O que é um autor agora? Criatividade não-humana e a crise existencial do direito de propriedade intelectual
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19719495Palavras-chave:
Inteligência artificial, Autoria, IA generativa, Propriedade intelectual, Criatividade não humanaResumo
O Direito de Propriedade Intelectual (PI), historicamente fundamentado em um quadro antropocêntrico que recompensa a engenhosidade humana, enfrenta um desafio fundamental a partir de obras criativas geradas por agentes não-humanos na forma de "intelectos pós-humanos", especialmente a sofisticada Inteligência Artificial (IA). Este artigo visa examinar criticamente a crescente inadequação das doutrinas tradicionais de PI neste novo contexto e explorar potenciais recalibrações jurídicas e filosóficas. Empregando uma metodologia de análise documental, o estudo revisa quadros legais, jurisprudência seminal (por exemplo, Naruto v. Slater, discussões sobre o DABUS), literatura acadêmica e relatórios de escritórios de PI. Os resultados indicam que os atuais sistemas de PI estão mal equipados para criações geradas por IA, com exemplos marcantes que sublinham a inflexibilidade do sistema. O rápido avanço da IA generativa intensifica esta questão, sugerindo que negar qualquer forma de reconhecimento de PI aos resultados da IA pode criar vazios legais e desincentivar a inovação. A principal conclusão é que um debate urgente, multidisciplinar e internacional é imperativo. Este debate deve abordar se a IA pode ou deve ser reconhecida como um sujeito de PI ou se é necessário um novo quadro sui generis, exigindo uma reconsideração fundamental dos termos "autor", "inventor" e do propósito central da PI em uma era de criatividade em evolução.
Downloads
Referências
ACEVEDO-CAICEDO, Francisco J.; VARGAS-CHAVES, Iván. Derecho, robótica e inteligencia artificial: luces y sombras sobre una futura regulación de la personalidad de los robots humanoides. Law, State and Telecommunications Review, vol. 16, n. 2, 2024.
ARAI, Yasuhiro; KINUKAWA, Shinya. Copyright infringement as user innovation. Journal of Cultural Economics, vol. 38, n. 2, 2014.
ARNOLD, Carrie. Inside the nascent industry of AI-designed drugs. Nature Medicine, vol. 29, 2023.
BAYERN, Shawn. Reverse engineering (by) artificial intelligence. In: ABBOTT, Ryan (Org.). Research handbook on intellectual property and artificial intelligence. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2022.
BESIROGLU, Tamay; EMERY-XU, Nicholas; THOMPSON, Neil. Economic impacts of AI-augmented R&D. Research Policy, vol. 53, n. 7, 2024.
BRYNJOLFSSON, Erik; LI, Danielle; RAYMOND, Lindsey. Generative AI at work. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 140, n. 2, 2025.
BUITEN, Miriam; DE STREEL, Alexandre; PEITZ, Martin. The law and economics of AI liability. Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 48, 2023.
CHUN, Mattew. How artificial intelligence is revolutionizing drug discovery. Bill of Health, Harvard Law School Petrie-Flom Center. Cambridge: Harvard Law School, 2023.
COCKBURN, Iain M.; HENDERSON, Rebecca; STERN, Scott. The impact of artificial intelligence on innovation: an exploratory analysis. In: AGRAWAL, Ajay; GANS, Joshua; GOLDFARB, Avi (Org.). The Economics of Artificial Intelligence: An Agenda. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2019.
CUNTZ, Alexander, et al. IP assets and film finance: a primer on standard practices in the US. WIPO Economic Research Working Paper, n. 74, 2023.
DUFFY, John. Why business method patents?. Stanford Law Review, vol. 63, 2010.
EBRAHIM, Tabrez Y. Artificial intelligence inventions & patent disclosure. Penn State Law Review, vol. 125, 2020.
ELHAUGE, Einer. Do patent holdup and royalty stacking lead to systematically excessive royalties? Journal of Competition Law and Economics, vol. 4, n. 3, 2008.
EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE. Legal Board of Appeal, Decision in case J 0008/20 (Artificial intelligence inventor/DABUS), j. 21.12.2021.
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA. Thaler v. Commissioner of Patents, [2021] FCA 879, j. 30.07.2021.
FULL COURT OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA. Commissioner of Patents v. Thaler, [2022] FCAFC 62, j. 13.04.2022.
FURMAN, Jeffrey L.; NAGLER, Markus; WATZINGER, Martin. Disclosure and subsequent innovation: evidence from the patent depository library program. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, vol. 13, n. 4, 2021.
GIORCELLI, Michela; MOSER, Petra. Copyrights and creativity: evidence from Italian opera in the Napoleonic age. Journal of Political Economy, vol. 128, n. 11, 2020.
HAEFNER, Naomi, et al. Artificial intelligence and innovation management: a review, framework, and research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 162, 2021.
HANDKE, Christian. Intellectual property in creative industries: the economic perspective. In: BROWN, Abbe E. L.; TOWSE, Ruth (Org.). Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Creative Industries. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018.
HILTY, Reto; HOFFMANN, Jörg; SCHEUERER, Stefan. Intellectual property justification for artificial intelligence. Munique: Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, 2020. (Research Paper No. 20-02).
JASZI, Peter. Toward a theory of copyright: the metamorphoses of “authorship”. In: WILF, Steven (Org.). Intellectual property law and history. London: Routledge, 2017.
KHAN, B. Zorina. The Democratization of Invention: Patents and Copyrights in American Economic Development, 1790-1920. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
KHAN, Faham Ahmed. Intellectual property rights for software, artificial intelligence and computer-related inventions: a comparative analysis. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, vol. 29, n. 1, 2024.
KIM, Daria. ‘AI-generated inventions’: time to get the record straight?. GRUR International, vol. 69, n. 5. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.
LANDES, William M.; POSNER, Richard A. An economic analysis of copyright law. The Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 18, n. 2, 1989.
LOCKE, John. Two Treatises of Government and a Letter Concerning Toleration. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003.
MEZZANOTTI, Filippo; SIMCOE, Timothy. Innovation and Appropriability: Revisiting the Role of Intellectual Property. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2023.
MILITSYNA, Kateryna. Human creative contribution to AI-based output–one just can(’t) get enough. GRUR International, vol. 72, n. 10, 2023.
MITRA-KAHN, Benjamin. Economic reasons to recognise AI inventors. In: ABBOTT, Ryan (Org.). Research handbook on intellectual property and artificial intelligence, 2022.
NOVOS, Ian E.; WALDMAN, Michael. The effects of increased copyright protection: an analytic approach. Journal of Political Economy, vol. 92, n. 2, 1984.
OPENAI. GPT-4 technical report. Ithaca: arXiv, 2023.
PICHT, Peter Georg; BRUNNER, Valerie; SCHMID, Rena. Artificial intelligence and intellectual property law: from diagnosis to action. Munique: Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, 2022. (Research Paper No. 22-08).
PREM, Erich. Artificial intelligence for innovation in Austria. Technology Innovation Management Review, vol. 9, n. 12, 2019.
RAUSTIALA, Kal; SPRIGMAN, Christopher. The piracy and paradox: Innovation and intellectual property in fashion design. Virginia Law Review, vol. 92, 2006.
SAFNER, Ryan. Honor among thieves: how 19th century American pirate publishers simulated copyright protection. Economics of Governance, n. 24, 2023.
SCOTCHMER, Suzanne. Standing on the shoulders of giants: cumulative research and the patent law. Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 5, n. 1, 1991.
STROWEL, Alain. Study on Copyright and New Technologies: Copyright Data Management and Artificial Intelligence. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2022.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM. Thaler v. Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, [2023] UKSC 49, j. 20.12.2023.
THALER, Stephen L. Patent for an invention entitled: “Food container” and “Devices and methods for attracting enhanced attention”. South Africa Patent No. 2021/03242, 28 jul. 2021.
TOWSE, Ruth; HANDKE, Christian; STEPAN, Paul. The economics of copyright law: a stocktake of the literature. Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, vol. 5, n. 1, 2008.
U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE. Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office practices. 3. ed. Washington: U.S. Copyright Office, 2021.
U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE. Copyright registration guidance: Works containing material generated by artificial intelligence. Washington: U.S. Copyright Office, 2023.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. Thaler v. Vidal, 43 F.4th 1207, j. 05.08.2022.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Naruto v. Slater, 888 F.3d 418, j. 23.04.2018.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Thaler v. Perlmutter, 659 F. Supp. 3d 34, j. 18.08.2023.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340, j. 27.03.1991.
VARGAS-CHAVES, Iván. Hacia una regulación ética y sostenible de la inteligencia artificial en Colombia. Law, State and Telecommunications Review, vol. 17, n. 2, 2025.
VINCENT, James. The scary truth about AI copyright is nobody knows what will happen next. The Verge. New York: Vox Media, 2023.
WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION. AI inventions factsheet. Geneva: WIPO.
YILMAZ, Erdem Dogukan; NAUMOVSKA, Ivana; AGGARWAL, Vikas A. AI-driven labor substitution: evidence from google translate and ChatGPT. SSRN, n. 4442406, 2023.
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2026 Iván Vargas-Chaves
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Civilistica.com está licenciada sob a licença 