Keywords
authorship
co-authorship
creativity
human rights
How to Cite
Number of views: 0
Number of downloads: 7
Abstract
This study addresses the issue of the authorship of artificial intelligence products, which have been appearing en masse in various areas of human creativity over the past few years. Initially, this caused consternation among lawyers and prompted calls for a swift regulation of this issue. Enthusiasts would like to recognize artificial intelligence (AI) as a creator and grant it legal personality. Attempts have been made, unsuccessfully, to register images created by generative AI with the US Copyright Office and to seek patent protection before the European Patent Office. Moreover, the complete lack of copyright protection for these products is unfavourable, especially for system manufacturers. This study presents current proposals for solving the problem, the evolution of the approach, the risks and benefits of specific proposals, and future directions. The study utilizes theoretical and dogmatic legal approaches. The conclusions justify an anthropocentric approach to the discussed issue, while maintaining focus on the fundamental goal of intellectual property protection: stimulating creativity and inventiveness.
References
Abbott, R. (2020). Artificial intelligence, big data and intellectual property: Protecting computer-generated works in the United Kingdom. In Research handbook on intellectual property and digital technologies (s. 322–337). DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785368349.00023
Abbott, R. B., i Rothman, E. (2023). Disrupting creativity: Copyright law in the age of generative artificial intelligence. Florida Law Review, 75(6), 1141–1200.
Ambartsumian, Y., i Cannon, M. T. (2025, 21 lutego). Why the obsession with human creativity? A comparative analysis on copyright registration of AI-generated works. Harvard International Law Journal. https://journals.law.harvard.edu/ilj/2025/02/why-the-obsession-with-human-creativity-a-comparative-analysis-on-copyright-registration-of-ai-generated-works/
Artforum News Desk. (2023, 11 października). MoMA acquire Refik Anadol’s AI-powered ‘Unsupervised’. Artforum. https://www.artforum.com/news/moma-acquires-refik-anadols-unsupervised-517497/
Bar, A. (2024). Identyfikacja pochodzenia i znakowanie treści syntetycznych a problem ochrony prawnoautorskiej wytworów powstających z wykorzystaniem sztucznej inteligencji. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Prace z Prawa Własności Intelektualnej, 3, 56–81.
Bengio, Y., Mindermann, S., Privitera, D., Besiroglu, T., Bommasani, R., Casper, R., Choi, Y., Fox, P., Garfinkel, B., Goldfarb, D., Heidari, H., Ho, A., Kapoor, S., Khalatbari, L., Longpre, S., Manning, S., Mavroudis, V., Mazeika, M., Michael, J., … Zeng, Y. (2025). International AI safety report: International scientific report on the safety of advanced AI (DSIT 2025/001). arXiv. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.17805
Birhane, A., i van Dijk, J. (2025). Robot rights? Let’s talk about human welfare instead. In Robot law (tom 2, s. 1–16). Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800887305.00006
Caldwell, M. (2023). What is an “author”? Copyright authorship of AI art through a philosophical lens. Houston Law Review, 61(2), 411–442.
Chen, L., Sun, L., i Han, J. (2023). A comparison study of human and machine-generated creativity. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering, 23(5). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4062232
Chen, S.-L. (2011). Collaborative authorship: From folklore to the Wikborg. Journal of Law, Technology and Policy, 2011(1), 132–161.
Chintalapoodi, P. (2023). Copyright Office denies protection for AI-generated images. Lexology. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0b2dfeea-7cb1-48c6-9a94-c9cd07b58e1d
Cuntz, A., Fink, C., i Stamm, H. (2024). Artificial intelligence and intellectual property: An economic perspective. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Economic Research Working Paper Series, No. 77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4858320
Deloitte. (2025, 18 lipca). Stay in the know: AI trends and early predictions for 2026. Deloitte Perspective. https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/what-we-do/capabilities/applied-artificial-intelligence/blogs/pulse-check-series-latest-ai-developments/new-ai-breakthroughs-ai-trends.html
Eapen, T. T., Finkenstadt, D. J., Folk, J., i Venkataswamy, L. (2023). How generative AI can augment human creativity. Harvard Business Review, 101(4). DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4759930
Easterbrook, F. (2012). Intellectual property is still property. In A. Moore (red.), Information ethics: Privacy, property, and power (s. 113–122). University of Washington Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9780295803661-008
Egbuonu, K. (2023). The latest news on the DABUS patent case. IP Stars. https://www.ipstars.com/NewsAndAnalysis/The-latest-news-on-the-DABUS-patent-case/Index/7366
Fritz, J. (2024). The notion of ‘authorship’ under EU law – Who can be an author and what makes one an author? An analysis of the legislative framework and case law. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 19(7), 552–556. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpae022
Geiger, C. (2024). Elaborating a human rights-friendly copyright framework for generative AI. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 55, 1129–1165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-024-01481-5
Gienas, K. (2024). Trenowanie AI a prawo autorskie. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Prace z Prawa Własności Intelektualnej, 3, 5–55.
Grzybczyk, K. (2021). Skradziona kultura. Jak Zachód wykorzystuje cudzą własność intelektualną. Wydawnictwo Wolters Kluwer.
Guadamuz, A. (2018). Can the monkey selfie case teach us anything about copyright law? WIPO Magazine, 1. https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2018/01/article_0007.html
Hodgkinson, I. R., Jennings, N., i Jackson, T. (2024, 4 października). Everyone must understand the environmental costs of AI. OECD AI. https://oecd.ai/en/wonk/understand-environmental-costs
Hugenholtz, P. B., i Quintais, J. P. (2021). Copyright and artificial creation: Does EU copyright law protect AI-assisted output? International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 52, 1190–1216. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-021-01115-0
Ireland, I., i Smith, J. (2022). Artificial intelligence and intellectual property: UK government responds to UK IPO consultation. JD Supra. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/artificial-intelligence-and-1162304/
Jakóbska, A. (2025). Rewolucja cyfrowa początkiem końca ludzkiego twórcy – mors certa, hora incerta? Analiza możliwości przyznania podmiotowości prawnej systemom inteligencji artyficjalnej w kontekście problematyki określenia pierwotnego posiadacza praw autorskich do utworów generowanych przez SI. Palestra, 1, 224–240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54383/0031-0344.2025.01.15
Kalota, F. (2024). A primer on generative artificial intelligence. Education Sciences, 14(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020172
Klos, M. (2024, 25 lipca). Malte Köllner: “You can file a patent application on an AI-assisted invention”. Juve Patent. https://www.juve-patent.com/legal-commentary/malte-kollner-you-can-file-patent-applications-on-ai-assisted-inventions-dabus/
Kop, M. (2020). AI & intellectual property: Towards an articulated public domain. Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal, 28(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3409715
Księżak, P., i Wojtczak, S. (2021). Prawo autorskie wobec sztucznej inteligencji (próba alternatywnego spojrzenia). Państwo i Prawo, 76(2), 8–33.
Kurki, V. A. J. (2019). The legal personhood of artificial intelligences. In A theory of legal personhood. Oxford University Press. https://academic.oup.com/book/35026/chapter/298856312 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198844037.003.0007
Kyrylenko, A. (2024, 30 września). Ukrainian IP Office registers works incorporating AI-generated content protected under new sui generis right. The IPKat. https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/09/ukrainian-ip-office-registers-works.html
Lessig, L. (2011). Re-crafting a public domain. Perspecta, 44, 177–204. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41662959
Markiewicz, R. (2018). Ilustrowane prawo autorskie. Wolters Kluwer.
Markiewicz, R. (2018). Sztuczna inteligencja i własność intelektualna. Alma Mater: miesięcznik Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 203, 20–29.
McLean, S., Read, G. J. M., Thompson, J., Baber, C., Stanton, N. A., i Salmon, P. M. (2021). The risks associated with artificial general intelligence: A systematic review. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 35(5), 649–663. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0952813X.2021.1964003
Olterman, P. (2014, 15 maja). The gospel according to … Helen Schucman, not Jesus Christ. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/15/helen-shucman-course-of-miracles-germany-jesus-christ
Panettieri, J. (2023, 11 października). Generative AI lawsuits timeline: Legal cases vs. OpenAI, Microsoft, Anthropic, Nvidia, Intel and more. Sustainable Tech Partner. https://sustainabletechpartner.com/topics/ai/generative-ai-lawsuit-ti
Popowska, A. (2024). Prawo do autorstwa wytworów stworzonych przez sztuczną inteligencję. Przegląd Prawa Handlowego, 1, 46–50.
Ramazanova, E. (2024, 12 września). Collecte massive de vidéos de YouTube par Nvidia et OpenAI. Des nouveaux procès. Blog Cyberjustice. https://cyberjustice.blog/2024/09/12/collecte-massive-de-videos-de-youtube-par-nvidia-et-openai-des-nouveaux-proces/
Rose, K. (2022, 2 września). AI-generated art won a prize: Artists aren’t happy. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/02/technology/ai-artificial-intelligence-artists.html
Sarkar, S. (2021, 5 sierpnia). Exclusive: India recognises AI as co-author of copyrighted artwork. Managing IP. https://www.managingip.com/article/2a5czmpwixyj23wyqct1c/exclusive-india-recognises-ai-as-co-author-of-copyrighted-artwork
Sieńczyłło-Chlabicz, J. (1998). Amerykańskie prawo autorskie. Sytuacja prawna producenta dzieła audiowizualnego według amerykańskiego prawa autorskiego. Temida.
Stawicka, P. (2022). Twórca utworu stworzonego przez sztuczną inteligencję. Prawo Mediów Elektronicznych, 3, 68–72.
Tosaki, K., Tajima, H., i Kimija, Ch. (2024, kwiecień). Report on AI and copyright issues by Japanese government. Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu. https://www.nagashima.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ip_en_no4_1.pdf
Wang, H. (2024). Authorship of artificial intelligence-generated works and possible system improvement in China. Beijing Law Review, 14, 901–912. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/blr.2023.142049
Warren, S. (2024, 12 marca). Japan’s new draft guidelines on AI and copyright: Is it really OK to train AI using pirated materials? Privacy World. https://www.privacyworld.blog/2024/03/japans-new-draft-guidelines-on-ai-and-copyright-is-it-really-ok-to-train-ai-using-pirated-materials/
Wiggers, K. (2024, 5 sierpnia). YouTuber files class action suit over OpenAI’s scrape of creators’transcripts. TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2024/08/05/youtuber-files-class-action-suit-over-openais-scrape-of-creators-transcripts/
License
Copyright (c) 2025 WPiA UAM
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.