Articles
| Open Access |
DOI: 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, USAAbstract
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.
Keywords
Artificial intelligence, synthetic authorship, algorithmic creativity
References
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
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
European Patent Office. (2022). Patenting AI: Issues and insights from the DABUS case. EPO Legal Briefings. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7152113
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
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
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
Thaler v. Hirshfeld, 558 F. Supp. 3d 238 (E.D. Va. 2021). https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200021106
U.S. Copyright Office. (2023). Copyright registration guidance: Works containing material generated by artificial intelligence. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4374567
WIPO. (2023). Revised issues paper on intellectual property policy and artificial intelligence. World Intellectual Property Organization. https://doi.org/10.34667/tind.46857
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
Article Statistics
Downloads
Copyright License
Copyright (c) 2025 Shakhriyor Tojiboyev, Shokhjakhon Abdusattorov
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright of their manuscripts, and all Open Access articles are disseminated under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC-BY), which licenses unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is appropriately cited. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, and so forth in this publication, even if not specifically identified, does not imply that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations.