Navigating the Future: Legal Perspective on AI, Responsibility, and Consciousness
Description
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become an integral part of daily life, streamlining tasks and enhancing efficiency across industries. However, its increasing role in content creation and innovation raises complex legal questions regarding ownership and liability. The debate is divided—some argue that AI should be granted ownership rights and held liable for its actions, while others maintain that the creators or developers should bear these responsibilities. Despite the rapid advancement of AI, existing intellectual property and liability frameworks remain inadequate in addressing these challenges. Current legal doctrines do not explicitly define AI’s status in relation to intellectual property rights, leaving significant gaps and ambiguities. This paper critically examines the intersection of AI, intellectual property, and privacy laws, analyzing whether AI-generated works can be legally protected, who should bear responsibility for AI-related violations, and how international legal frameworks address these issues. By assessing global approaches and identifying potential reforms, this study aims to provide a clearer path toward an equitable and effective legal framework for AI ownership and liability.
Files
13. Kiruba 134-145.pdf
Additional details
Identifiers
Software
- Repository URL
- https://www.aequivic.in/post/navigating-the-future-legal-perspective-on-ai-responsibility-and-consciousness
- Development Status
- Active
References
- [1] Jolly Tewari & Malobika Bose, 'History of Artificial Intelligence' (2023) 5 Indian Journal of law & Legal Research [2] Mabel V Paul, 'Technical, Legal and Ethical Opportunities and Challenges of Governing Artificial Intelligence in India' (2023) 5 Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research 1 [3] M. Prabhu and J. Anil Premraj, 'Artificial Consciousness in AI: A Posthuman Fallacy' (2024) AI & Society https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-02061-4. [4] Colin R Davies, 'An Evolutionary Step in Intellectual Property Rights – Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property' (2011) 27 Computer Law & Security Review 601 [5] Jolly Tewari and Malobika Bose, 'History of Artificial Intelligence' (2023) 5 Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research 1 [6] Thaler v Vidal, 43 F 4th 1207 (Fed Cir 2022) [7] DABUS AI Patent Case, South African Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC). [8] Jyh-An Lee, Reto M Hilty, and Kung-Chung Liu, Roadmap to Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property (Oxford University Press, 2021) https://ssrn.com/abstract=3802232 accessed (09-02-2025). [9]Copyright Act 1957 (India) s 13. [10]Dave K, 'Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property in India' (Parker & Parker, 30 September 2024) https://www.parkerip.com/blog/artificial-intelligence-and-intellectual-property-in-india/ accessed 12 February 2025. [11] Patents Act 1970 (India) s 2(1). [12]Teesha Hemangkumar Soni, Impact of AI Creations and IPR Framework (Dissertation, The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda 2024) https://ssrn.com/abstract=4831898 accessed 12 February 2025. [13]Trademarks Act 1999 (India). [14] Designs Act 2000 (India) s 2(d) [15]Arjit Benjamin, 'India's IP Laws Need To Adapt To AI Creativity' (2023) Bar & Bench https://www.barandbench.com/law-firms/view-point/indias-ip-laws-need-to-adapt-to-ai-creativity accessed 12 February 2025. [16] Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization (signed 14 July 1967, entered into force 26 April 1970) [17]Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (adopted 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995) 1869 UNTS 299. [18] Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (adopted 9 September 1886, last revised 28 September 1979). [19]Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (adopted 20 March 1883, last revised 14 July 1967). [20] DABUS AI Patent Case, South African Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC). [21] Thaler v. Vidal, 43 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022). [22] Lawrence B. Solum, 'Legal Personhood for Artificial Intelligences' (1992) 70 North Carolina Law Review 1231. [23] Bruce Willis AI Commercial Incident, Variety, April 28, 2023. [24] Anil Kapoor v Simply Life & Ors, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5976 [25] Andersen v Stability AI (D Del, No. 3:23-cv-00201, filed 2023) [26] Sudharsan S. Sri, 'AI and Personality Rights: Legal Implications' (2023) 6 Int'l JL Mgmt & Human 2278. [27] M Prabhu and JA Premraj, 'Artificial Consciousness in AI: A Posthuman Fallacy' (2024) AI & Society https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-02061-4 accessed [date] [28] https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/indian-news-agency-ani-sues-openai-unsanctioned-content-use-ai-training-2024-11-19/ [29] The Ethics and Challenges of Legal Personhood for AI' (22 April 2024) https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/the-ethics-and-challenges-of-legal-personhood-for-ai? [30] Consumer Protection Act 2019, s 2(33) [31] Saurabh Vishwakarma, 'Understanding AI and Product Liability in India' (2023) Journal of Law and AI Regulation 15. [32] Consumer Protection Act 2019, s 85. [33] Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 (India). [34] A Kumar and V Sharma, 'AI and Data Protection: A Legal Perspective' (2023) 15(3) Journal of Technology Law 45. [35] R Singh, 'Web Scraping and Privacy Law: Implications of the DPDPA' (2023) 12(2) Indian Journal of Cyber Law 89. [36] Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 (India), s 14 [37] Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation) art 3. [38] Personal Information Protection Law of the People's Republic of China 2021, art 73 [39] Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (Singapore), s 4 [40] D Mishra and S Patel, 'Publicly Available Data and AI Training: A Comparative Analysis of Privacy Laws' (2023) 10(1) Technology and Law Review 34. [41] Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 (India), s 17.