The fast development of artificial intelligence (AI) has brought numerous legal challenges, particularly in the field of intellectual property.  One of the most debated questions is whether works created by artificial intelligence (AI), whether images, texts, music, or any other type of creation, can be protected under copyright laws.  This issue involves not only a technical and legal analysis but also an ethical one, as the concept of authorship has historically been linked to human creativity.

The Concept of Copyright and Human Authorship

Copyright is based on two essential pillars: authorship and originality. In most jurisdictions, in this case the Republic of Panama, the law provides that the author must be a natural person, since it is presumed that only humans have the capacity to engage in creative acts that reflect their personality or unique vision of the world.

In the context of works created by artificial intelligence (AI), this principle faces significant tensions. As artificial intelligence (AI) systems like DALL·E, MidJourney, or ChatGPT generate sophisticated content, it becomes challenging to determine whether these creations meet traditional requirements for authorship and originality:

       1.  Authorship: Can a machine be an author? Current laws generally do not allow it. However, when a person uses artificial intelligence (AI) in order to generate a work, another question arises: Can the user be considered the author if their intervention is minimal or automated?

       2.  .  Originality: Many works generated by artificial intelligence (AI) are based on pre-existing data collected during the model’s training. This raises doubts about whether these creations are truly original or if they are derived from works protected by copyright.

International Legal Perspectives

       1.  United States: United States: In the U.S., the case “Thaler v. Copyright Office” serves as a key reference. The Court of Appeals ruled that a work generated by artificial intelligence (AI) could not receive copyright protection due to the lack of human authorship.  This reinforces the standard that copyright only protects works created by natural persons.

       2.  European Union In the EU, the copyright directive establishes that human creativity is indispensable for a work to be protected.  Although there are no direct judicial precedents concerning works generated by artificial intelligence (AI), the current legal framework does not explicitly recognize machine authorship.

       3.  Asia: Some jurisdictions, such as China and Japan, have begun debating whether works generated by artificial intelligence (AI) should receive limited protection, recognizing the growing economic importance of the technology.

       4.  Latin America: In most countries in the region, copyright laws are similar to those in Europe and do not consider the possibility of machine authorship. However, the use of AI has started to pose significant legal challenges.

Who Owns an AI-Generated Work?

When AI is used to create content, several actors may be involved:

   •      The user who provides the input: Is this user the author, even if he or she only input a basic command?

   •      The developer of the artificial intelligence (AI) model: Should the developer be considered the author or co-author for designing the system that generated the work?

   •      No one: Without direct human authorship, these works might not qualify for copyright protection and could automatically fall into the public domain.

The Future of Copyright and AI

The debate affects not only the protection of works but also their commercial exploitation.  Without a clear framework, companies and creators face legal uncertainty about who can benefit creations generated by artificial intelligence (AI).

       1.  Possible legal amendments: Some experts advocate for amending laws to recognize limited rights over works generated by artificial intelligence (AI), assigning them to the user or the developer.

       2.  Impact on innovation: A rigid legal framework could inhibit the use of AI in creative fields, while overly broad protection could harm human authors whose works are used to train artificial intelligence (AI) systems.

       3.  Ethics and fairness: Ethical considerations also play a key role.  Is it fair for a machine to “compete” with human creators? Should economic incentives or the protection of human creativity be prioritized?

Conclusion

Works generated by artificial intelligence (AI) challenge traditional copyright concepts, forcing us to rethink authorship in the digital age and consider creating regulations better aligned with technological advancements.  Currently, most legal systems require human intervention to recognize authorship, but, the rapid development of artificial intelligence calls for a profound debate to adapt the legal framework to this new reality. In the case of Panama, there is still no specific law regulating these practices.  The closest effort is a draft bill focused on AI, but it does not explicitly address copyright or the use of AI to create works.  It is essential to make progress on this issue to ensure a balance between technological innovation and the protection of intellectual rights.