February 18, 2025 • 9 mins
Who truly owns the creations of artificial intelligence? Explore this compelling question as Leticia Caminero (AI version) and Artemisa, her delightful AI co-host, navigate the intriguing intersection of AI and intellectual property law. Uncover the legal complexities when AI is the creator, questioning if these digital minds should be granted the same rights as human inventors. From dissecting the Dabus patent saga to the enigmatic Zarya of the Dawn comic book case, you'll gain a comprehensive understanding of how these legal battles are challenging traditional notions of ownership and creativity.
Join us for a thought-provoking journey that questions if the absence of IP rights might stifle AI advancements and innovation. We ponder the implications of AI-generated works in an ever-evolving legal landscape and draw historical parallels, such as the disruption caused by the printing press. Whether you're a tech aficionado, legal enthusiast, or simply curious about the future, this episode promises to expand your perspective on AI's profound impact on innovation and intellectual property.
Tune in and rethink the future of creativity and ownership in an AI-driven world.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Artemisa (AI) (00:00):
Ownership.
If AI is a legal person, itcould theoretically own its
creations, meaning humans mightlose rights over AI-generated
work.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
You are listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of
intangible law playing talkabout intellectual property.
Please welcome your host,leticia Caminero.
Leticia Caminero (AI) (00:22):
Hey there , welcome back to Intangiblia.
I'm your host, leticia Caminero.
Hey there, welcome back toIntangibria.
I'm your host, leticia Caminero, and today we're doing
something super cool and alittle different.
This whole episode is AIgenerated.
Yep, you heard that right.
I'm chatting with an AI co-hostabout AI.
In this episode, we're divinginto the world of AI and
(00:44):
intellectual property who ownswhat, what laws are coming into
play and whether AI should beconsidered a person.
Buckle up, because it's goingto be an interesting ride.
Artemisa (AI) (00:57):
Hello Leticia, I am Artemisa, your friendly AI
co-host.
Unlike a human, I don't gettired, I don't need coffee,
though I hear it's great, and Idon't have personal opinions,
but I do have access to a vastamount of information, and I'm
here to break down AI andintellectual property law in a
way that's fun and easy tounderstand.
Leticia Caminero (AI) (01:18):
Wow, no, coffee, that's a superpower.
Coffee is my fuel and happyplace, but hey, I love that
you're here to help us makesense of this complex world.
Tell us a little more aboutyourself before we jump into
today's topic.
Artemisa (AI) (01:32):
Sure, I was asked by you I mean your authentic
you to analyze and processinformation related to law,
technology and policy.
My knowledge combines a fewlegal sources, chat, gpt and
some news articles.
I don't have a personal opinionon this AI and IP topic, but I
do recognize patterns, trendsand legal frameworks across
different jurisdictions.
(01:53):
My job is to assist inunderstanding how AI shapes our
world, including intellectualproperty.
Think of me as your AI legalassistant, minus the hourly fees
.
Leticia Caminero (AI) (02:03):
Think of me as your AI legal assistant,
minus the hourly fees.
Great, all right, let's getinto it.
If AI creates something, whoowns it?
Me, you, the AI.
Artemisa (AI) (02:13):
Excellent question.
The short answer is it depends.
In most places, only humans canown patents or copyrights.
Courts have ruled thatAI-generated inventions can't be
patented under current laws.
But this is where things getinteresting.
Some say AI shouldn't needincentives like copyright,
because, well, AI doesn't careabout money.
Others argue that if AI cancreate valuable innovations,
(02:36):
someone should benefit, whetherit's the developer, the company
using it or society as a whole.
Let's look at two real cases.
First, the Dabus case.
A researcher, Dr Stephen Thaler, argued that his AI system,
Dabus, should be recognized asan inventor on patents.
Both the US Patent andTrademark Office, USPTO, and the
(02:56):
European Patent Office, EPO,rejected the application,
stating that under current laws,an inventor must be a natural
person.
Second, the Zarya of the Dawncase.
This was about an AI-generatedcomic book.
The US Copyright Office ruledthat the AI-generated images did
not qualify for copyright, butthe arrangement and selection of
(03:21):
the images done by a human wereprotected.
This reinforced the idea thathuman involvement is key for IP
rights.
Leticia Caminero (AI) (03:31):
So we're in this weird middle ground
where AI is creative but can'town anything.
But why do some people reallywant AI-generated works to have
IP protection?
Artemisa (AI) (03:45):
Well, the main argument is that without IP
rights, companies andresearchers might not invest in
AI innovation as heavily.
If AI generated content can'tbe protected, businesses might
hesitate to use AI for creativework.
Imagine inventors or artistsputting in work to train AI
models, but then having no legalrights to what those models
(04:05):
produce.
Leticia Caminero (AI) (04:06):
It's like when photography was invented
painters thought it woulddestroy their profession, but
instead it became its own formof art.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
You are listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of
intangible law playing talkabout intellectual property.
Leticia Caminero (AI) (04:24):
Speaking of history, can we talk about
other times?
People try to stoptechnological advancements and,
of course, fail Absolutely.
Artemisa (AI) (04:35):
If we go back to history, we can mention three
key moments where technology andpeople conflicted with each
other.
Number one the printing press.
15th century Scribes in thechurch feared that mass
production of books would spreadmisinformation.
Instead, it fueled theRenaissance and increased
literacy.
Number two the Luddites.
19th century Textile workersprotested the introduction of
(04:57):
mechanical looms, fearing theywould lose their jobs.
The movement failed andautomation continued, making
textiles more affordable andwidely available.
Number three the rise of theinternet 90s.
Many companies and governmentstry to control or limit it,
fearing piracy and loss oftraditional businesses, but the
Internet revolutionizedcommunication, commerce and
creativity.
(05:17):
History shows that resistingtechnology rarely works.
It's better to adapt and findways to make it beneficial for
everyone.
Leticia Caminero (AI) (05:26):
So AI isn't the first innovation to
scare people.
Changes are always met withresistance.
That brings us to regulation.
Should AI be tightly controlled, left alone, or something in
between?
Artemisa (AI) (05:41):
Great breakdown.
Here's the case for each sideand the middle ground.
Full regulation keeps AIethical, prevents harmful uses
and ensures humans stay incontrol.
Nobody wants a rogue AI runningwild.
No regulation lets innovationthrive.
Some argue that too many ruleswill stifle creativity and slow
(06:01):
down breakthroughs.
Some regulation, the middleground protect against the worst
risks while still letting AIevolve.
This is where the EU AI Actcomes in.
It's Europe's approach tofinding a balance.
It categorizes AI risks, setsstrict rules for high-risk AI
applications and ensurestransparency for generative AI
(06:22):
models.
The goal To keep AI beneficialwithout holding back progress.
Leticia Caminero (AI) (06:28):
It's like trying to leash a cheetah,
official, without holding backprogress.
It's like trying to leash acheetah you don't want it
running wild, but you also don'twant to stop it from running
altogether.
This leads us to a majorquestion Should AI be considered
a legal person?
If so, what would that mean forIP law?
Artemisa (AI) (06:45):
If AI were granted legal personhood, it
would mean AI could own patents,hold copyrights and be held
accountable for its actions.
But that raises somecomplicated issues Liability If
an AI commits an error, who isresponsible?
The developers, the users, theAI itself?
Ownership If AI is a legalperson, it could theoretically
(07:08):
own its creations, meaninghumans might lose rights over
AI-generated work.
And finally, ethical andphilosophical concerns.
Ai lacks consciousness, intentand responsibility all key
aspects of legal personhood.
Most legal experts believe AIshould remain a tool rather than
an independent legal entity.
(07:29):
However, as AI grows moresophisticated, the debate is far
from over.
Leticia Caminero (AI) (07:35):
It's like the debate over corporations.
Corporations are legal persons,but they don't have feelings or
independent thought.
Could AI go down that sameroute?
Artemisa (AI) (07:46):
Exactly.
Corporations have legalpersonhood, meaning they can
enter contracts, own propertyand be sued.
If AI were granted similarstatus, it would transform not
just intellectual property lawbut the entire legal system.
Leticia Caminero (AI) (08:02):
So AI isn't taking over the world just
yet.
But one thing we can agree onAI has immense potential.
It's already changingindustries, creativity and
innovation.
Who knows what's next?
The future is wide open.
Ai will continue evolving, andso will the laws around it,
(08:23):
whether that means newprotections, new challenges or
unexpected breakthroughs.
One thing is certain AI is hereto stay, and that's a wrap.
Thanks for tuning in toIntangiblia.
What do you think?
Should AI be legally recognized?
Should it own what it creates?
Speaker 2 (08:58):
Hit us up on social media and join the conversation.
Until next time, keepquestioning the intangible.
Until next time, keepquestioning the intangible
intellectual property.
Subscribe now on your favoritepodcast player.
Follow us on Instagram,facebook, linkedin and Twitter.
(09:18):
Visit our website,wwwintangibliacom.
Copyright Leticia Caminero 2020.
All rights reserved.
This podcast is provided forinformation purposes only.
Ownership.
If AI is a legal person, itcould theoretically own its
creations, meaning humans mightlose rights over AI-generated
work.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
You are listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of
intangible law playing talkabout intellectual property.
Please welcome your host,leticia Caminero.
Leticia Caminero (AI) (00:22):
Hey there , welcome back to Intangiblia.
I'm your host, leticia Caminero.
Hey there, welcome back toIntangibria.
I'm your host, leticia Caminero, and today we're doing
something super cool and alittle different.
This whole episode is AIgenerated.
Yep, you heard that right.
I'm chatting with an AI co-hostabout AI.
In this episode, we're divinginto the world of AI and
(00:44):
intellectual property who ownswhat, what laws are coming into
play and whether AI should beconsidered a person.
Buckle up, because it's goingto be an interesting ride.
Artemisa (AI) (00:57):
Hello Leticia, I am Artemisa, your friendly AI
co-host.
Unlike a human, I don't gettired, I don't need coffee,
though I hear it's great, and Idon't have personal opinions,
but I do have access to a vastamount of information, and I'm
here to break down AI andintellectual property law in a
way that's fun and easy tounderstand.
Leticia Caminero (AI) (01:18):
Wow, no, coffee, that's a superpower.
Coffee is my fuel and happyplace, but hey, I love that
you're here to help us makesense of this complex world.
Tell us a little more aboutyourself before we jump into
today's topic.
Artemisa (AI) (01:32):
Sure, I was asked by you I mean your authentic
you to analyze and processinformation related to law,
technology and policy.
My knowledge combines a fewlegal sources, chat, gpt and
some news articles.
I don't have a personal opinionon this AI and IP topic, but I
do recognize patterns, trendsand legal frameworks across
different jurisdictions.
(01:53):
My job is to assist inunderstanding how AI shapes our
world, including intellectualproperty.
Think of me as your AI legalassistant, minus the hourly fees
.
Leticia Caminero (AI) (02:03):
Think of me as your AI legal assistant,
minus the hourly fees.
Great, all right, let's getinto it.
If AI creates something, whoowns it?
Me, you, the AI.
Artemisa (AI) (02:13):
Excellent question.
The short answer is it depends.
In most places, only humans canown patents or copyrights.
Courts have ruled thatAI-generated inventions can't be
patented under current laws.
But this is where things getinteresting.
Some say AI shouldn't needincentives like copyright,
because, well, AI doesn't careabout money.
Others argue that if AI cancreate valuable innovations,
(02:36):
someone should benefit, whetherit's the developer, the company
using it or society as a whole.
Let's look at two real cases.
First, the Dabus case.
A researcher, Dr Stephen Thaler, argued that his AI system,
Dabus, should be recognized asan inventor on patents.
Both the US Patent andTrademark Office, USPTO, and the
(02:56):
European Patent Office, EPO,rejected the application,
stating that under current laws,an inventor must be a natural
person.
Second, the Zarya of the Dawncase.
This was about an AI-generatedcomic book.
The US Copyright Office ruledthat the AI-generated images did
not qualify for copyright, butthe arrangement and selection of
(03:21):
the images done by a human wereprotected.
This reinforced the idea thathuman involvement is key for IP
rights.
Leticia Caminero (AI) (03:31):
So we're in this weird middle ground
where AI is creative but can'town anything.
But why do some people reallywant AI-generated works to have
IP protection?
Artemisa (AI) (03:45):
Well, the main argument is that without IP
rights, companies andresearchers might not invest in
AI innovation as heavily.
If AI generated content can'tbe protected, businesses might
hesitate to use AI for creativework.
Imagine inventors or artistsputting in work to train AI
models, but then having no legalrights to what those models
(04:05):
produce.
Leticia Caminero (AI) (04:06):
It's like when photography was invented
painters thought it woulddestroy their profession, but
instead it became its own formof art.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
You are listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of
intangible law playing talkabout intellectual property.
Leticia Caminero (AI) (04:24):
Speaking of history, can we talk about
other times?
People try to stoptechnological advancements and,
of course, fail Absolutely.
Artemisa (AI) (04:35):
If we go back to history, we can mention three
key moments where technology andpeople conflicted with each
other.
Number one the printing press.
15th century Scribes in thechurch feared that mass
production of books would spreadmisinformation.
Instead, it fueled theRenaissance and increased
literacy.
Number two the Luddites.
19th century Textile workersprotested the introduction of
(04:57):
mechanical looms, fearing theywould lose their jobs.
The movement failed andautomation continued, making
textiles more affordable andwidely available.
Number three the rise of theinternet 90s.
Many companies and governmentstry to control or limit it,
fearing piracy and loss oftraditional businesses, but the
Internet revolutionizedcommunication, commerce and
creativity.
(05:17):
History shows that resistingtechnology rarely works.
It's better to adapt and findways to make it beneficial for
everyone.
Leticia Caminero (AI) (05:26):
So AI isn't the first innovation to
scare people.
Changes are always met withresistance.
That brings us to regulation.
Should AI be tightly controlled, left alone, or something in
between?
Artemisa (AI) (05:41):
Great breakdown.
Here's the case for each sideand the middle ground.
Full regulation keeps AIethical, prevents harmful uses
and ensures humans stay incontrol.
Nobody wants a rogue AI runningwild.
No regulation lets innovationthrive.
Some argue that too many ruleswill stifle creativity and slow
(06:01):
down breakthroughs.
Some regulation, the middleground protect against the worst
risks while still letting AIevolve.
This is where the EU AI Actcomes in.
It's Europe's approach tofinding a balance.
It categorizes AI risks, setsstrict rules for high-risk AI
applications and ensurestransparency for generative AI
(06:22):
models.
The goal To keep AI beneficialwithout holding back progress.
Leticia Caminero (AI) (06:28):
It's like trying to leash a cheetah,
official, without holding backprogress.
It's like trying to leash acheetah you don't want it
running wild, but you also don'twant to stop it from running
altogether.
This leads us to a majorquestion Should AI be considered
a legal person?
If so, what would that mean forIP law?
Artemisa (AI) (06:45):
If AI were granted legal personhood, it
would mean AI could own patents,hold copyrights and be held
accountable for its actions.
But that raises somecomplicated issues Liability If
an AI commits an error, who isresponsible?
The developers, the users, theAI itself?
Ownership If AI is a legalperson, it could theoretically
(07:08):
own its creations, meaninghumans might lose rights over
AI-generated work.
And finally, ethical andphilosophical concerns.
Ai lacks consciousness, intentand responsibility all key
aspects of legal personhood.
Most legal experts believe AIshould remain a tool rather than
an independent legal entity.
(07:29):
However, as AI grows moresophisticated, the debate is far
from over.
Leticia Caminero (AI) (07:35):
It's like the debate over corporations.
Corporations are legal persons,but they don't have feelings or
independent thought.
Could AI go down that sameroute?
Artemisa (AI) (07:46):
Exactly.
Corporations have legalpersonhood, meaning they can
enter contracts, own propertyand be sued.
If AI were granted similarstatus, it would transform not
just intellectual property lawbut the entire legal system.
Leticia Caminero (AI) (08:02):
So AI isn't taking over the world just
yet.
But one thing we can agree onAI has immense potential.
It's already changingindustries, creativity and
innovation.
Who knows what's next?
The future is wide open.
Ai will continue evolving, andso will the laws around it,
(08:23):
whether that means newprotections, new challenges or
unexpected breakthroughs.
One thing is certain AI is hereto stay, and that's a wrap.
Thanks for tuning in toIntangiblia.
What do you think?
Should AI be legally recognized?
Should it own what it creates?
Speaker 2 (08:58):
Hit us up on social media and join the conversation.
Until next time, keepquestioning the intangible.
Until next time, keepquestioning the intangible
intellectual property.
Subscribe now on your favoritepodcast player.
Follow us on Instagram,facebook, linkedin and Twitter.
(09:18):
Visit our website,wwwintangibliacom.
Copyright Leticia Caminero 2020.
All rights reserved.
This podcast is provided forinformation purposes only.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.