What is an Author Now? Non-Human Creativity and the Existential Crisis of Intellectual Property Law

Abstract

Intellectual property (IP) law, historically grounded in an anthropocentrism framework rewarding human ingenuity, faces a fundamental challenge from creative works generated by non-human agents in the form of "posthuman intellects", especially sophisticated Artificial Intelligence (AI). This paper aims to critically examine the growing inadequacy of traditional IP doctrines in this new context and explore potential legal and philosophical recalibrations. Employing a documentary analysis methodology, the study reviews legal frameworks, seminal case law (e.g., Naruto v. Slater, DABUS discussions), academic literature, and IP office reports. The results indicate that current IP systems are ill-equipped for AI-generated creations, with landmark examples underscoring the system's inflexibility. The rapid advancement of generative AI intensifies this issue, suggesting that denying any form of IP recognition to AI outputs could create legal vacuums and disincentivize innovation. The principal conclusion is that an urgent, multidisciplinary, and international debate is imperative. This debate must address whether AI can or should be recognized as an IP subject or if a novel sui generis framework is required, necessitating a foundational reconsideration of "author," "inventor," and the core purpose of IP in an era of evolving creativity.