether works created by artificial intelligence that are not protected by such existing protection should be entitled to exclusive rights protection as a related right or as exclusive rights under copyright.
Summary
From the above review it appears that there is a fundamental legal problem in the possibility of recognizing rights in works created by artificial intelligence.
It seems that the existing legal system needs to undergo a revision that will allow for a more effective absorption of artificial intelligence technologies and recognition of the rights of owners and creators of artificial intelligence.
For example, artificial intelligence machines cannot be considered inventors and creators in most countries of the world. This approach may lead to a situation where people will hide the role of the artificial intelligence machine in the creation of an invention or creation and this is to avoid a situation where a patent application will be rejected or copyright in the work will not be recognized. In addition to that, because it is not possible to register patents or recognize copyrights for inventions and works created by artificial intelligence machines, inventors and creators may keep their inventions and works secret, undermining the main purpose of intellectual property laws which is to encourage creativity, innovation and encourage the discovery of inventions, Commercialization and development.
The current intellectual property system does not encourage inventors and creators in the field of artificial intelligence to share the information in their possession. Companies, creators and inventors in this field have an incentive to avoid revealing the information in their possession regarding the artificial intelligence software they have created. The current interpretation of the law even excludes the possibility of any ownership in relation to inventions and works created by artificial intelligence, this interpretation, although it emerges from the language of the law, is essentially contrary to the purpose of intellectual property laws, which is intended to reward inventors and creators and motivate them to invent and create in order to increase the general well-being of the public.
Therefore, we believe that in order to encourage inventors and creators to share the works and information in their possession, they should be given sufficient protection for their investment in the development or use of artificial intelligence in order to create a work or invent an invention, and for this purpose there is room to amend the provisions of the law so that they allow recognition of works created on by artificial intelligence and will allow the transfer of rights of an inventor or creator of an artificial intelligence type to a person or company that is the owner of that artificial intelligence or to the entity that makes lawful use of that artificial intelligence to create a work or invention.
(For more information, see in the book: Y. Drori, “Patent Laws”, Perlstein Ginosar Publishing, pp. 313 to 332 (2023)).
[1] Scholars Tripathi and Ghatak review the expanding scope of artificial intelligence technologies and the possible impact on intellectual property laws:
S. Tripathi & C. Ghatak,”Artificial intelligence and intellectual property law”, Christ University Law Journal, 7(1), 86 (2018).
[2] K. Hristov, “Artificial Intelligence and the Copyright Survey, Journal of Science Policy & Governance”, Issue 1, 1 (2020).
[3] Minsky Marvin, Computation: Finite and Infinite Machines (1967).
[4] Poole David, Mackworth Alan & Goebel Randy, Computational Intelligence: A Logical Approach (1998).
[5] Russell Stuart J. & Norvig Peter, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (3rd ed. 2009).
[6] Scholars Azad and Chakravarty point out in their article that artificial intelligence has recently succeeded in achieving its goal as the science and engineering of producing intelligent machines by creating machines and robots that have been used in a wide variety of fields including healthcare, robotics, marketing, business analysis and more: S. Azad & R. Chakravarty, Artificial Intelligence (AI) Literature in Patents: A Global Landscape, Library Hi Tech News 24 (2021).
[7] Scholar Kaur describes in his article what narrow artificial intelligence is and what general artificial intelligence is: J. Kaur, Intellectual Property Law in times of artificial intelligence: is it a misnomer to consider the Bot a possible IP right holder?, 2(6) J. L. Stud . & Res. 45-47 (2019).
[8] UK Intellectual Property Office, “Artificial intelligence call for views: copyright and related rights” (2021), available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/artificial-intelligence-and-intellectual-property -call-for-views/artificial-intelligence-call-for-views-copyright-and-related-rights.
[9] Scholar Hristov claims in his article that granting copyright to programmers and owners of artificial intelligence is essential for the future development of the artificial intelligence industry: K. Hristov, “Artificial Intelligence and the Copyright Dilemma”, 57 IDEA 431, 435 (2017).
[10] Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884).
[11] K. Hristov, “Artificial Intelligence and the Copyright Dilemma”, 57 IDEA 431, 435- 436 (2017).
[12] UK Intellectual Property Office, “Artificial intelligence call for views: copyright and related rights” (2021), available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/artificial-intelligence-and-intellectual-property -call-for-views/artificial-intelligence-call-for-views-copyright-and-related-rights.
[13] UK Intellectual Property Office, “Artificial intelligence call for views: copyright and related rights” (2021), available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/artificial-intelligence-and-intellectual-property -call-for-views/artificial-intelligence-call-for-views-copyright-and-related-rights.
[14] U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, COMPENDIUM OF U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE PRACTICES § 2.8.3 (1st ed. 1973)
[15] Scholar Pearlman claims in his article that artificial intelligence machines should be recognized as creators and inventors: R. Pearlman, “Recognizing Artificial Intelligence (AI) as Authors and Inventors Under U.S. Intellectual Property Law”, 24 RICH. J.L. & TECH. 2, 11-12 (2018).
[16] Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989).
[17] Urantia Foundation v. Maherra, 114 F.3d 955, 958 (9th Cir. 1997).
[18] Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239, 250 (1903).
[19] U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, COMPENDIUM OF U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE PRACTICES § 313.2 (3rd ed. 2014)
[20] K. Hristov, “Artificial Intelligence and the Copyright Dilemma”, 57 IDEA 431, 436- 438 (2017).
[21] Scholar Palace argues that the US Congress should give its consideration to the copyright of works created by autonomous artificial intelligence machines:
M. Palace, “What If Artificial Intelligence Wrote This? Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Law”, 71 FLA. L. REV. 217, 225-226 (2019).
[22] S. Yanisky-Ravid, “Generating Rembrandt: Artificial Intelligence, Copyright, and Accountability in the 3A Era—The Human-Like Authors Are Already Here—A New Model”, MICH. ST. L. REV. 659, 689-691 (2017).
[23] The scholar Palace explains in his article the approach according to which the ownership of the copyright in a work created by artificial intelligence should be granted to the creator of the artificial intelligence:
M. Palace, “What If Artificial Intelligence Wrote This? Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Law”, 71 FLA. L. REV. 217, 234-235 (2019).
[24] S. Yanisky-Ravid, “Generating Rembrandt: Artificial Intelligence, Copyright, and Accountability in the 3A Era—The Human-Like Authors Are Already Here—A New Model”, MICH. ST. L. REV. 659, 689-691 (2017).
[25] The scholar Palace explains in his article the advantages and disadvantages of the approach according to which the ownership of the copyright in a work created by artificial intelligence should be granted to the creator of the artificial intelligence:
M. Palace, “What If Artificial Intelligence Wrote This? Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Law”, 71 FLA. L. REV. 217, 236-238 (2019).
[26] Board of the United States Copyright Office – Copyright Review Board decision – February 14, 2022.
[27] In her article, the scholar Yenisky-Ravid reviews the approach according to which systems of intelligence are angels
