Who Owns Creativity When AI Does the Thinking?

The world has changed fast. Not too long ago, people relied on photocopy machines and black and white cameras. Today, we live in a time of 3D printing, virtual surgeries powered by 5G, and robots that can think and learn. Technology has completely reshaped how we live, work, and create.

One of the biggest breakthroughs of recent times is Artificial Intelligence. Tools like ChatGPT can hold conversations, answer questions, write stories, compose music, and even create computer code. What makes this even more striking is how fast society accepted it. Within months of its launch in late 2022, ChatGPT became the fastest app in history to reach over one hundred million users.

But with all this progress comes a big question. When machines start creating things that look and feel human, who owns those creations?

This is where Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property collide.

This article explores how Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property intersect, why the idea of human authorship matters so much, the problems the law is facing today, and what the future might look like as AI becomes even more independent.

What Intellectual Property Really Means

Intellectual Property is simply about protecting ideas and creativity. It covers things that come from the human mind, such as stories, inventions, logos, designs, and business secrets.

The World Intellectual Property Organization describes it as creations of the mind. In everyday terms, if you created it using your thinking and effort, intellectual property law may protect it.

There are five major types of intellectual property recognized around the world:

Copyright protects books, music, art, movies, software, and even databases
Patents protect new inventions and innovations
Trademarks protect brand names, logos, and symbols
Industrial designs protect the look and design of products
Trade secrets protect confidential business information

Because creativity and innovation drive business and growth, countries have built laws to protect intellectual property. Globally, there are agreements like the Berne Convention and the Patent Cooperation Treaty. In Nigeria, we have laws such as the Nigerian Copyright Act 2022, the Patents and Designs Act, and the Trademarks Act, enforced by bodies like the Nigerian Copyright Commission.

For a long time, this system worked well. Then Artificial Intelligence entered the picture.

What Is Artificial Intelligence?

Artificial Intelligence simply means machines that can think, learn, and solve problems in ways that resemble human intelligence. The term was first used by computer scientist John McCarthy in the late 1970s.

Since then, AI has grown rapidly. Today, it powers facial recognition, automation, smart devices, data analysis, and even creative work. Some AI systems can now create other AI systems on their own. In simple terms, AI can now build AI.

This level of independence is what makes Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property such a serious issue today.

Where Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Meet

AI is no longer just a tool. It is now a creator.

In 2016, an AI system studied thousands of paintings by Rembrandt and produced a brand new artwork that looked like it came straight from the artist himself. In 2018, an AI generated painting sold for over four hundred thousand dollars at an auction. AI has also invented household devices and composed music that sounds like it was written by human legends.

The problem is simple. These works look real. You cannot easily tell whether a human or a machine created them.

AI is also being used to protect intellectual property. Companies now use AI to detect trademark infringement and monitor online platforms for copied content. At the same time, AI relies heavily on massive databases, which raises privacy and data protection concerns.

All of this places Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property on a direct collision course.

Why Human Authorship Matters

Traditionally, intellectual property protection depends on two things.

The work must be original
The work must come from a human mind

AI can clearly produce original results. But the second requirement is where the problem lies.

Most laws assume that an author or inventor is a human being. Machines do not have legal identity. They cannot own property, sue anyone, or be sued. This creates confusion when AI produces something entirely on its own, without meaningful human input.

Some argue that AI is just a tool, like a camera or a computer. In that case, the human who designed or used the AI should own the work. Others argue that when AI operates independently, the human role is too small to justify ownership.

This debate sits at the heart of Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property.

What the Law Currently Says

Most international laws still lean heavily toward human authorship.

European copyright law focuses on works that reflect a human creator’s personal choices. Courts have repeatedly held that creativity must come from human intellectual effort.

Patent law follows the same logic. Rules require inventors to be natural persons with names and addresses. Machines do not qualify.

In the UK and Nigeria, the law tries to bridge the gap by assigning authorship to the person who made the arrangements necessary for the work to be created. This ensures that ownership always traces back to a human.

The clear message is this. Under current law, AI cannot own intellectual property.

The DABUS Case Simply Explained 

The DABUS case perfectly shows the problem.

Dr Stephen Thaler filed patent applications naming an AI system called DABUS as the inventor. He argued that the machine independently created the inventions and should be recognized as such.

European patent authorities rejected the application. Their reason was simple. The law requires inventors to be human beings. Since DABUS was a machine, the application failed.

Interestingly, South Africa accepted the same application because its system focuses more on formal requirements than on who the inventor is.

This case highlights how different countries may respond differently to Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property challenges.

What Could the Future Look Like?

Technology will not slow down. AI will only become more autonomous.

One possible solution is to create a new category of intellectual property rights specifically for AI generated works. This would encourage innovation while still protecting economic value.

Another option is to remove the strict requirement of naming an author during registration and instead focus on the work itself.

Experts argue that if society benefits from AI creations, the law should adapt to reward and regulate them properly.

Conclusion

Balance is everything.

We must encourage innovation while protecting creativity and fairness. As Artificial Intelligence continues to evolve, the relationship between Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property will become even more important.

The law must keep up with reality. Ongoing discussions, smart policy choices, and flexible legal reforms are essential. If done right, society can enjoy the benefits of AI while still protecting human creativity and economic growth.

The future of creativity is here. The real question is whether the law is ready for it.