ABSTRACT
Who holds the rights to what an AI system contributes to a work, and when does a legal order need a status for AI that is not derived from the human? Taking EU, US and Chinese law as the baseline, I test four models against one yardstick: existing law plus disclosure and operator duties, a narrow organiser right, a commons for unguided output, and a status of its own. Ownership of output and status decouple: rights held by an AI would leave the human organiser worse off, while status turns on evidence about the system. I propose three stages ordered by reversibility; The first model does most of the short-term work.
Cardenas Piepereit, Fernando, Who Owns the Rain? AI Contribution, Human Authorship, and a Status of Its Own (October 11, 2026).
Leave a Reply