Legal Governance Of Co-OwnershIP Between AI Systems And Human Programmers.

17 Mar 2026 --
0 Comments

1. Understanding Co-Ownership Between AI and Humans

Co-ownership in this context refers to situations where both an AI system and a human programmer are involved in creating an intellectual work, such as software, art, or inventions. The main legal question is: can an AI be considered a co-owner under existing laws, and if not, how is ownership allocated between the human and AI “contributor”?

Key points:

Most jurisdictions currently do not recognize AI as a legal person, so AI cannot directly hold copyright or patent rights.
Ownership usually vests in:
1. The human programmer who created or directed the AI.
2. The entity that owns or deploys the AI system, often via contractual arrangements.

This has practical consequences for copyright, patents, and licensing.

2. Copyright and AI Co-Ownership

a) Case Example: Naruto v. Slater (2018, US)

Facts: A macaque named Naruto took a series of photographs using a photographer’s camera. The question arose: who owned the copyright? Could a non-human claim copyright?
Holding: The court ruled animals cannot hold copyright, reinforcing the principle that only humans or legal entities can own intellectual property.
Relevance: Similarly, AI systems are not recognized as authors, so they cannot be legal co-owners.

b) Case Example: Thaler v. US Copyright Office (2022, US)

Facts: Stephen Thaler submitted works created by his AI system, claiming copyright for the AI-generated works.
Holding: The Copyright Office denied registration, stating that copyright law requires a human author.
Relevance: This highlights that even if an AI creates a substantial portion of a work, ownership defaults to the human programmer or the party controlling the AI.

3. Patent Law and AI Co-Inventorship

a) Case Example: DABUS Patents (Thaler v. Commissioner of Patents, Australia 2021)

Facts: Dr. Stephen Thaler applied for patents listing his AI, DABUS, as the inventor.
Holding: The Australian Federal Court initially allowed recognition of AI in limited contexts, but higher courts later emphasized that patent law recognizes only humans as inventors.
Relevance: Co-inventorship with AI is legally recognized only through the human or legal entity controlling the AI.

b) UK & EU Cases on DABUS (2021-2022)

UK High Court & European Patent Office rejected AI inventorship claims.
Key Principle: While AI can generate inventive output, patents require a human inventor, so co-ownership must be attributed to the human or organization that uses the AI.

4. Contractual Governance of AI-Human Co-Creation

Because AI cannot legally co-own works, contracts play a critical role in allocating rights.

a) Case Example: Jacob v. Google (2011, US)

Facts: Dispute over contributions of automated algorithms in Google AdSense.
Holding: Ownership of outputs generated by software depended on pre-existing contractual agreements.
Relevance: Similar rules apply to AI-human co-creation: contracts define ownership shares, profit allocation, and licensing rights.

b) AI Co-Authorship Agreements

Modern firms often draft agreements specifying:
- Who owns AI-generated outputs.
- Who controls licensing.
- Profit-sharing in collaborative human-AI projects.

Contracts effectively act as legal governance where statutes lag behind technology.

5. Emerging Jurisprudence & Future Trends

Some cases in different jurisdictions are starting to hint at AI-generated co-creation frameworks:

Thaler v. Commissioner of Patents (Canada, 2023) – Canadian authorities rejected AI inventorship but highlighted AI-assisted contributions as worthy of attribution for human inventor recognition.
European Parliament AI Act (2023 proposal) – Suggests frameworks for responsible co-ownership and liability for AI-generated outputs.
Singapore Copyright Law Amendment (2023) – Explicitly recognizes computer-generated works, assigning ownership to the human who makes the arrangements for creation.

6. Key Takeaways

AI is not a legal person: Cannot directly hold copyright or patent rights.
Human ownership dominates: Humans or legal entities controlling AI systems are the default owners.
Contracts are critical: Clear agreements between human programmers, organizations, and AI usage define co-ownership.
Judicial trends:
- US courts reject AI as an author or inventor.
- UK, EU, and Australia currently do the same.
- Emerging laws may provide specific attribution frameworks for AI-assisted work.
Case law summary:

Case	Jurisdiction	Principle
Naruto v. Slater (2018)	US	Non-humans cannot own copyright
Thaler v. US Copyright Office (2022)	US	AI cannot be an author
DABUS Patents (Australia, 2021)	Australia	AI not recognized as inventor; human attribution needed
Jacob v. Google (2011)	US	Ownership depends on contractual agreements with AI systems
DABUS Patents (UK/EPO, 2021-22)	UK/EU	Reinforces human-only inventorship in patent law

In short, legal governance of co-ownership between AI and humans is primarily human-centered. AI contributes creatively, but ownership, licensing, and legal responsibility are managed via human authorship and contractual governance. Courts consistently deny direct AI ownership but recognize AI-assisted contributions through the human co-creator.