The need to safeguard Artificial Intelligence (AI) works under Intellectual Property (IP) Rights, by Abdulkareem Mubarak

Given the fact that AI now plays a pivotal role in ensuring an innovative and creative society, there has been an ongoing debate among IP experts around the world, on whether AI generated works should be granted IP protection.

Intellectual Property since inception has been centralized in the protection of human mind creations and innovations. Thus, generally giving the right of ownership of IP works to a human entity. This is known as the concept of “Human Authorship Policy”. Artificial Intelligence (AI) on the other hand is a computer program designed with a human-like intelligence, which has the capacity of solving problems.

In contemporary modern age, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has outgrown beyond imagination. This has extended to its capability to create works qualified for IP protection. The difficulty however remains in the refusal of International Organizations and countries to categorize Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a legally recognized entity.

The US District Court in the case of NARUTO V. SLATER maintained the position that the U.S Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit have repeatedly referred to “persons” or “human beings” when analyzing copyright authorship and found no cases expanding the definition of authorship to go further (Emphasis provided).

In the recent case of THALER V. COMPTROLLER-GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS; the UK Supreme Court refused to accept the designation of DABUS (an AI machine) as the inventor of the two patent applications submitted by the appellant, pursuant to Section 13 (2) of the 1977 Patent Act on the ground that DABUS is not a legally recognized person under the Act.

It should be noted that the invention of DABUS in the above case was, however, granted patent right in South Africa, due to their policy environment and Australia equally followed suit.

However, the question still remains of two folds; Firstly, should the legal perspective of IP rights in respect to AI still remain as it was in the 90s? Because although the above U.S and U.K cases were celebrated recently, the courts had based their judgement on Acts enacted since the 90s. It’s the opinion of this writer, that considering the massive growth of AI in the world over the past years, the current legal landscape of IP rights in respect to AI generated works is lacking behind and needs to be pragmatically reconsidered by policy makers, to meet with societal changes and development.

Secondly, if AI works are to be protected under IP, “who then is to be considered as the author of the works?” Considering the ability of some modern AI to autonomously create works of novel innovation, it would be save to conclude that AI generated works which are created independently by the AI possesses a sufficient degree of originality to make it qualify for IP protection. Also, If companies which are artificial could be recognized as legal entities in respect to IP law, then I see no reason why an AI that possesses human intelligence, to innovate and create, should be denied IP protection.

Abdulkareem Mubarak is a 400lvl law student in the faculty of law, Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto (UDUS).