Open Access Research Article
AI, COPYRIGHT, AND MORAL RIGHTS: LEGAL CHALLENGES FOR AUTHORS IN THE DIGITAL ERA
Published Paper
Article Details
AI, COPYRIGHT, AND MORAL RIGHTS: LEGAL CHALLENGES FOR AUTHORS
IN THE DIGITAL ERA"
AUTHORED BY - MALAVIKA SATHYANATHAN[1]
Abstract
The swift development of artificial
intelligence (AI) has posed great challenges to conventional copyright law,
especially concerning authors' moral rights. Moral rights, such as the right of
attribution and integrity, are crucial in protecting the personal and
intellectual bond between creators and their works. With AI increasingly
participating in the creative process, issues of attribution, unauthorized
alteration, and possible copyright infringement come into question. This essay
discusses the ethical implications of content created by AI on moral rights,
touching on the legal and ethical issues around ownership, responsibility, and
safeguarding artistic integrity. Solutions range from imposing transparency
requirements, licensing regimes, equitable compensation models, and stronger
legal safeguards to protect authors' rights over their creative work. Ensuring
a balance between innovation and respect for authors' rights is key in
reshaping copyright law to fit the changing digital era.
Keywords: Moral rights, copyright law, artificial intelligence, right of
attribution, right of integrity,
INTRODUCTION
Technological advancements in recent
years are parallel to the invention of the printing press in the 15th century.
Interestingly, the Copyright law of that day did not exist, but with time,
protecting intellectual property is of paramount importance. From a historical
perspective of the development of copyright law, Gutenberg’s invention was the
spark that massively increased the circulation of creative works especially
books.Authors in that era had a vulnerable position with regards to production
and sale as they could only be brought to production and sold behind the back
of a patron. Therefore, they had next to no means by which to protect their
creations. Seen from another angle, the development of book printing at the
same time is comparable to modern digital technologies. It helped cultural
development greatly, but it also helped to promote unauthorized reproduction
and distribution of works. Given the high cost of book printing, entrepreneurs
would need to spend a good deal of money on book printing and hence rulers
would issue special privileges to specific persons making them operate in some
parts and for times with an intent to protect their interests. Moral rights law
seeks to protect the rights of creative authors that are independent of their
works' commercial worth. These rights, which have been widely acknowledged in
copyright laws worldwide, go beyond merely securing an author's financial
interests. According to Rathke, the concept of moral rights is rooted in the
belief that there is an intimate and deeply personal connection between an
author's creative expression and their work.In England, especially in the 17th
and 18th centuries, the foundations of the copyright laws emerged, and this
trend and evolution can be largely seen. For this reason, early copyright law
may be traced to the Crown granting the exclusive right to print. These
printing privileges were part of the printing industries’ own regulatory
framework that the printing industry manufactured in London through its
printing guild, the Stationers’ Company.
The first law to use formal
legislation on the subject developed during the reign of Queen Anne, but a view
of a larger historical development of copyright law in England may be seen
beyond this point. In 1709, this landmark statute was introduced and became the
Statute of Anne, which was first enacted on April 10, 1710[2].
In the 1700s, the limitations of a draft version of the statute, enacted in
1707, reflected that the authors had an 'undoubted property' in their works.
Nevertheless, this terminology was changed to 'sole right and liberty of
printing,' which implies the influence of the positivist legal thought focused
on legally given rights rather than property. The Statute of Anne stands out
historically because it became both Britain's first official copyright law and
the first one established worldwide. The law triggered a shift from
conventional society towards legal administration of intellectual property by
defining clear copyright standards. Under the Statute of Anne copyright started
to exist because this law began protecting writers as owners of their literary
work. Through the Statute of Anne publishers gained the right to buy and sell
copyright ownership from its creators. Under the Statute of Anne both Authors
and publishers gained legal protection since the law granted publishers special
rights after the original creators. The regulations protected authors from
issues while helping publishers through legal contracts in literature business
until future laws arrived. Other nations established copyright laws after
following Britain's lead in legal development. Since 1790 the United States
adopted copyright regulation based on British law[3].At
that time France set up its original copyright law system. The European trend
of enacting copyright laws kept growing during the 19th century with Prussia[4] and
Austria[5] making
their own laws to safeguard intellectual property rights. Copyright law of
today exists to support people who generate works that bring important
creativity and science to the world. Copyright law helps creators accomplish
their objectives by offering them both rights relating to public respect and
rights to financial benefits. Lawmakers create an equal balance among authors,
users and society while setting up this legal system. Copyright law evolves
swiftly to keep pace with societal, technological, and business advancements.
However, frequent updates to these laws can make it challenging to maintain a
stable balance among stakeholders. Despite being designed with good intentions,
legal provisions often lead to unforeseen consequences, particularly in the
digital age, where the original objectives of the law may become obscured or
undermined. Each country creates legal protection to secure what its citizens
have made in culture. Technology improved at speed during the last century and
the first decade of this century made a strong impact on moral rights. Under
the term Moral Rights or Author’s Special Rights makers of content maintain
their legal connection to their works by law[6].
The moral rights system works regardless of whether or not an author earns
money from their created work. Moral rights exist because an author needs
freedom to decide how to use their work. The global support for moral rights
started when the Berne Convention entered into force in 1886. The development
of moral rights law hit several challenges including those starting from the United
States. Their progress reached new heights following their endorsement of both
Universal Copyright Convention and the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights (TRIPS). Global copyright law expanded in power as WIPO
included moral rights following these organizational updates.
Characteristics of moral rights from a conventional
perspective.
? Origins and theoretical framework of moral rights.
Intellectual property protections
stem from defending individual personality rights of creators. During the 19th
century moral rights started to develop in France under the name *droit moral*.
French courts in the start of the 1500s confirmed that only authors own the
publishing rights to their work. French law protects moral rights more fiercely
across Europe than Anglosphere legal systems because it came from those
original French concepts. Jane C. Ginsburg explains how French and
Anglo-American copyright laws work differently which reveals their major
significance. Moral right protection takes a distinct form under French law
alongside other copyright systems in continental Europe. French copyright and
other European nation laws function primarily to protect authors yet
Anglo-American copyright stands apart by caring about society's needs. France
grants strong moral rights protection through its author-centered approach
whereas Anglo-American systems grant more economic rights since these rights
serve social purposes. Under civil versus common law the connection between
authors and their ethical rights requires diverse formal legal protection
(Pogácsás 2022). How nations with European civil laws manage moral rights
stands opposite from the way they operate in nations under Anglo-Saxon legal
systems and the United States. The United States did not grant moral rights to
artists until it passed VARA in 1990[7].
VARA creates written protection for authors who own specific visual artworks by
allowing them to establish or erase their ownership status and maintain control
of their creations. The U.S. Congress evaluated moral rights changes through a
public hearing on July 15th 2014 as part of its total copyright review[8].
In 1886 the international community
adopted the Berne Convention as the first global copyright law known as its
primary reference point[9]. Under
Article 6bis of the Berne Convention authors possess two essential moral rights
that include their authorship identity right also known as paternity[10] and their
right to maintain work quality known as respect[11].
Through this rule authors have the right to approve specific modifications or
prohibit work damages[12]. During
the 1928 Rome meeting the Berne Convention leaders approved moral rights for
the first time.
The inclusion of moral rights within
the TRIPS Agreement[13] appears
to be largely ineffective, as the agreement explicitly states that “Members
shall comply with Articles 1 through 21 of the Berne Convention (1971) and the
Appendix thereto. However, Members shall not have rights or obligations under
this Agreement in respect of the rights conferred under Article 6bis of that
Convention or of the rights derived therefrom”[14].The
absence of moral rights in the TRIPS Agreement is often attributed to the
differing levels of protection that various countries are willing to recognize
and enforce (Schéré, 2018)[15].
Additionally, some scholars argue that the internationalization of intellectual
property law is primarily embedded within the broader framework of global trade
relations. As a result, its foundation is largely economic, with personal
rights—such as moral rights—receiving little to no emphasis[16].
In addition, the discrepancy between
continental and common law countries' views on the moral rights also inherently
shaped the preparation of the TRIPS Agreement. Nevertheless, moral rights are
somehow neglected when morally significant rights are restricted to bilateral
and multilateral agreements which results in an unfair situation between the
parties concerned.
The rapid advancement in the digital
world makes it increasingly unlikely to incorporate moral rights in the
international copyright conventions. During the negotiations of the TRIPS
Agreement, the postponement of the recognition of moral rights occurred during
the technological boom. Current technological progress is moving very rapidly
and the direction of which is in major doubt and hence, achieving international
harmonization in the protection of the moral rights becomes even more
challenging.
Meaning and Concept of Moral Rights
Which are moral rights under copyright,
a mandatory provision of copyright law that protects an author’s non-economic,
personal or spiritual interest in his or her work. The commonly accepted view
of moral rights states that creators of copyrightable works have inalienable
rights to their works as well as to their interests associated with them other
than those usually granted copyright holders in different legal systems. Moral
rights doctrine is based on the first principle that extends the authors’
rights beyond the mere economic rights to their work. It is not that the
artistic creation is a commercial product that can be purchased and sold, but
actually it is an expression of the creator self, it is a reflection of their
identity and personality and even of their creative essence. Moral rights
accord the author the rights to such identity with its expression in artistic
or intellectual works, so as to secure the authorship and would remain there
(for performance, reproduction or transmission) to attest for them as the
original creator and also to preserve the work’s idea and essential features. Copyright
law do not allow the transfer of moral rights unlike economic rights. An author
can sell the economic rights in his creation to other parties and thus deny
them the ability to earn money from it, but he can still protect the integrity
of his work, for example in public readings, performances and broadcasts
through the enforcement of its moral rights. The moral rights of the creators
have been recognized in section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957, on the basis of
Article 6bis of Berne Convention (1886)
key Features of Legally Recognized Moral Rights
In addition to the right of paternity
and the right of integrity, the Berne Convention has also guaranteed the right
to decide about the publication of a work, as well as of the right of
publication, in many national copyright laws. In terms of protecting the
author’s right to establish paternity, the right to paternity can be thought of
as the right to have one’s name linked to one’s work. However, in some cases,
this right is seen as a separate entitlement. The right of paternity
essentially gives an author the capacity to claim authorship of her creation. However,
this right is usually exercised against authors, who prevent their name from
appearing in copies of their work or any use of the work unless it includes
reproduction, as stated in the WIPO Glossary. This right gives the creator the
right to receive proper attribution and allow them to be identified as the
original author.
Specifically, the right of
attribution is closely related to the right to authorship; one does not
concretely exist without the other as an author's assertion of authorship of
the work would typically involve publishing the author's name on the work
itself. In addition, this right includes the possibility to be anonymous or use
a pseudonym. All types of reproduction in the sense of having obtained for free
a copy of the work, all forms of quotation, all forms of referring in an
extract, it may depend on the form of the work, these are different ways of
attribution rights. This right, even in the cases of adaptation, where the
adapted version falls to the original creator. Authors have the right to be
sure that their name is displayed in a way that is appropriate for how the work
happened to be used. Attribution is not unjustifiably the right to credit
because, unless proven otherwise, the name on a work in the usual place of
names is presumed to be the creator of that work. In fact, this right is
violated when the author’s name is omitted in many cases, and this right can be
abused in order to plagiarize. In this context also, we have the practice of
ghostwriting. Ghostwriting is the activity of writing a piece based on a client
or employer’s ideas and in his or her style, and publishing the work under
one’s own name. While ghosting is common
in political discourse and other occasional speeches or performances, legal
scholarship defines these as the most common instances of it. Usually the ghostwriting
is due to the tax dollars following their author, in addition to the very large
financial compensation for the writer, or due to an employer-employee
relationship, where the author writes something for his boss.
It is moral rights’ core principle,
and protection for the author's essence and spirit, the right of integrity. One
of the most elementary personal rights to the author one of the most
complicated. First it was recognized on an international basis when the Berne
Convention first stated that authors had the right ‘to object to any
distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work, prejudicial to his
honour or reputation’[17]. This was
expanded in 1948 at the 1948 Brussels revision conference to include ‘any
distortion of mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action
in relation to to the said work prejudicial to his honor or reputation[18].’ By this
modification, it was understood that not every modification was a violation; it
was an alteration only that in its nature and as it was applied would injure
the reputation or honor of the author. As explained in a Commentary on the
Berne Convention (Ficsor, 2003)[19], author’s
honor and reputation protection is not limited to the author's professional
identity as a creator, but includes personal dignity as an individual. The
right of integrity retains the intimate relationship between author and work,
but projects that work to the community without contaminating the author’s
repudiation. Since society and the author’s professional peers evaluate an
author, and since one of the most inviolable is one who is judged on works,
this is considered one of the rights. The search regarding the protection of
the integrity of a work corresponds to wholeness and inviolability ideas. It
does not have to apply to the physical form of the work but must include
preservation of the artistic and intellectual message of the work. A work is
intact in its entirety, meaning that its title is intact, and integrity of work
reaches to material copies as well as all other forms of artistic expression[20].
Based on the specific nature of the
right to integrity, it is notable that, even with equal intervention, the
personhood rights of an author must be weighed against the user interests. The
result of such a weight depends on variables like the nature of work, the way
used, and the character of intervention. For example, some researchers maintain
that, within the area of fine arts, the right of integrity may very well limit
artistic liberty (Adler, 2009). Yet, it is essential to note that, in the
context of court proceedings, one has to keep an equilibrium between artistic
liberty and other authors' moral rights (Sápi & Halász, 2021). Moreover, it
is important to recognize that moral rights, such as the right of integrity,
are not absolute and are subject to some restrictions in European copyright
regimes. A primary drawback of the right of integrity, and of exclusive
copyright protection in general, is the term of copyright protection. Once the
term expires, the work is in the public domain. In general, this is to say that
after the copyright term, any person may freely use the work in whatever form
without seeking permission or royalties from the author. Moral rights are also
affected by the lapse of copyright protection. Whereas the right to authorship
(paternity right) persists even after the term of copyright expires, other
moral rights, for example, the right of integrity, normally lose effect after
the protection period. Consequently, works in the public domain tend to be
subject to the greatest level of alteration.
Another significant shortcoming of
copyright, and more so moral rights, is the doctrine of parody, which has
become increasingly relevant in recent years. According to the existing EU
copyright regime, parody constitutes free use, subject to the three-step test
and not interfering with the normal exploitation of the original work.
Nevertheless, if a use interferes with the ordinary operation of the work,
e.g., by contaminating its integrity, it will be illegal. The interconnection
between parody and moral rights is best understood via this dynamic: while
parody tends to be authorized as free speech, the right of integrity provides a
limitation of its ambit. Because of this interaction, there is widespread
practice of extensively modifying works—particularly those in the public
domain—whose original protection period has already lapsed, with parody being a
leading example of such modification.
Author’s moral rights and social network platforms
The social media revolution has
changed how creators distribute their creative work to their audiences and how
audiences offer critical assessment of this work. Authors receive strong
exposure options from these platforms though their moral rights remain
susceptible to substantial threats because of these platforms. Authors hold
specific moral rights that prevent other users from using their work without
attribution along with altering it in ways which degrade its creative message.
Fast content distribution through digital channels results in reduced author protection
because current legal systems operate without suitable solutions to these
problems.
The unauthorized distribution of
altered content and misattributed work and intentional work distortions from
authors presents one major concern. People who use social media platforms
commonly modify creative content using memes and edits along with AI generated
adjustments without obtaining approval from the original creators. The lack of
author recognition combined with violations of their work integrity through unauthorized
manipulations devalues their creative source while creating potential harm to
their author brand. Authors face increased reluctance to generate content when
exposed to harsh criticism and harassing comments on these platforms and
therefore it becomes relevant to determine if moral rights protection should
extend to defense from harmful external digital interactions.
Current copyright laws protect
original works yet they fail to protect authors from the emotional damages that
occur through social media content activities. The straightforward nature of
sharing and modification of content creates substantial difficulties for
enforcement teams thus putting creators at risk of facing professional damage
to their reputation. Legislators together with legal scholars have to evaluate
digital protections because authors need proper safeguards for their creative
works as social media continues its transformation.
People now accept as fact that social
media endangers privacy and personal rights while accessing private data
(Halász, 2020)[21].
Creativity and created work should not stand apart from all others when it
comes to exposure. Does the acceptance of potential social media-caused harm to
written works exist among authors regarding their creations and creative
development? The act of reading hostile public comments about authorial work
does not breach their moral rights but it remains capable of damaging their
creative energies anyway. The large impact external forces have on authors
presents a challenge to legislative initiatives supporting creative expression
because these efforts could turn out to be ineffective.
Furthermore, although it is
indisputable that social media plays a contributing role in such personal
rights and copyright infringing matters as they are, is it furthermore
reasonable to suggest that its role in copyright is exclusively negative? There
is nothing inherently wrong with showing copyrighted works or extracts on the
supported site, so the answer is straightforwardly no. However, on the contrary,
the promotion of copyrighted works on social media is the norm and it has
become easier for authors to get awareness about the way their works are being
used and shared[22].
Today, in a market which has
undergone a revolution in the media industry structure (Grazian, 2005), thanks
to the digital revolution, which has significantly influenced the market of the
copyright in the past, we must give to what is due; authors morals rights. In
the light of this aspect, it is still necessary to underline the protective
character of the moral rights, because the ethical consideration is of equal
importance as for the exclusive economic rights for encouraging the creative
work. The phenomenon of mass production (Pogácsás, 2017) of creative efforts
within networked social media is also an important aspect. One such is the
prime example, for instance Instagram, where the images, which have a large
number accumulate over them an impressive unity and originality in form, thus
give them a quality out of ordinary images and make them the subject of
copyright. Users have social media at their disposal to say whatever they want
however they want. Is it, then, particularly suitable for authors to exercise
their freedom of expression and publish their works on this platform? Where
creative work has to be published is not stipulated by copyright law. Now,
while social media works great to reach a wide audience to share certain types
of content such as photographs, short videos (live streams), poems and short
literary pieces it is not necessarily the most suitable platform for all kinds
of works. Another great concern with regard to this is a form of the right to
publication such as the right of withdrawal. With this right under enforcement,
social media becomes a highly complex business. According to the Hungarian
Copyright Act the authors' right to untie their consent is granted, when their
consent is untied in writing and for a valid reason. Furthermore, they can also
withdraw their published works from further use but have to pay for the damages
they have caused. However, this right does not limit the employer’s continued
use of the work or restrict an assignee in the economic rights from using the
work according to the assigned rights. Keeping control of written form
requirement and banning any further use in the digital space is difficult,
especially in light of prohibition. Just like sharing a work on social media
and over the Internet, an author may have a previously published work deleted
or hidden from their profile, but there’s no promise to completely remove the
work from the Internet.
Consequently, another serious issue
lies in the presence of the viral nature of social media, where the content may
be massively spread, archived and reprocessed by the authors outside the
narrative. Although the right of withdrawal can terminate even an author’s own
contract, copies of his or her work may persist, in reposts, screenshots or
third-party websites in such a way that full enforcement of the right of
withdrawal is close to impossible. This raises concerns about the practical
limits to the moral rights afforded to creators in the digital space where
authors may have difficulty in policing their creative output from the public
domain of social media. In addition, several social media platforms also have
terms of services that they claim to exercise a broad license over their
uploaded content for use, storage or distribution, making it even harder for an
authos to have control over their works. Through these contractual agreements,
copyright protections may be subordinated or forfeited to these contractual
agreements, giving authors very little if any recourse if they want to rescind
or stop distribution of their work after the fact. The legal systems need to
develop new rules which correspond to digital publishing complexities. There
needs to be clear definitions for the withdrawal right in online contexts and
social media platforms need improved tools to protect author works. New
strategies to protect intellectual property rights through copyright and moral
rights protection need development because social media creates broad creative
accessibility yet makes it hard for authors to maintain control along with the flow
of content.
Media convergence together with
digitalization triggers discussions about copyrights that emphasize economic
rights above moral rights during this modern era. The increasing dominance of
social media platforms in the media market has led them to interact directly
with copyright safeguards especially regarding moral rights despite their lack
of content creation abilities. The digital spaces treat moral rights as
unwelcome entities according to specific theoretical viewpoints. Copyright
protections receive limited recognition on social media platforms especially
for the specific rights related to moral protection.
The Intersection of Moral Rights and the AI-Copyright
Equation
If we recognize that some works have
been partially generated by AI—usually under the supervision and management of
a human—the justification for extending moral rights comes into view.
Essentially, the eligibility for copyright protection for work done by AI is
inherently linked with ownership of the related rights. The initial purpose and
rationale of moral rights is to convey a close intellectual and moral
connection with the creator, hence promoting more creation. From this
perspective, in the event of works created solely by AI, there is no necessity
to speak of moral rights, as there is no individual to whom they can be
attributed. Nonetheless, the author of the AI may have moral rights toward the
AI but not on novel works produced by the AI, as they are already autonomous
from him. Jane C. Ginsburg posited that if human participation in creating
creative works is merely to have a computer write a literary, artistic, or
musical work in a style or genre, the subsequent works must be considered
computer-generated. That is, the human contribution fails to express sufficient
intellectual creativity to meet the threshold of authorship demanded by the
Berne Convention. Moral rights are not theoretical privileges to which a
creator is entitled; they tend to carry economic meaning and operate like a
brand. Violation, enforcement, and their economic costs may provide reasons for
legal claims, showing the economic aspect of moral rights when there is an
infringement. Aside from the issue of whether and how rights may be accorded to
the creator or user of AI, it is also important to consider whether AI can
itself violate the moral rights of other creators—e.g., the right of
attribution or integrity—and who is responsible for doing so. Since rights are
always accompanied by obligations, logically, if the creator or owner of AI is
accorded moral rights, they must also be held responsible for any violations.
As previously addressed, the virtual age's mass production of intellectual
works has deconstructed the differences between creators and users. If
aI-created material is afforded copyright protection, then AI should also be
classified as a user in this juridical sphere. Other researchers claim that
although machines and algorithms were once considered to be nothing more than
tools in the hands of their creators, this is no longer so, as they now take an
active part in the creative process (Hristov, 2017). The very concept of
creativity, which the quoted author assigns to AI, is rooted deeply in the
intricacy of artistic creation. Creative work is inherently connected with
personal talent and creativity, contributing to economic development by
creating intellectual worth (Simon, 2014). In addition, copyright protection
demands that a work is the result of intellectual labor of its creator, given
that intellectual activity is the basis for creativity. Although a machine's
creative work relies finally on the human who coded and designed it, mere
computation in an "artificial brain"—even when organized along lines
of formulaic success, as in the case of AI-synthesized music in *Beyond the
Fence*—is deficient in the attributes of intellectual creativity. Thus, such
pieces don't qualify on the basis of law to possess an individual character. A
crucial question, especially regarding moral rights such as the right of
paternity and attribution, is whether employing a "recipe for
success" or adopting aspects from other works as source material or
inspiration in AI-generated work amounts to copyright infringement. The
response hinges on a variety of factors. A key consideration is whether or not
those employed elements or passages within machine learning and AI-generated
works are identifiable and recognizable. If they are, the permission of the
original author is needed for their use. The failure to secure this permission
amounts to copyright infringement, which breaches both economic and moral
rights—particularly the right to paternity and attribution. In certain
situations, this could also constitute plagiarism. Second, from the viewpoint
of the right to integrity, there is an equally significant issue as to whether
a writer is to be told that their writing or parts thereof are being utilised
in creating an AI piece of work.
In my opinion, the original writer
must be told since they may give or withhold consent if they know of such
utilization. The right to integrity becomes especially pertinent where the
original author contends that the use of their work by the AI undermines their
moral rights and distorts the integrity of their original work.
As content produced by artificial
intelligence grows more common, safeguarding authors' moral rights—specifically
the right of attribution and integrity—needs new regulatory and legal
strategies. The below solutions can assist in safeguarding original creators'
moral rights while AI tools keep advancing. Strengthening Transparency and
Attribution Requirements Create legal requirements that mandate AI developers
and users to reveal the origin of data employed in training AI systems. Create
automated tracking systems that recognize and reward original authors whose works
are used in AI-generated content. Apply metadata tagging or blockchain-based
attribution systems to provide appropriate recognition to creators. Permit
authors to license their works for AI training specifically in clear terms that
establish moral rights protections. Establish an opt-out regime whereby authors
may keep their work from being employed in AI-created content where they feel
that it might undermine their integrity or reputation. Create remuneration
schemes whereby authors are paid monetary rewards when their writings are
utilized to train AI or are considerably integrated into AI products. Create
collective rights management organizations to manage AI-based copyright use and
pay royalties to impacted creators. Encourage ethical industry standards calling
for AI creators to uphold copyright and moral rights. Impose on AI businesses
to partner with writers to establish equitable usage policies and guarantee
that content generated through AI does not misrepresent or twist an author's
original material.
Conclusion
The emergence of AI-generated content
poses major challenges to the safeguarding of authors' moral rights, especially
the right of attribution and the right of integrity. As AI becomes more
embedded in the creative process, it is important to create legal frameworks
and ethical guidelines that provide for human creators to be fairly credited
and protected. Enhancing transparency, instituting mechanisms of licensing,
broadening protections under the law, and evolving equitable compensation models
can ensure the balance between technology advancement and retention of authors'
rights. It is finally the legal imperative and an essential foundation for
ensuring that creative work upholds its integrity and value amidst the changing
digital environment.
[1] Author is a masters student in Intellectual Property
Law at Christ University, Bengaluru
[2] Copyright Act of 1790. The full title: An Act for the
encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, Charts and books, to
the authors and proprietors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned
[3] The full title: An Act for the encouragement of
learning, by securing the copies of maps, Charts and books,to the authors and
proprietors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned.
[4] Prussian Copyright Act of 1837.
[5] Austrian Copyright Act of 1846.
[6] The term 'moral rights' derives from the French
expression 'droit moral'.
[7] United States Copyright Office. (2019, April).
Authors, attribution, and integrity: examining moral rights
[8]United States Copyright Office. (2019, April).
Authors, attribution, and integrity: examining moral rights
in
the United States: a REPORT of the register of copyrights
[9] Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and
Artistic Works, adopted in 1886.
[10] Ibid
[11] Article 6bis, Berne Convention (Paris Act, 1971) –
Right of attribution
[12] Berne Convention, Article 6bis(1): Authors have the
right to object to any distortion, mutilation, or other modification of their
work.
[13] TRIPS Agreement: Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property Rights, 1994.
[14] TRIPS Agreement, Article 9(1) – Exclusion of moral
rights from obligations under the agreement.
[15] Schéré, 2018 – Discussion on harmonization challenges
in moral rights protection.
[17] Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and
Artistic Works, Article 6bis (1886).
[18] Berne Convention, Brussels Revision Conference (1948)
[19] Ficsor, M. (2003). Commentary on the Berne
Convention, WIPO.
[20] WIPO Guide to the Berne Convention (1978), p. 45
[21] Social Media
and Copyright: A Legal Perspective, 2020, for a discussion on the balance
between infringement risks and promotional benefits in digital content
distribution.
[22] For an analysis of how social media platforms
facilitate copyright awareness among authors, see Smith, J., Digital Copyright in the Age of Social
Networks, 2021.
Article Information
AI, COPYRIGHT, AND MORAL RIGHTS: LEGAL CHALLENGES FOR AUTHORS IN THE DIGITAL ERA
Authors: MALAVIKA SATHYANATHAN
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2025/03/10
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.