Legal personhood is a foundational concept in law, referring to the capacity of an entity to possess rights and obligations under the legal system.
This principle is not limited to human beings; it extends to various entities recognized by law. The concept raises philosophical, legal, and ethical questions, particularly in emerging contexts like Artificial Intelligence (AI) and non-human animals.
In this case, legal personhood defines who or what can participate in the legal system as a subject rather than as an object. A legal person is an entity capable of holding rights, owning property, entering contracts, and being sued or suing in a court of law.
EMERGING DEBATES IN LEGAL PERSONHOOD
The rise of AI challenges traditional notions of legal personhood. Questions include whether AI systems be granted legal personhood. Those in the affirmative argue that in cases where AI acts autonomously in contracts or causes harm, there is need for limited legal standing, akin to corporations.
On the flipside, those against argue that AI lacks consciousness, intentionality, and moral responsibility. A case in point is Sophia the Robot, which was granted citizenship in Saudi Arabia, sparking debate over the implications of recognizing non-human entities as persons.
When it comes to animal personhood, legal systems are increasingly recognizing the rights of animals: For instance, India and New Zealand respectively granted legal personhood to the River Ganges Dolphin and River Whanganui to protect their rights. From the aforementioned examples, it is clear that legal personhood is a dynamic and evolving concept, essential for balancing rights and responsibilities in complex societies.
Its application extends from natural persons to artificial entities, with ongoing debates about AI and animal rights challenging traditional boundaries. Ultimately, personhood reflects society’s evolving values and technological advancements, making it a subject of continual legal and philosophical inquiry.
The question of whether a work generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) belongs to the person who prompts the AI or the AI itself is both complex and timely, touching on issues of intellectual property, authorship, creativity, and legal frameworks.
THE ROLE OF HUMAN AGENCY IN CREATION
At the heart of intellectual property (IP) law lies the concept of human creativity and intellectual effort. When you generate a thoughtful, original prompt and direct an AI to produce content, your creative input plays a foundational role in shaping the final work.
AI merely acts as a tool that executes your instructions, akin to a brush wielded by a painter or a camera directed by a photographer. Therefore, the act of prompting AI is an exercise of intellectual labor that gives you a claim to authorship.
Meanwhile, international intellectual property frameworks, such as the Berne Convention and national copyright laws, protect “original works of authorship” created by humans. Although AI-generated content presents novel challenges, the prevailing legal consensus still favours human authorship when a person plays a significant role in the creative process.
In fact, the United States Copyright Office and the UK Intellectual Property Office generally require a human element for copyright protection. However, some critics argue that since AI models are trained on vast datasets, the output cannot be entirely original.
Nonetheless, this objection misunderstands the distinction between training data and derived works. Training data does not negate the originality of a work created through human-AI collaboration.
Moreover, if your prompt shapes content that is unique and tailored to specific purposes, the result is more akin to derivative authorship than mere reproduction. Additionally, ethical concerns favour recognising prompt creators as authors. Denying authorship would discourage innovation and undermine creative incentives.
By affirming your ownership, the legal and ethical system encourages responsible and innovative use of AI. When it comes to philosophical reflections on authorship, the underpinning of authorship rests on the idea of intentionality and control over the creative act.
When you, as a human agent, envision an idea, frame a question, and guide AI toward producing content, you imbue the resulting work with your intellectual identity.
The AI serves as an extension of your cognitive processes, not an autonomous creator with independent rights. Based on these legal, ethical, and philosophical considerations, it is clear that AI-generated works, guided by your intellectual effort, belong to you.
The author is a lecturer and member of Uganda Law Society