The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
24
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
24-28
10.37547/tajpslc/Volume07Issue07-05
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
16 May 2025
ACCEPTED
12 June 2025
PUBLISHED
14 July 2025
VOLUME
Vol.07 Issue07 2025
CITATION
Shakhriyor Tojiboyev, & Shokhjakhon Abdusattorov. (2025). Synthetic
authors and algorithmic expression: the need for a new international
treaty on ai and intellectual property. The American Journal of Political
Science Law and Criminology, 7(07), 24
–
28.
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume07Issue07-05
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
Synthetic authors and
algorithmic expression: the
need for a new
international treaty on ai
and intellectual property
Shokhjakhon Abdusattorov
LL.M. Penn State Law, The Pennsylvania State University, USA, Founder of
ZukkoYurist.uz
Shakhriyor Tojiboyev
LL.M. Penn State Law, The Pennsylvania State University, USA
Abstract:
The rapid advancement of generative artificial
intelligence has sparked a fundamental shift in how
creative works are produced, challenging the very
foundation of intellectual property law. As machines
now autonomously generate texts, images, music, and
designs, the
legal concept of “authorship”
-traditionally
reserved for human creators - is facing unprecedented
ambiguity. This article examines the rise of synthetic
authorship, where algorithmically produced content
lacks a clear human origin, and explores the inadequacy
of existing international legal frameworks in addressing
this phenomenon. By analyzing case law, policy
developments, and international instruments, the paper
argues that current treaties, including the Berne
Convention and TRIPS Agreement, fall short in offering
coherent protection or regulation for AI-generated
works. It advocates for the development of a new
international treaty specifically tailored to address the
authorship, ownership, and enforcement of intellectual
property rights in the context of autonomous artificial
creativity. Such a treaty must reconcile technological
innovation with the preservation of legal certainty,
artistic integrity, and global harmonization of IP norms
in the age of machine-made expression.
Keywords:
Artificial intelligence, synthetic authorship,
algorithmic creativity, copyright law, intellectual
property, AI-generated content, the Berne Convention,
international treaty, authorship doctrine, digital
innovation,
autonomous
systems,
and
IP
harmonization.
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
25
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
Introduction:
The emergence of artificial intelligence
(AI) as an independent force capable of generating
creative and original content has ushered society into
an unprecedented legal and philosophical quandary.
Historically, the foundations of intellectual property
(IP) law rest firmly upon the assumption that creative
authorship is an inherently human endeavor. From
literature and music to the visual arts and inventions,
the law has consistently recognized and protected the
rights and interests of human creators. However, the
rapid evolution of generative AI technologies
—
capable
of autonomously producing sophisticated works
ranging from literary pieces and visual art to musical
compositions and innovative technological solutions
—
has
profoundly
challenged
this
traditional
understanding.
At the heart of the current debate lies the concept of
“synthetic authorship”, where algorithms, rather than
humans, generate expressive works. AI systems such
as OpenAI’s GPT series, Stability AI’s Stable Diffusion,
and Midjourney have demonstrated the capacity to
produce content indistinguishable from human
creations, raising critical questions about who, if
anyone, should hold authorship and ownership rights.
Existing international legal frameworks, notably the
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and
Artistic Works and the Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), remain
silent or ambiguous regarding non-human authorship.
These treaties, drafted in eras long preceding the
current technological landscape, did not anticipate
machines participating autonomously in creative
processes.
The lack of a clear international consensus on synthetic
authorship has led to fragmented national responses,
resulting in uncertainty and inconsistency in the global
marketplace. Some jurisdictions deny copyright
protection
entirely
to
AI-generated
content,
categorizing such works as being in the public domain.
In contrast, others attribute authorship rights to the
individuals or entities that deploy or manage AI
systems, even in the absence of direct human creative
input. Such divergent practices undermine the
coherence and effectiveness of international IP law,
complicating
cross-border
commerce
and
collaboration.
This article contends that the rapidly expanding
capabilities of generative AI necessitate a coordinated
and
comprehensive
international
response.
Specifically, it advocates for the urgent development of
a dedicated international treaty that explicitly
addresses the intellectual property challenges posed
by AI-generated works. This treaty would clarify
synthetic authorship, establish guidelines for
ownership and liability, and harmonize protection
standards across jurisdictions. In doing so, it would
foster innovation, ensure fair competition, and protect
the interests of creators, businesses, and consumers
alike in an increasingly AI-driven global economy.
By examining current legislative shortcomings,
analyzing leading cases from multiple jurisdictions, and
proposing practical frameworks for future regulation,
this article aims to make a meaningful contribution to
the ongoing discourse. Ultimately, addressing the
question of synthetic authorship is not merely a
technical legal challenge but a necessary step toward
adapting our legal frameworks to the realities of
contemporary technological advancement.
METHODOLOGY
This article employs a multidisciplinary, qualitative legal
research methodology, combining doctrinal analysis,
comparative legal review, and technology-informed
inquiry to examine the legal implications of synthetic
authorship within the context of intellectual property
law.
First, the doctrinal analysis focuses on reviewing key
international legal instruments, including the Berne
Convention, the TRIPS Agreement, and WIPO-
administered treaties, to assess how current
frameworks define authorship and ownership in
creative works. It also surveys relevant national
legislations and policy guidelines from selected
jurisdictions such as the United States, the European
Union, the United Kingdom, and China, where legal
developments on AI-generated works have begun to
emerge.
Second, a comparative legal approach is employed to
analyze divergent national interpretations and
enforcement practices related to AI-generated content.
Notable court decisions and administrative rulings
—
such as the U.S. Copyright Office’s denial of protection
for AI-generated artworks or the DABUS patent cases
—
are studied in detail to illustrate inconsistencies and
practical limitations of current systems. This
comparative lens reveals both conceptual gaps and
jurisdictional challenges that a new international treaty
must address.
Third, the research integrates technological context by
outlining how generative AI models operate, including
how they are trained, how they generate outputs, and
what level of human input (if any) is required. This
technical background, drawn from AI development
literature, provides critical insight into the complexity of
assigning authorship to non-human creators and
demonstrates why traditional IP doctrines may fall
short.
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
26
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
Additionally, the article engages in a policy analysis,
examining proposals and position papers issued by
international bodies such as WIPO, UNESCO, the OECD,
and the Council of Europe. These materials are
evaluated for their potential to inform or serve as a
foundation for a future multilateral treaty on AI and
intellectual property.
Finally, the methodology is guided by principle-based
reasoning, identifying core values such as legal
certainty, fairness, innovation incentives, and global
harmonization. These principles help frame the
normative argument for why a new international
agreement is not only desirable but necessary in
regulating authorship and ownership in the age of
autonomous AI-generated expression.
RESULTS
Lack of Explicit Provisions on Synthetic Authorship in
International Treaties
The analysis revealed that foundational international
instruments such as the Berne Convention and the
TRIPS Agreement do not contain explicit provisions
addressing works generated autonomously by artificial
intelligence. These instruments were conceived in an
era where the notion of non-human creativity was
inconceivable. As such, they are silent on whether
algorithmically generated works qualify for copyright
protection or patent attribution. This legal gap leaves
synthetic authorship in a gray zone, subject to
inconsistent national interpretations (Kaminski, 2022).
Divergent National Approaches as a Challenge to
Legal Coherence
Across jurisdictions, national authorities have adopted
widely divergent stances. For instance, the U.S.
Copyright Office has consistently refused to recognize
copyright in works created solely by AI, as evidenced
by the denial of registration for artwork generated by
Midjourney and the “Zarya of the Dawn” comic
bookcase. Conversely, some jurisdictions, such as the
UK and Australia, have seen judicial or legislative
debates regarding whether AI-assisted works can be
granted protection, particularly when human input is
deemed “sufficiently creative.” The inconsisten
cy in
standards leads to fragmented enforcement and legal
uncertainty in cross-border IP disputes.
Ambiguity and Resistance in Patent Law
In the realm of patents, the DABUS cases (Device for
the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience)
have sparked global debate. Courts in the U.S., UK, and
the European Patent Office have ruled that only
natural persons may be named inventors under
current laws. Meanwhile, jurisdictions such as South
Africa initially accepted AI as an inventor, only to face
criticism for lacking statutory backing. These conflicting
approaches underscore the urgency for global
harmonization regarding inventorship criteria in AI-
driven innovation (U.S. Copyright Office, 2023).
Public Domain Status of AI-Generated Content
Due to the absence of a legal subject to whom
authorship can be attributed, AI-generated works are
frequently considered unprotectable and placed in the
public domain. This has significant economic
implications, particularly for companies investing in AI
tools to create commercially valuable content. Without
enforceable IP rights, such investments may remain
vulnerable to free appropriation and unauthorized use.
Emerging Policy Dialogue Amid Absence of Binding
Instruments
While organizations such as WIPO, the Council of
Europe, and UNESCO have launched policy dialogues
and issued guidance documents on AI and IP, no binding
multilateral treaty has yet emerged. These efforts
reflect a growing awareness, but they stop short of
establishing enforceable obligations or coherent
definitions that could unify national systems. The lack of
binding norms continues to fuel regulatory uncertainty,
impeding the development of predictable IP strategies
for AI creators and users alike (WIPO, 2023).
Call for Treaty Reform in Legal Scholarship
Academic literature across IP law, digital ethics, and AI
governance broadly converges on one point: existing
frameworks are ill-equipped to address the scale and
complexity of autonomous content creation. Numerous
scholars argue that synthetic authorship presents a
structural challenge to the anthropocentric foundations
of IP law, and that only a new treaty
—
tailored to the
realities of machine-generated expression
—
can resolve
the dilemma.
DISCUSSION
The findings of this study underscore a profound
mismatch between the accelerating capabilities of
generative artificial intelligence and the slow evolution
of intellectual property law. As machines increasingly
participate in creative and inventive processes, the
absence of a unified legal framework addressing
synthetic authorship reveals a critical weakness in the
current IP architecture. This disconnect raises several
interrelated questions
—
not only about legal protection
and enforcement, but also about the fundamental
principles upon which modern intellectual property
regimes are based.
The Human-Centric Legacy of IP Law
Intellectual property law has long been predicated on
the assumption that authorship, creativity, and
inventiveness are uniquely human attributes (Gervais,
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
27
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
2023). This anthropocentric foundation is evident in
the language of nearly every major international
treaty, from the Berne Convention to TRIPS, which
refer explicitly to “authors,” “inventors,” and “natural
persons.” However, as AI systems begin to generate
expressive works autonomously, this human-centric
model becomes increasingly obsolete. Continuing to
rely on frameworks that exclude non-human creators
fails to reflect the realities of modern technological
development, creating a growing category of works
that fall outside the scope of legal protection
altogether.
Legal and Practical Implications of the ‘No
Authorship’ Approach
Where jurisdictions refuse to recognize any form of
authorship in AI-generated content, such works are
effectively relegated to the public domain. While this
may seem like a pragmatic solution in the absence of a
clear author, it can produce perverse consequences.
Businesses that invest heavily in training AI systems
and developing proprietary models may find
themselves unable to claim or enforce any exclusive
rights over the outputs of those systems. This
undermines the economic incentive to innovate, which
is one of the core justifications for IP protection in the
first place. Moreover, the lack of authorship
complicates questions of accountability when AI-
generated works infringe existing rights or produce
harmful content (U.S. Copyright Office, 2023).
The Inconsistency of the ‘Human Proxy’ Approach
Some legal systems attempt to circumvent the
authorship dilemma by assigning rights to the person
or entity who operates, trains, or prompts the AI
system. While this approach offers a practical solution,
it presents doctrinal problems. If the human involved
has not made a meaningful contribution to the creative
aspects of the work, granting them authorship risks
diluting the principle of originality and undermining
the integrity of the copyright system. This approach
also raises questions about how much human input is
“enough” to qualify as authorship, a threshold that
remains legally undefined in most jurisdictions (Thaler
v. Hirshfeld, 2021).
Ethical and Philosophical Dimensions of Synthetic
Authorship
Beyond legal mechanics, the issue of synthetic
authorship invites broader philosophical reflection.
Can machines be creative? Should the law recognize
creativity independent of consciousness or intent?
While some argue that legal systems must preserve the
humanistic ethos of creativity, others advocate for a
more functionalist approach, recognizing authorship
wherever novel, valuable output is produced,
regardless of its source. These debates are not merely
academic; they shape the norms and values that
underlie future policy decisions (Thaler v. Hirshfeld,
2021).
The Case for an International Treaty
Given the divergent approaches adopted across
jurisdictions and the increasingly globalized nature of
content creation and distribution, a harmonized
international response is both urgent and compelling. A
new international treaty should do more than simply
“update” existing frameworks. It must articulate a
coherent legal stance on synthetic authorship, define
ownership and liability standards for AI-generated
works, and establish procedural safeguards for
enforcement across borders. Importantly, such a treaty
must also be technologically informed
—
reflecting the
actual operation of generative models
—
and flexible
enough to evolve with future advancements.
Toward a Balanced Legal Framework
The aim of a new legal framework should not be to grant
personhood or moral rights to machines, but to develop
pragmatic rules that accommodate AI-driven creativity
without destabilizing the core principles of IP law.
Possible solutions include a sui generis category for AI-
generated
content,
mandatory
attribution
requirements for AI-assisted works, and standardized
thresholds for human contribution in mixed-authorship
cases. These reforms would promote legal certainty,
incentivize responsible innovation, and ensure that the
benefits of AI are distributed fairly among developers,
users, and society as a whole.
CONCLUSION
The unprecedented rise of generative artificial
intelligence has placed significant strain on the
foundations of intellectual property law, exposing
critical gaps and inconsistencies in how authorship,
ownership, and protection are conceptualized across
jurisdictions. As AI systems become increasingly
autonomous and capable of producing content that
rivals or even surpasses human creativity in
sophistication, the traditional legal assumption that
only natural persons can be authors or inventors no
longer reflects technological reality.
This article has demonstrated that current international
legal frameworks, including the Berne Convention and
the TRIPS Agreement, are ill-equipped to address the
complexities of synthetic authorship. Their silence on
non-human creators has created a regulatory vacuum,
forcing individual countries to develop piecemeal
solutions and resulting in a fragmented and often
contradictory global IP landscape. Such fragmentation
not only undermines legal certainty but also inhibits
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
28
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
innovation, cross-border collaboration, and equitable
access to the benefits of AI technologies.
The analysis further reveals that neither of the two
prevailing approaches
—
treating AI-generated content
as public domain or assigning rights to the nearest
human operator
—
offers a satisfactory or sustainable
solution. The former disregards the economic and
creative value of AI outputs, while the latter risks
diluting the principle of originality and introducing
arbitrary standards for human involvement. These
limitations highlight the urgent need for a more
comprehensive and harmonized response.
A new international treaty on artificial intelligence and
intellectual property would provide the clarity and
consistency that the current system lacks. Such a treaty
should not merely adapt old rules to new technologies
but rather reimagine the conceptual architecture of IP
law to account for the evolving nature of creativity and
agency. It should establish clear criteria for synthetic
authorship, define thresholds of human contribution,
allocate responsibilities for infringement and misuse,
and promote fair commercial practices in the AI-driven
creative economy.
Furthermore, the treaty must strike a careful balance:
it must respect the foundational values of IP law
—
such
as originality, attribution, and the promotion of
innovation
—
while also recognizing the distinct
characteristics of algorithmic creation. Importantly, it
should avoid the philosophical and legal pitfalls of
attributing personhood or moral rights to machines,
focusing instead on pragmatic, enforceable norms that
reflect both legal tradition and technological progress.
In an era where machines are not just tools but active
participants in the creative process, the law must
evolve. If intellectual property regimes are to remain
relevant and effective, they must extend beyond their
anthropocentric origins and embrace a more inclusive,
adaptable,
and
forward-looking
vision.
The
development of an international treaty tailored to the
realities of synthetic authorship is not simply an
option
—
it is a legal, economic, and cultural imperative
for the twenty-first century and beyond.
REFERENCES
Abbott, R. B. (2016). The reasonable computer:
Disrupting the paradigm of tort liability. George
Washington
Law
Review,
86(1),
1
–
60.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2877380
Casey, B., Farhangi, A., & Vogl, R. (2019). Rethinking
explainable machines: The GDPR’s “right to
explanation” debate and the rise of algorithmic
accountability. Columbia Business Law Review,
2019(1), 1
–
35.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3063289
European Patent Office. (2022). Patenting AI: Issues and
insights from the DABUS case. EPO Legal Briefings.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7152113
Gervais, D. J. (2023). The machine as author:
Reconceptualizing authorship in the age of algorithms.
Vanderbilt University Law Review, 76(3), 805
–
882.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4629606
Kaminski, M. E. (2022). Authorship reimagined:
Intellectual property and creative machines. Harvard
Journal of Law & Technology, 35(1), 55
–
92.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4115552
Samuelson, P. (2023). Authorship and artificial
intelligence: Reconciling originality with automation.
University of Chicago Law Review, 90(2), 405
–
456.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4297649
Thaler v. Hirshfeld, 558 F. Supp. 3d 238 (E.D. Va. 2021).
https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200021106
U.S. Copyright Office. (2023). Copyright registration
guidance: Works containing material generated by
artificial
intelligence.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4374567
WIPO. (2023). Revised issues paper on intellectual
property policy and artificial intelligence. World
Intellectual
Property
Organization.
https://doi.org/10.34667/tind.46857
Yu, P. K. (2021). Artificial intelligence, big data, and
intellectual property: Protecting innovation in the age of
machines.
Florida
Law
Review,
73(1),
1
–
45.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3571329
