Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Juridical normative study reveals human authorship limits AI copyright under Indonesian law, suggesting limited legal personality as a framework for managing rights.
The basic purpose of copyright is to protect economic and moral rights. Economic rights allow the rights owners to derive financial rewards from monetizing their works. In contrast, moral rights allow the creators to be acknowledged and to take certain actions to preserve and protect the integrity of their works. Both rights are conventionally granted to human and legal entities. However, the massive advancement of AI challenges the essential presumption that technology is merely a device in the hands of humans in the creation process of Work. This paper examines several legal issues and problems concerning the economic and moral rights of AI-generated works using the juridical normative approach from the perspective of Indonesian Copyright Law. The result shows that the framework of Indonesia's copyright law is based on the principle of human authorship, therefore, moral rights can only be granted to human(s) and economic rights can only be granted to legal subjects acknowledged by Indonesian Law: human and legal entity. Although the authorship and ownership of AI for copyrighted work is contentious under Indonesian Laws, the limited legal personality of AI could potentially artifice as the preventive measures on several problems concerning legal standing by enabling legal subject (human or legal entity) to act behalf of AI to exercise their rights and obligation both based on regulative approach and procedural approach.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mayana et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: