Beyond Human Authorship: Rethinking Copyright Ownership in the Age of Autonomous Artificial Intelligence
Abstract
The accelerating capabilities of Artificial Intelligence (AI) are profoundly reshaping the dynamics of creativity and the protection of intellectual property. As AI systems independently generate music, art, literature, and code, longstanding copyright principles, especially the requirement of human authorship, face unprecedented legal and philosophical strain. This paper critically examines the ambiguity surrounding the copyright status of AI-generated works, dissecting the foundational doctrines of originality, authorship, and ownership. Through a comprehensive comparative analysis of legal frameworks in the United States, the United Kingdom, China, the European Union, and Tanzania, the study reveals a fractured global approach and pressing need for harmonised regulatory responses. It evaluates emerging case law and regulatory proposals while advocating for a sui generis legal regime that addresses the realities of autonomous creativity, safeguards human innovation, and ensures equitable rights allocation in the digital era. Employing doctrinal and comparative methodologies, the paper contributes meaningful insight to the future of copyright in an age where machines are increasingly indistinguishable from creators.
Downloads
References
Aalmuhammed v Lee 202 F 3d 1227, 1233 (9th Cir 2000).
African Regional Intellectual Property Organization, ARIPO Protocol on Patents and Industrial Designs (Harare Protocol 1982, amended 2024).
Annemarie Bridy, 'Coding Creativity: Copyright and the Artificially Intelligent Author’, 5 Stanford Technology Law Review 1,2021, p. 15-20.
Annemarie Bridy, 'The Evolution of Authorship: Work Made by Code’: 39 Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 395, 2016, p. 396-398.
ASEAN, Model AI Governance Framework (2nd edn, 2020), p. 45-52.
Authors Guild, AI and Authors: A Report on the Impact of Generative AI on Professional Writing (Authors Guild 2024) 25-33.
Axel Metzger, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Copyright in Germany’ in Ryan Abbott (ed), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence (Edward Elgar Publishing), 2022, p. 201–225.
Based on case law analysis from Westlaw, LexisNexis, and regional databases covering decisions from January 2024 to December 2024.
Based on consultation with Tanzania Law Reform Commission (2024).
Based on industry surveys conducted by Creative Industries Federation (UK), Recording Industry Association of America, and similar trade bodies throughout 2024.
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Paris Act 1971), Art 2.
Bernt Hugenholtz, 'Something Completely Different: Europe's Sui Generis Database Right' in Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss and others (eds), Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property, (Oxford University Press 2001), p. 203-218.
Brett Frischmann and Mark Lemley, 'Spillovers', 107 Columbia Law Review 257, 2007, p. 285-295.
Carys J Craig, 'The Evolution of Authorship: Work Made by Code' 43 Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 15, 2019, p. 18-22.
Childress v Taylor 945 F 2d 500, 505, 2d Cir 1991.
Christopher Yoo, 'Copyright and Product Differentiation’, 79 New York University Law Review 212, 2004, p.250-270.
Community for Creative Non-Violence v Reid, 490 US 730, 737 1989.
Copyright Act 1976, 17 USC section 102(a).
Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Act 1999, Cap 218 (RE 2002). S. 4 of the Act.
Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China, 2020, Art 11.
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s 9(3).
Council Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases [1996] OJ L77/20, Art 7.
Dan L Burk and Mark A Lemley, The Patent Crisis and How the Courts Can Solve It (University of Chicago Press 2009), p. 156-178.
Dan L Burk, 'Algorithmic Fair Use' 86 University of Chicago Law Review 283,2019, p. 295-310.
Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market [2019] OJ L130/92.
Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies: WW Norton 2014, p. 89-112.
Estelle Derclaye, The Legal Protection of Databases: A Comparative Analysis, (Edward Elgar 2008) 145-167.
European Parliament Resolution of 20 October 2020 on Intellectual Property Rights for the Development of Artificial Intelligence Technologies (2020/2015(INI)).
Feist Publications, Inc v Rural Telephone Service Co Ltd, 499 US 340, 345 (1991).
Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act of 2024, HR 9963, 118th Cong (2024).
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Philosophy of Right: T M Knox tr, Oxford University Press 1967, p. 41-71.
Giancarlo Frosio, 'Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: A European Perspective' in Ryan Abbott (ed), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence (Edward Elgar 2022), p. 226-248.
Giancarlo Frosio, 'Artificial Intelligence and Copyright: A European Perspective' in Ryan Abbott (ed), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence (Edward Elgar 2022), p. 226-248.
Graeme Dinwoodie, 'The International Intellectual Property Law System: New Actors, New Institutions, New Sources’, 10 Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review 205,2006, p. 220-230.
International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, Music Listening 2024: How Fans Discover, Consume and Experience Music (IFPI 2024) 34-42.
James Grimmelmann, 'There's No Such Thing as a Computer-Authored Work and It's a Good Thing, too', 39 Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 403,2016, p. 410-415.
Jane C Ginsburg, 'People Not Machines: Authorship and What It Means in the Berne Convention', 49 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 131,2018, p. 140-145.
Jane C Ginsburg, 'The Concept of Authorship in Comparative Copyright Law’ 52 DePaul Law Review 1063, 2003, p, 1070-1075.
Jeanne C Fromer, 'Claiming Intellectual Property', 76 University of Chicago Law Review 719, 2009, p.740-755.
Jessica Litman, Digital Copyright (2nd edn, Prometheus Books 2006), p. 178-195.
John Locke, Two Treatises of Government (Peter Laslett ed, Cambridge University Press 1988) Second Treatise, ch 5.
Judicial trend analysis based on decisions in major common law jurisdictions during 2024, showing consistent emphasis on human control factors.
Julie Dickson, 'Methodology in Jurisprudence: A Critical Survey’: 10 Legal Theory 117,2004, p. 125-130.
Julie E Cohen, 'Law for the Platform Economy', 51 UC Davis Law Review 133, 2017, p. 145-160.
Justin Hughes, 'The Philosophy of Intellectual Property’ 77 Georgetown Law Journal 287,1998, p. 296-330.
Kalin Hristov, 'Artificial Intelligence and the Copyright Dilemma' 57 IDEA: The Law Review of Franklin Pierce Center for Intellectual Property 431,2017, p. 433-435.
Kennedy G., 'Copyright Law and Digital Technology in Tanzania: Challenges and Opportunities', 15 African Journal of Information and Communication 45, 20201, p. 52-58.
Konrad Zweigert and Hein Kötz, An Introduction to Comparative Law (3rd edn): Oxford University Press 1998, p. 32-47.
Kristoffer Nordkjær Ravn, 'What Should We Do About AI-Generated Works?', 44 European Intellectual Property Review 678, 2022, p. 685-690.
Lawrence B Solum, 'Legal Personhood for Artificial Intelligences' (1992) 70 North Carolina Law Review 1231, 1992, p.1245-1260.
Lionel Bently and Brad Sherman, Intellectual Property Law (5th edn), Oxford University Press 2022, p. 102-125.
Lionel Bently, 'Authorship of Computer-Generated Works’ European Intellectual Property Review 423, 2020, p.428-432.
Lior Zemer, 'The Making of a New Copyright Lockean', 29 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 891, 2006, p. 910-920.
Mark A Lemley, 'IP in a World Without Scarcity’ 90 New York University Law Review 460, 2015, p. 485-490.
Mark Perry, 'AI and Copyright: The Human Authorship Requirement’, 45 European Intellectual Property Review 567,2023, p. 572-575.
Martha Woodmansee, 'The Genius and the Copyright: Economic and Legal Conditions of the Emergence of the Author’ 17 Eighteenth-Century Studies 425, 1984, p. 430-435.
Matthew Sag, 'Copyright Safety for Generative AI’ 78 Washington and Lee Law Review 1213, 2023, p. 1225-1240.
Motion Picture Association, Theme Report 2024: The Economic Impact of the Motion Picture and Television Industry (MPA 2024) 28-35.
Naruto v Slater 888 F 3d 418 (9th Cir 2018).
Naruto v Slater 888 F 3d 418, 426 (9th Cir 2018).
Nova Productions Ltd v Mazooma Games Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 219, [2007] RPC 25.
Pamela Samuelson, 'Allocating Ownership Rights in Computer-Generated Works’, 47 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 1185, 1986, p. 1190-1195.
Pamela Samuelson, 'The Copyright Principles Project: Directions for Reform’, 25 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1175, 2010, p. 1190-1205.
Partnership on AI, Publication of AI Research: Tensions and Guidelines (PAI 2024), p. 12-20.
Paul Goldstein and Bernt Hugenholtz, International Copyright: Principles, Law, and Practice (4th edn), Oxford University Press 2019, p. 45-67.
Paul J Heald, 'Property Rights and the Efficient Exploitation of Copyrighted Works: An Empirical Analysis of Public Domain and Copyrighted Fiction Bestsellers', 92 Minnesota Law Review 1031, 2008, p. 1040-1055.
Peter Lee, 'Transcending the Tacit Dimension: Patents, Relationships, and Organizational Integration in Technology Transfer', 100 California Law Review 1503,2003, p. 1520-1540.
Proposal for a Regulation on Artificial Intelligence (EU AI Act) COM (2021) 206 final.
PwC, 'AI and Workforce Evolution: Sizing the Prize': PwC, 2024, p. 12-18.
Rebecca Tushnet, 'Registering Disagreement: Registration in Modern American Trademark Law’, 130 Harvard Law Review 867,2010, p. 890-905.
Robert C Denicola, 'Ex Machina: Copyright Protection for Computer-Generated Works', 69 Rutgers University Law Review 251, 2016, p.265-270.
Robert Merges, 'Contracting into Liability Rules: Intellectual Property Rights and Collective Rights Organizations’, 84 California Law Review 1293,1996, p. 1320-1340.
Ryan Abbott, The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law, Cambridge University Press 2020, p. 156-178.
Ryan Calo, 'Robotics and the Lessons of Cyberlaw', 103 California Law Review 513,2015, p. 540-555.
Sam Ricketson and Jane C Ginsburg, International Copyright and Neighbouring Rights: The Berne Convention and Beyond (2nd edn), Oxford University Press 2006 vol 1, p. 398-425.
Sam Ricketson, 'The Future of Traditional Intellectual Property Conventions in the Brave New World of Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights’, 26 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 872,1995, p. 885-890.
See Analysis based on ongoing litigation tracking by major law firms including Morrison Foerster, Gibson Dunn, and Latham & Watkins as of December 2024.
Séverine Dusollier, 'Of Chips and Men: The Semiconductor Directive as a Sui Generis Form of Protection' in Irini A Stamatoudi (ed), Copyright and Neighbouring Rights at the End of the 20th Century (Kluwer Law International 1999) 217-235.
Shawn Bayern, 'The Implications of Modern Business Entity Law for the Regulation of Autonomous Systems' 19 Stanford Technology Law Review 93,2015, p. 100-110.
Shenzhen Tencent Computer Systems Co Ltd v Shanghai Yingxun Technology Co Ltd, (2020) Beijing Internet Court, Jing 0491 Min Chu No 239.
Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid, 'Generating Rembrandt: Artificial Intelligence, Copyright, and Accountability in the 3A Era' 53 Stanford Law Review 659,2017, p. 665-670.
Silverman v OpenAI Inc No 3:23-cv-03416 (ND Cal, filed 7 July 2023).
Stuart Russell, Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control (Viking 2019), p. 201-225.
Tech companies face increasing copyright litigation, with major record labels, the New York Times and several best-selling authors continuing to press claims or file new lawsuits in 2024.
Terry Hutchinson, 'Doctrinal Research: Researching the Jury' in Dawn Watkins and Mandy Burton (eds), Research Methods in Law (2nd edn), Routledge, 2018, p.7-33.
Thaler v Comptroller-General [2023] UKSC 49.
Thaler v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2021] EWCA Civ 1374, 2022, RPC 8.
Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GMBH v ROSS Intelligence Inc No 20-cv-613 (D Del, filed 2020).
UNESCO, Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (UNESCO 2021) paras, 25-35.
US Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices (3rd edn), 2021, Section 306.
US Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence: A Report on Copyrightability (January 2025) 15-28.
US Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence: A Report on Copyrightability (January 2025), p. 22-35.
US Copyright Office, Zarya of the Dawn (Registration Decision, 21 February 2023) Case No 2023-1.
William M Landes and Richard A Posner, The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law (Harvard University Press 2003) p. 37-84.
William Patry, How to Fix Copyright (Oxford University Press 2011), p. 234-256.
WIPO, Report on the WIPO Conversation on IP and AI, (December 2024), p. 8-18.
WIPO, Revised Issues Paper on Intellectual Property Policy and Artificial Intelligence (WIPO/IP/AI/3/GE/22/1, 2022), p. 12-25.
World Intellectual Property Organization, Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: An Economic Perspective WIPO, 2021, p. 23-45.
Yahong Li, ‘Intellectual Property, AI and the Future: Chinese Perspectives’ in Ryan Abbott (ed), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2022, p. 456–478.
Copyright (c) 2025 Mercy Ruth Katabi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
