With an over-expanding array of applications that rely on artificial intelligence (“AI”), we’re finding more and more ways to use them, sometimes to unexpected results. In fact, some AI applications can now even create new things in ways that are not dependent solely on choices and manipulations by human creators and operators. Yes, in today’s world, IA can now create things on its own, leaving the law to wonder what to do with that new reality. Can our legal system deal with creation of inventions or works of authorship by machines (or rather AI)?

That very question is now being asked in most jurisdictions worldwide, as we collectively try and deal with an uncomfortable realization that, maybe, we as humans are not the only ones capable of creating intangible creations that may worthwhile to protect as intellectual property (“I.P.”). Indeed, this is happening as to works like texts, images and music, and even as to what would be considered inventions, had a human been the creator. When such a creation comes about as a result of the operation of an IA program, should we acknowledge it or, instead, sweep it under the rug and hold that the humans responsible for the initial execution are the akin to the authors or inventors? We should note that this issue exists as to copyrights (as in the case of that painting) but also does for industrial designs and inventions.

A good example of that trend is the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”) on-going consultations as to whether we should recognize the possibility of AI acting as actual creators of other types of I.P. such as patentable inventions or works of authorship. It may be that we do what to open that door, or maybe we just want to avoid the whole mess and stick with the status quo. The jury is still out on that one… for now.

Recently, CIPO may have creaked the door opened, as it allowed the registration of copyrights to a certain painting, the authors of which are presented as a human and, yes, an IA application. To my knowledge, this is a first in Canada though it has happened elsewhere, such as in India last year as to that very painting.

So, according to Canadian copyright registration No. 1188619, the co-authors of the painting at issue are an individual named Ankit Sahni, on the one hand, and “Painting App, RAGHAV Artificial Intelligence”, on the other hand. The work of joint-authorship is thus presented on the Canadian register as resulting from the combined creative work of two entities (for lack of a better term), one of whom (which?) is a computer program.

It is not yet clear how the law can/would/will deal with this kind of factual situation, including as to what the rules are when a “thing” is named like as an author (or an inventor, if it gets to that), including who the I.P. belongs to off-hand, who can be seen as the co-author (or co-inventor) and why, whether the IA could have been named as the sole author (or inventor), etc. One could also consider to extent to which an AI application must be identified as a creator when it as involved -the same as when a human creator is involved, etc. When IA considered more than a mere tool for a human creator? As you can imagine, the potential questions abound.

Though the idea may seem simple, allowing us to consider IA as a creator or inventor does (will) lead to all sorts of consequences that we collectively would do well to think through, before proceeding.

At any rate, IA creating stuff is an inescapable reality that, one way or an other, we collectively have to deal with. Unfortunately, as every jurisdiction makes these kinds of decision without necessarily paying heed to what is being done elsewhere, we may very well end-up with an I.P. legal system that is even more messy than it currently is, as down the line some countries may allow IA as creators and some may not. As I was writing above, every jurisdiction is currently grappling with these questions.