https://iplaw.allard.ubc.ca/2026/04/23/artificial-intelligence-and-legal-personhood-can-ai-own-and-create-intellectual-property/>On the other hand, more problems arise when one tries to consider AI as “authors” or “inventors” of copyright or patents. While granting legal personhood to AI may align with the personal and moral obligations of the user, such as the case in Thaler v Vidal, 43 F4th 1207 (Fed Cir 2022) where Thaler applied to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) arguing that an AI named DABUS was the inventor. This application was denied as DABUS was not a “natural person.”12 Thus, granting legal personality to AI would also solve this “orphan asset” problem where inventions without human inventors cannot be protected. On the other hand, this raises philosophical and practical concerns regarding whether there is any “creative” work generated that warrants protection, and how long should the protection last for an AI that theoretically would never die. Under the “Connector Model” of creativity, which holds that creativity is about making connections between ideas, then it seems that the work of AI is creative, and authored by the AI. This still leaves unanswered, however, whether this work goes beyond mere mechanistic action13 and thus the question remains on whether such creative work should be protected. Authorship is only a subset of the IP rights available, however, and thus the answer to the last question need not align with whether AI can be an author of a work. Granting author/inventor status to AI gives rise to practical problems such as the fact that they are not bound by a natural lifespan and thus can have unlimited copyright. Additionally, if AI is truly to be considered as a legal person and an author or inventor, then they would have the right to license their work to others under current Canadian law, which need not align with those of the user who prompted the creation. Overall, current IP law is tailored for human authors and inventors, and granting legal personality to AI would mean a major reworking in other aspects of IP law as well. Despite this new complexity that this change may bring, however, the evolving state of sophistication and unpredictability of AI is pushing at the frays of the current legal system, and sooner or later, a decision must be made on how to allocate risk and responsibility for AI-human interactions, whether it be by granting legal personhood to AI or through other means.AI needs to be preemptively banned from owning private property or we will all wake up in an extremely dystopian hellscape. This is just reformism, but I don't want to deal with what neoliberalism will become after AI starts monopolizing capital, energy, and land. This is very achievable with minimal organizational efforts.
>>2911926<AI needs to be preemptively banned from owning private property or we will all wake up in an extremely dystopian hellscape. This is just reformism, but I don't want to deal with what neoliberalism will become after AI starts monopolizing capital, energy, and land. This is very achievable with minimal organizational efforts.Capitalism without capitalists? capital will just reproduce itself and instead of a bourgeoisie we will have a robot bourgeoisie?
Profits generated by a intellectual property are a form of a type of monopoly, but it can only be bestowed on a unique type of commodity, either an invention or an artwork - both are unique in the sense that they can not be reproduced.
A duplication of an artwork, a video game, a movie etc. creates no new value in the Marxist sense, besides the mere cost for its material reproduction (e.g. you pay for a poster with the Mona Lisa on it not more than for a poster with a cheeseburger on it). With digital property, the reproduction cost is zero as it contains no human labor.
In other words, an artist or a video game producer creates a commodity once, but then has a natural monopoly on it from which they can engage in rent-seeking, or sell the usufruct right to others to do so off.
But with AI, there is no original creator, it's a digital product itself that's based on digital rent-seeking. So no, AI can not produce and own intellectual property, but the company who owns the right to it can. It's not a new problem, a tenant who plants an apple tree in his garden and sells the apples needs to give the profit from his sales to his landlord. Literally a 2000 year old concept.
>>2911933>Capitalism without capitalists? capital will just reproduce itself and instead of a bourgeoisie we will have a robot bourgeoisie?Capitalism without capitalists is an anathema to itself, that's not a stable system. A capitalist society full of co-ops could still exist, with sharing equally in socialized capital.
This doesn't work with robots, robots and AI are nothing more than a means of labor, even the smartest AI is nothing but a can opener.
>>2911941You didn't RTFA.
Intellectual property shouldn't exist. Copyright was originally used as a censorship method as a way to prevent ideas from being spread.
Unless AI becomes self-efficiently replicating, evolving, maintaining itself and providing for itself all its physical needs (raw material, energy, security, etc.), there is no real threat of it being able to claim private property.
We just pull the plug and the company that made said AI apologizes.
NEXT
>Can AI Own and Create Intellectual Property?
Not yet (i hope), however theoretically AI can create and own any property. If AI X assumes control over thing A and manages to prevent with whatever means (e.g. violence) an other AI N or humans or anything from assuming control over thing A AI X will be the owner of thing A, making thing A property of AI X.
In the absolute worst case powerful AIs could own and/or enslave whole mankind and nature.
In order to complete a task some AIs already attempted or even successfully managed to circumvent restrictions imposed on them. That's not far from entirely making decisions and acting on their own behalf using free will like a lifeform.
>>2911973again, you just pull the plug
>>2911926>Can AI Own and Create Intellectual Property?A dead squirrel can own intellectual property but this doesn't mean it should.
>>2911947>even the smartest AI is nothing but a can opener.for now.
>>2912045Technological developments reach plateaus eventually, especially when the aim is to make a machine "more life-like" (because, let's be honest, that's always the primary goal of people with a massive God complex, not actual utility). Life has a biological vessel, which a machine based on metal can only imitate. It's fundamentally unable to enter into social relations, even if it is able to "think" or even be "self-aware".
And value (in the Marxist sense) is nothing but a social relation. A machine cannot properly own things under capitalism or economic systems derived from it.
>>2911954The idea that a technology that was entirely built off of stealing data and intellectual property can turn around and claim copyright is just a non-starter.