★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★Open research. Global perspectives.
editor@theamericanjournals.comPublisher Home ↗
Political Science Law OPEN ACCESS

Synthetic authors and algorithmic expression: the need for a new international treaty on ai and intellectual property

Shokhjakhon Abdusattorov
LL.M. Penn State Law, The Pennsylvania State University, USA, Founder of ZukkoYurist.uz
Shakhriyor Tojiboyev
LL.M. Penn State Law, The Pennsylvania State University, USA
DOI Crossref DOI 10.37547/tajpslc/Volume07Issue07-05
tajpslc 2025
VOL. 7 / NO. 07 JULY
FULL TEXT PP. 24-28
DOWNLOAD PDF

View all articles in this issue ↗

VOLUME 7
ISSUE 07
YEAR 2025
PAGES 24-28
RESEARCH OVERVIEW

Abstract

The rapid advancement of generative artificial intelligence has sparked a fundamental shift in how creative works are produced, challenging the very foundation of intellectual property law. As machines now autonomously generate texts, images, music, and designs, the legal concept of “authorship”-traditionally reserved for human creators - is facing unprecedented ambiguity. This article examines the rise of synthetic authorship, where algorithmically produced content lacks a clear human origin, and explores the inadequacy of existing international legal frameworks in addressing this phenomenon. By analyzing case law, policy developments, and international instruments, the paper argues that current treaties, including the Berne Convention and TRIPS Agreement, fall short in offering coherent protection or regulation for AI-generated works. It advocates for the development of a new international treaty specifically tailored to address the authorship, ownership, and enforcement of intellectual property rights in the context of autonomous artificial creativity. Such a treaty must reconcile technological innovation with the preservation of legal certainty, artistic integrity, and global harmonization of IP norms in the age of machine-made expression.

RESEARCH TOPICS

Keywords

Artificial intelligence synthetic authorship algorithmic creativity

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
SOURCES & SCHOLARSHIP

References

  1. Abbott, R. B. (2016). The reasonable computer: Disrupting the paradigm of tort liability. George Washington Law Review, 86(1), 1–60. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2877380
  2. Casey, B., Farhangi, A., & Vogl, R. (2019). Rethinking explainable machines: The GDPR’s “right to explanation” debate and the rise of algorithmic accountability. Columbia Business Law Review, 2019(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3063289
  3. European Patent Office. (2022). Patenting AI: Issues and insights from the DABUS case. EPO Legal Briefings. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7152113
  4. Gervais, D. J. (2023). The machine as author: Reconceptualizing authorship in the age of algorithms. Vanderbilt University Law Review, 76(3), 805–882. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4629606
  5. Kaminski, M. E. (2022). Authorship reimagined: Intellectual property and creative machines. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 35(1), 55–92. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4115552
  6. Samuelson, P. (2023). Authorship and artificial intelligence: Reconciling originality with automation. University of Chicago Law Review, 90(2), 405–456. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4297649
  7. Thaler v. Hirshfeld, 558 F. Supp. 3d 238 (E.D. Va. 2021). https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200021106
  8. U.S. Copyright Office. (2023). Copyright registration guidance: Works containing material generated by artificial intelligence. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4374567
  9. WIPO. (2023). Revised issues paper on intellectual property policy and artificial intelligence. World Intellectual Property Organization. https://doi.org/10.34667/tind.46857
  10. Yu, P. K. (2021). Artificial intelligence, big data, and intellectual property: Protecting innovation in the age of machines. Florida Law Review, 73(1), 1–45. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3571329