The rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) has raised a number of new legal questions in recent years. One of these questions concerns authorship: can an AI itself be the author of works? In this blog post, we examine this question from various angles.

What is artificial intelligence?

Before we turn to the question of authorship, we need to clarify what is meant by artificial intelligence. An AI is essentially a computer program that can make decisions and carry out actions independently. AIs use algorithms to recognize patterns in data and make predictions or decisions based on these patterns.

One way in which AIs can be used in art is as a tool for creating creative works. For example, AIs can generate images, pieces of music or texts based on certain patterns or specifications. In this case, the AI would be considered a tool, similar to a typewriter or a musical instrument. Authorship would then lie with the person who created the work with the help of the AI.

AIs as autonomous creators

Another way in which AIs can be used in art is as autonomous creators. This means that an AI independently creates a work without a human being being actively involved. This raises the question of who is then the creator of the work.

The principle that only natural persons can be authors currently applies in most countries. This means that an AI itself cannot be an author. However, there are other opinions that argue that an AI can have copyrights.

Arguments for the authorship of an AI

One argument in favor of the authorship of AIs is the fact that AIs are able to make decisions and carry out actions independently. So if an AI creates a work without a human being actively involved, it could be argued that the AI has made the same intellectual contribution as a human author.

Another argument is that an AI is able to learn independently and thus develop further. So if an AI is able to improve itself and also make creative decisions in the process, it could be argued that the AI has a kind of creative consciousness and can therefore be regarded as an originator.

Arguments against the authorship of AI

On the other hand, there are weighty arguments against the authorship of an AI. One of the most important is that AIs are not natural persons and therefore cannot benefit from copyright under most legal systems. Copyright law is primarily intended to protect the intellectual creation of a human being. However, an AI is not a human being and therefore cannot be considered an author.

Another argument is that an AI is not in a position to decide whether or not to claim copyright. Copyrights can only be claimed by a human author who has the freedom to decide whether or not to use these rights. An AI, on the other hand, has no freedom of choice and therefore cannot claim copyright.

A third argument against AI authorship is that an AI is not able to take responsibility for its actions. For example, if an AI creates a work that violates the legal system, who is responsible for this violation? An AI cannot take responsibility for its actions because it has no moral consciousness.

Authors can only be natural persons

The question of whether an AI can be an author is complex and raises various legal and philosophical questions. The current principle in most countries is that only natural persons can be authors. However, there are also other opinions that support the authorship of AI. It remains to be seen how the discussion will develop in the future and whether there will be changes to copyright law to take account of the growing role of artificial intelligence in art.

Themenschwerpunkt KI & Urheberrecht

In unserem Themenschwerpunkt „KI & Urheberrecht“ beschäftigen wir uns mit den urheberrechtlichen Aspekten aktueller Entwicklungen im Bereich der Künstlichen Intelligenz. Bislang im Rahmen dieser Reihe erschienen sind Einführungen zu den Anwendungen ChatGPT sowie die Verwendung von KI-Kunst, eine Übersicht über die Nutzungsbedingungen und Trainingsdaten beliebter KI-Bildgeneratoren und die im Rahmen der rechtlichen Diskussion geführte Mandelbrot-Debatte. Die Sorgen und Befürchtungen der Presseverleger beleuchten wir im Beitrag „Leistungsschutzrecht und KI“ und gehen in einem gesonderten Artikel der grundlegenden Frage nach, ob KI Urheber sein kann.