UNDERSTANDING THE AUTHORSHIP DEBATE- HOW DOES

THE AI AND CREATIVE OWNERSHIP INTERACT?

ABSTRACT-

The primary objective of this article is to demonstrate that understanding the nature and
characteristics of artificial intelligence (AI) is required to address AI-related copyright
legal issues. Despite the fact that man-made intelligence is
generally examined in numerous lawful fields, researchers don't seem to give sufficient
consideration to the nature and
sorts of man-made intelligence, its condition of craftsmanship and separation of man-
made intelligence with comparative ideas. However, developing regulations for any
phenomenon requires an understanding of its nature. For instance, computer based
intelligence's
lawful character is the subject generally talked about these days by researchers and
lawmakers. However, the majority of writing ignores the current state of AI
technologies and their characteristics, which are the foundation for establishing AI's
legal personality, and instead focuses on the philosophy of law.
As a result, the first section of this paper investigates AI's nature, types, and current
state of art. Simulated intelligence is seen
in the examination with comparable ideas: robots, AI, profound learning and brain
organizations.
The various types of AI are then investigated. Despite AI's complexity, the identified
issues do not necessitate an in-depth examination of technological sources. For the
purposes of this study, the popular science sources that provide an understandable
explanation of the difficult concept are more useful.
The legal status of AI is the subject of the second section of this paper, following an
examination of the concept of AI as a whole. The primary sources for examining the
current legal status of AI are the relevant EU legislation and case law.
The legal doctrine of various nations is examined in this regard, despite the fact that the
potential future status of AI is more hypothetical and complex.
The third section demonstrates, building on the findings of the first two parts, how AI's
nature and legal status affect copyright. In particular, designation of origin and
responsibility for
copyrightable works created by computer based intelligence is a difficult undertaking.
Even though AI projects involve a lot of different subjects, AI is always the real creator.
Hence, this paper contends that except if simulated intelligence is given lawful
character, no initiation of works produced by computer based intelligence can be
credited. What implications does this have for copyright? The paper finds that the
ongoing copyright framework should be overhauled to get ready for
Simulated intelligence driven time thus a few rules are proposed.
INTRODUCTION-

The author's work is safeguarded in terms of its economic and moral rights by copyright
law. The "right of authorship," by which the work is attributed to the author, is the focus
of the latter, whereas the former is concerned with the owner's right to profit financially
from the work. The question of whether an AI-generated work is protected by copyright

1
has arisen since the advent of AI-generated work (referred to below as "AI"). It has two
parts: (1) work created by AI with human input and (2) work created by AI with little or
no human input. It is essential to comprehend the potential of AI in the near future
without limiting it to a narrow vision based on the capabilities AI currently possesses in
order to delve into the legal realm of copyright protection of a work with respect to the
author.

There is no one-size-fits-all definition of AI. Philosophers and academics are well aware
of the difficulty in defining AI to the satisfaction of all relevant parties in the field.
Considering the objectives of the field is one way to define AI. The definition consists
of two parts: 1) It's possible to ask if the goal of artificial intelligence is to build
intelligent machines that can mimic human behavior, think and act like humans, or if the
goal is to build intelligent machines that can mimic and develop ideal rationality, think
and act rationally. In 1950, Alan Turing found out if machines can think and proposed
the 'Impersonation game' for noting something very similar. A third person would be
unable to tell the difference between the machine and a human in the proposed game or
more of a test because the machine mimics human behavior in such a way. The test that
Turing proposed falls under the category of artificial intelligence (AI) that can behave
and behave like humans. The categories in the definition are not closed compartments;
there is room for the development of AI that can both act and think rationally while also
simulating human behavior. The super intelligent or strong AI dominates literature,
primarily in fiction rather than reality. The term "machines with minds" is used to
describe some of the most well-known narratives, which affirm and investigate AI that
is able to act and think rationally.

In the 1999 film The Matrix, artificial intelligence (AI) machines with developed
rational thought and simulated thinking have taken over the world, blurring the line
between reality and simulation. It looks into the AI that thinks and behaves rationally.
The film investigates the chance of the post present day existence where the man-made
intelligence can create to a degree persuading to think that the mimicked world is as a
matter of fact the truth. This is comparable to Alan Turing's test, in which the AI's
ability to simulate to the point where it deceives a third party into thinking it is human.
In our current world with the presence of computer generated reality, which can recreate
reality by the assistance of artificial intelligence, it wouldn't be excessively ridiculous to
imagine that soon artificial intelligence can mimic to act and think objectively
proposing a substitute reality.

CREATIVE AND INTELLIGENT AI-

The primary question that must be answered in order to determine whether artificial
intelligence (AI) should be given the right to write something is whether or not it can do
so with minimal or no human input.

From one side of the planet to the other there have been cases of simulated intelligence
produced innovative works, like artistic creations, motion pictures among others. The
painting robot e-David was developed in 2009 by the University of Konstanz in
Germany. Paintings are created by the painting robot through a complicated loop of

2
visual feedback and optimization. It is the AI component that symbolizes the output's
unpredictable nature and a system that is capable of producing original work. E-David is
more than just a simple photocopier. Instead of copying a work, it uses photographic
images to create original paintings that are protected by copyright if they were created
by a human. E-David is able to produce works that are based on new creative inputs as
its own by making decisions about the shapes and colors, determining the best
combination of light and shadow in the images, and creating images that are
unpredictable and autonomous.

The advancement of artificial intelligence has occurred quickly to a degree that the
imaginative work of a computer based intelligence isn't the augmentation of the
specialists or the developer yet it is an in the area where the artificial intelligence
machines themselves are the craftsmen. AARON, which Harold Cohen created in the
Stanford University Artificial Intelligence Lab, is one such example. It can make works
of art with next to no human mediation. Although it is true that it is based on a program,
this does not imply that the work produced by it is an extension of the program or that
the programmer is in any way responsible for it. The AI is able to create works that the
programmer could never have imagined, regardless of who wrote the program or how it
came to be. The program is a set of rules.

Making a composition may not be guaranteed to include a cautious course of direction

and it is feasible to make a work of art in view of a contrived arrangement of rules
which would empower one to keep the guidelines all together make a canvas without
really thinking or going through the course of navigation. It is possible to think of the
programming language as a language in which those rules can be expressed and
supported by an artificial intelligence machine, in this case AARON, to carry out tasks
based on the rules. When a painting is made, viewers may try to figure out what it
means and what the artist meant by it, thinking that the painting was made with a
specific goal in mind. To use an analogy, assuming that someone is attempting to
communicate with the shifting cloud formation, we might observe a unicorn formation
in a cloud without actually interpreting it as the cloud's meaning. AARON has
developed throughout the long term eccentrically past the creative mind of the
developer prompting machine innovativeness.

The claim that artificial intelligence (AI) is able to produce novel, original, and creative
works was supported by the unveiling of the Next Rembrandt. Rembrandt's painting
techniques are digitized in this project.

AI GENERATED WORK UNDER THE COPYRIGHT LAWS-

The Indian copyright law does not permit the development of AI, which is capable of
producing independent works that are novel, creative, and original. In the domestic
context, Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act of 1957 states that the person who created
a computer-generated work will be considered the work's "Author." According to one
interpretation, the provision refers to a work created by AI with human intervention.

3
The authorship of an AI-generated work without human intervention is not addressed in
the provision. Jiwan Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. v. Rupendra Kashyap The court ruled
that an artificial person cannot be granted authorship of the examination paper. Eastern
Book Company and Others: In D.B. Modak & Anr., the court noted that a compilation
work must demonstrate skill and judgment in order to claim copyright. Segment 13 of
the Copyright Act, 1957 accommodates 'works in which copyright remains alive'. The
provision stipulates that a work must be "original" in order to be eligible for copyright
protection. The following are typically taken into account by the courts when
determining whether or not a work is original:

The Theory of Merger: The expression and the concept ought to be intrinsically linked.
The Skill and Judgement Test/Sweat of the Brow: It decides if the work has been made
with ability and work or it has the creator's expertise and judgment.
A Little Creativity: The work ought to have a minimum amount of originality.
To erroneously assert that AI is unable to produce creative works by utilizing its
judgment and skill would undermine AI's potential. E-David, AARON, and the Next
Rembrandt are three examples of AI-generated works in which the machines have
utilized their skills to produce work that is unpredictable, distinct, and original. E-
David, for instance, employs its judgment to make creative decisions regarding the color
and light/shadow combinations in the images. AARON, on the other hand, is capable of
painting without human intervention. In addition, the painting it produces is
unpredictable and beyond the programmer's imagination.

The Copyright Office of the United States stated in the case of Feist Publications vs.
Rural Telephone Service Company Inc. that a work's right to authorship will only be
protected if it was created by a human being. The question of whether a work created by
an AI without the intervention of a human or its programmer will remain unprotected
under copyright law remains unanswered. The court said in this case that the copyright
law protects works that are the result of intellectual labor that comes from the mind's
creative powers.

The court's observation assumes that AI machines cannot possess "intellect" or replicate
the human mind. This kind of a presumption might go against the minds of humans who
are working to create and develop AI so that it can have its own intelligence and be able
to mimic human intelligence. In Infopaq International A/S vs. Danske Dagbaldes
Forening, the European Court of Justice ruled that a work must be original and reflect
the author's personality or intellect for copyright to exist. An AI-generated work is the
property of the programmer in some nations, like the United Kingdom. Assuming that
AI does have an "intellect," it is unable to produce original work that reflects its
personality, and the work does not reflect skill or judgment, it is possible to draw the
conclusion that AI-generated works are not protected by copyright.

These presumptions, on the other hand, are valid as long as they pertain to weak AI that
is only able to perform in a restricted area with heavy human intervention. Speech
recognition technology, Apple's Siri, and self-driving cars are all examples of weak AI.
Each time an AI is developed that is close to a human brain simulation and has
sufficient skill and judgment to produce its own work, the assumptions will be severely

4
challenged. E-David, AARON, and the Next Rembrandt all support the claim that AI
can produce original work that reflects its personality using its skill and judgment.

The copyright law's protection of AI-generated work encourages the use of AI in the
innovation process, which results in increased productivity and efficiency. On account
of Shenzhen Tencent v Shanghai Yingxun the Nanshan Region Individuals' Court in
China managed the copyright security of simulated intelligence produced works.
Dreamwriter, an artificial intelligence system for writing assistance, was developed by
Beijing Tencent in this instance. It added the note "This article was automatically
written by Tencent's robot Dreamwriter" to an article that was published on the Tencent
Securities website. On the day the article was distributed, the litigant of the case
reproduced something similar with practically no approval. The Plaintiff filed a
copyright infringement claim against the Defendant. The court sided with the plaintiff,
determining that the article belonged to the plaintiff and violated copyright. The court
decided that Dreamwriter's work was protected by copyright because it included the
plaintiff's original ideas.

"AI generated work" and "AI assisted work" must be distinguished. In the former, AI is
integrated with human intelligence, whereas in the latter, work produced by AI does not
involve human intervention. In order to determine whether an AI-generated work is
independently demonstrating the AI's creativity, skill, and judgment, it is necessary to
exclude the human involvement in programming the software or building the AI. The
court in Shenzhen Tencent v. Shanghai Yingxun does not address AI-generated work
that is automated or independent. According to some courts, human involvement is
necessary for a work to be protected by copyright. In the well-known case of Naruto v.
David Slater, the court made the same observation again. However, due to the rapid
pace of AI development, automated AI-generated works will soon require a broader
definition of "Author" and "rights of authorship."

CONCLUSION-
In the not-too-distant future, automated AI-generated work may be considered a distinct
category of work deserving of authorship rights. Under the copyright law, AI's moral
rights can be taken into account. The author of the work has the right to assert
authorship under Section 57 of the Copyright Act of 1957 in India. AI is frequently
associated with a human, whether the software programmer or the AI developer, who
may have no influence over the creation of an automated AI-generated work. In such a
case, it is not permissible under the law to attribute the AI-generated work to a
developer or programmer who had no role in its creation, and neither is it prudent to
protect the AI's original work. For such a work, the AI may be granted moral rights or
the right to authorship; however, the programmer or developer may be granted
ownership rights to execute contracts, seek damages for copyright infringement, and act
in the work's best interest. In the not-too-distant future, a policy shift in copyright laws
is necessary due to the growing development of artificial intelligence toward Artificial
Deep Intelligence or Strong AI.

5
6