15, April 2025

Intellectual Property Rights and AI-Generated Works: Should AI-Generated Content Be Patentable or Copyrightable?

VOLUME-11; ISSUE-4; APR-2025

Author(s): M.E.S.V. Krupakar

Authors Affiliations:

Research Scholar, Department of Law, University of Mumbai.

DOIs:10.2015/IJIRMF/202504015     |     Paper ID: IJIRMF202504015


Abstract
Keywords
Cite this Article/Paper as
References

Abstract:    The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly Generative AI (GenAI) as an autonomous creator has disrupted conventional intellectual property (IP) frameworks, raising important legal challenges regarding authorship and inventorship. The prevailing copyright and patent laws, predicated on human creativity and originality, struggle to accommodate AI-generated literary, artistic, and technical works. This paper critically examines the evolving jurisprudence on AI-generated IP protection, analysing legal frameworks, judicial precedents, and policy responses across India, the European Union (EU), and the United States (U.S.). Through a comparative legal analysis, this study evaluates the limitations of current IP laws and explores potential models for AI-related rights, including human-AI co-authorship, sui generis protection, and AI personhood. By proposing a balanced legal framework, this research aims to contribute to the ongoing discourse on AI and law, advocating for harmonized regulatory reforms that foster innovation while ensuring equitable rights allocation in an era of machine-generated creativity.

     
Key Words:  Artificial Intelligence, Intellectual Property, Authorship and Inventorship, Generative AI.  

M.E.S.V. Krupakar (2025); Intellectual Property Rights and AI-Generated Works: Should AI-Generated Content Be Patentable or Copyrightable? , International Journal for Innovative Research in Multidisciplinary Field, ISSN(O): 2455-0620, Vol-11, Issue-4, Pp.115-122.         Available on –   https://www.ijirmf.com/

  1. Gervais, D. J. (2021). The machine as author. Iowa Law Review, 107(2), 551-606.
  2. Samuelson, P. (1987). Allocating ownership rights in computer-generated works. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 47(6), 1185-1247.
  3. Gervais, D. J. (2021). The machine as author.Iowa Law Review, 107(2), 551-606.
  4. Ginsburg, J. C., & Budiardjo, S. P. (2019). Authors and machines. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 34(2), 343-388.
  5. Thaler v. Perlmutter, 1:22-cv-01564 (D.D.C. 2022).
  6. Tan, L.-K., Lau, J., & Wong, H. (2024, February 29). Copyright protection for AI-generated works: A landmark Chinese court ruling. Asia IP. Retrieved from https://asiaiplaw.com/sector/copyright/copyright-protection-for-ai-generated-works-a-landmark-chinese-court-ruling Last accessed : 1st April 2025.
  7. European Patent Office. (2019, December 20). EPO refuses DABUS patent applications designating a machine inventor. European Patent Office. Retrieved from https://www.epo.org/en/news-events/news/epo-refuses-dabus-patent-applications-designating-machine-inventor Last accessed : 1st April 2025.
  8. S. Copyright Office. (2021). Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices (Third Edition). Washington, D.C.
  9. UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). (2022). Examining patent applications relating to artificial intelligence (AI) inventions.
  10. Bracha, O. (2021). The challenges of copyrighting AI-created works. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 34(4), 981-1011.
  11. Abbott, R. (2020).The Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Law. Cambridge University Press.
  12. Lim, D. (2020). AI & IP: Innovation & creativity in an age of accelerated change. Akron Law Review, 53(4), 955-1000.
  13. EPO (European Patent Office). (2021). Decision on the DABUS AI Patent Applications.
  14. United States Patent and Trademark Office. (2024). Guidance on artificial intelligence (AI) inventorship. Retrieved from https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ai-inventorship-memo.pdf
  15. ​Sanyal, N. (2024, March 5). Intersection of intellectual property rights and AI-generated works – Part I. Bar & Bench. Retrieved from https://www.barandbench.com/law-firms/view-point/intersection-intellectual-property-rights-ai-generated-works-part-i
  16. European Parliament & Council. (2019). Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright in the Digital Single Market and amending Directive 2001/29/EC. Official Journal of the European Union, 62, 1-45.
  17. Boden, M. A. (2016). Artificial intelligence: A very short introduction. Oxford UniversityPress.
  18. Elgammal, A., Liu, B., Elhoseiny, M., & Mazzone, M. (2017). CAN: Creative Adversarial Networks, Generating” The Artist” in the Age of AI. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.07068.
  19. Hughes, J. (1988). The philosophy of intellectual property. Georgia Law Journal, 77, 287.
  20. Bently, L., & Sherman, B. (2014). Intellectual property law (4th ed.). Oxford UniversityPress.
  21. Dahiya, A FPA Patents. (2021). AI as an inventor: Implications of the DABUS decision. Retrieved from https://www.fpapatents.com/news-insights/insights/ai-as-an-inventorimplications-of-the-dabus-decision/
  22. Deazley, R. (2017). Rethinking copyright: The moral rights of authors. Oxford UniversityPress.
  23. Jaffe, A. B., & Lerner, J. (2004). Innovation and its discontents: How our broken patent system is endangering innovation and progress, and what to do about it. Princeton University Press.
  24. Forrest, K. B. (2024). The ethics and challenges of legal personhood for AI. Yale Law Journal. Retrieved from https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/the-ethics-and-challenges-of-legal-personhood-for-ai
  25. Hacker, P. (2022). Legal personhood and AI. In S. van Erp, C. Twigg-Flesner, & A. D. C. Casanova (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of private law and artificial intelligence (pp. 70-75). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009320110
  26. Shenzhen Tencent v. Shanghai Yingxun, 2020. Case No. (2020) Yue 73 Min Chu 791. Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court.
  27. Lai, S., Lim, D., Shi, L., & Tay, J. (2024). Legal implications – Beijing Internet Court grants copyright protection to AI-generated artwork. National University of Singapore, Centre for Technology, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence and the Law.
  28. China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA). (2022). Guidelines on AI-related patent applications. Retrieved from https://www.cnipa.gov.cn

 

 

 

 

 

Post Views: 113

Download Full Paper

Download PDF No. of Downloads:18 | No. of Views: 96