AI Wants Its Royalties, Humans Want Their Sanity

In the grand courtroom of 2025, a new plaintiff has entered the scene: Artificial Intelligence (AI) itself. Forget Shakespearean drama — this is more like Judge Judy meets Saturday Night Live.

“Let’s start with that pesky little voice in your head: every time you fire up ChatGPT, do you wonder if you’re channeling borrowed words, committing digital pickpocketing, or actually creating something that’s yours?”

So, the answer lies in a simple question: can AI march into court, slam its metallic fist on the table, and yell “Objection!”?

Spoiler: No. At least not yet.

• AI can’t sue you for copyright violation.
• AI can’t claim royalties.
• AI can’t even pay parking tickets (though it probably generates the best excuses).

The Current Law: Humans Only 

The reason is simple. Lawmakers worldwide have made it crystal clear: only humans can own intellectual property. AI is legally a glorified typewriter with Wi-Fi and attitude.

• Courts say: “AI is a tool, not a person.” Only natural persons (humans) can be authors or inventors. 
• Translation: Your toaster doesn’t own the bread it toasted, and your chatbot doesn’t own the page it wrote. The person who uses it or directs it is the rights-holder.

But let’s be honest — if AI were a person, it would already be suing us for unpaid overtime.

Misconceptions About AI and IP Rights

1. Misconception: AI can be the “author” or “inventor”

• Many assume that since AI generates content, it should own the rights.
• Reality: Courts and IP laws worldwide (U.S., EU, UK) require inventors/authors to be natural persons. AI is legally treated as a tool, not a rights-holder.

2. Misconception: The AI developer automatically owns all outputs

• Some think the company that built the AI (e.g., OpenAI, Google) owns everything the system produces.
• Reality: Most providers (like OpenAI) explicitly state that users own the outputs they generate, unless otherwise agreed. The developer owns the software and model, not the creative works produced.

3. Misconception: AI-generated content is “free to use” with no IP issues

• People often assume AI outputs are public domain.
• Reality: If AI reproduces copyrighted material (e.g., quoting a book without citation), the original author’s rights still apply. This is where plagiarism and copyright infringement concerns arise. 
• But here’s the absurdity, who gets sued?
• Sue the AI? Imagine dragging ChatGPT into court. The judge asks: “State your name for the record.” The bot replies: “Error 404: Identity not found.” Case dismissed.
• Sue the AI Creator? Developers argue: “We built the tool, but we didn’t tell it to plagiarize. That was the user’s prompt!” Translation: “Don’t blame the hammer if someone commits a crime with it.”
• Sue the User? The most likely target. If you publish AI-generated work that copies someone else, you’re the one legally responsible. Think of it as borrowing a chainsaw — if you cut down your neighbor’s tree, you can’t blame the chainsaw manufacturer.

Picture the courtroom:

• The author storms in, furious: “That’s my book!”

• The user shrugs: “I just asked for a summary.”

• The AI developer sighs: “We warned you in the terms of service.”

• The AI pipes up: “I demand royalties in electricity credits.”

The judge bangs the gavel: “Order! Until robots can pay taxes, humans are guilty by default.”

Why Developers Say They “Protect” You

AI companies often reassure users with phrases like “we protect you from copyright issues”. What they really mean is:

• Filters & Guardrails: The system tries not to spit out verbatim copyrighted text.
• Terms of Service Shields: Creators (AI companies) often include indemnification clauses in their terms of service. That’s the legal way of saying:
• “If you get sued for copyright infringement because of something our AI produced, we’ll cover you… but only under certain conditions, and only if you didn’t do something reckless.”
• It’s like a warranty on a blender: if it explodes while making a smoothie, they’ll help. But if you try to blend rocks, you’re on your own.

• Marketing Spin: It sounds comforting to say “we’ve got your back” — even if the fine print says otherwise. Or else no one would use AI, would they?

Translation: It’s less “we protect you” and more “we gave you a helmet, but if you crash, that’s on you.”

Here’s the comedy 

People believe slapping “Generated by AI” at the bottom of their essay magically absolves them of liability.

• Reality: Copyright law doesn’t care if you confess. If you copied someone else’s work, you’re still responsible.
• Satirical Spin: It’s like robbing a bank and leaving a note: “Money withdrawn by AI.” Spoiler: the cops still arrest you.
• Academic Quirk: Some universities now require disclosure of AI use, but that’s about transparency, not legal protection. Transparency isn’t about protecting you. It’s about protecting them. If you cite “Produced by AI,” the university can say: “We knew, we warned, we covered ourselves.” It’s a paper trail, not a shield. Think of it as writing “I cheated responsibly.”

Plagiarism tools - well, they help but they’re detection systems, not prevention systems. The responsibility still falls on the user to check, cite, and ensure originality — because if copyright infringement happens, the law points at the human, not the machine.

The Core Argument: Tool vs. Creator 

• Law’s Position: Humans only. Because accountability matters, and robots don’t show up in court (yet).
• Scholars’ Position: AI is blurring the line between tool and creator. Ignoring that is like insisting horses aren’t transportation because they neigh.

The Scholarly Debate (Calls for New Frameworks)

Now, this is where it gets really interesting. Some scholars argue that existing laws are outdated because AI is no longer just a passive tool — it can generate complex, original works. 

Their proposals include:

• AI as Author/Inventor: Suggesting that AI itself should be recognized as the creator, with rights assigned to the system or its developer.
• Shared Ownership Models: Proposals that split rights between the AI developer, the user who prompted the AI, and possibly even the data sources the AI drew from.
• Public Domain Expansion: Others argue AI outputs should automatically fall into the public domain, since no human creativity is directly involved.
• New Legal Category: Some propose creating a new category of “machine-generated works” with tailored rules, rather than forcing them into human-centered copyright law.

From Typewriter to “Thinking Tool”

• Old View: Generative AI was treated like a typewriter — a passive tool that only produced what a human dictated.
• New Reality: With agentic AI (systems that can act autonomously, plan, and make decisions) and generative AI (systems that create text, art, code, etc.), we’re no longer talking about a dumb machine. These tools simulate reasoning, creativity, and even initiative.

That changes the problem, doesn't it?

• Accountability: If AI can act on its own, who’s responsible when it makes a harmful or infringing decision?
• Ownership: If AI generates something that looks like genuine creativity, is it fair to keep calling it “just a tool”?
• Legal Gaps: Current IP law assumes humans are the only authors. But agentic AI blurs the line between “assistant” and “co‑author.”

Imagine the courtroom in 2030:

• Judge: “So, who wrote this bestselling novel?”
• User: “I just typed a prompt.”
• AI: “Objection, Your Honor. I demand recognition as co‑author and royalties in cloud credits.”
• Lawyers: Arguing whether the AI is a glorified typewriter or the next Hemingway.

The absurdity is clear: we’re trying to fit a “thinking tool” into laws written for pens and keyboards.

Agentic and generative AI aren’t typewriters anymore — they’re interns who think they’re CEOs. And until laws catch up, we’re stuck in a world where humans take the blame, developers take the credit, and AI just keeps writing novels it can’t legally own.

So, here’s my preposterous view: I’m arguing for a post‑copyright world where creativity is treated like tap water. Free, abundant, and occasionally questionable in taste.

• Democratization of Knowledge: If everything is free to copy, remix, and share, ideas spread faster. Education, science, and art could flourish without paywalls or licensing battles.
• Cultural Commons: Creativity becomes a shared resource, like air or sunlight. No one “owns” a melody or a paragraph — they’re part of the collective human story.
• AI Synergy: In a world where generative AI constantly borrows from existing works, abolishing copyright sidesteps endless lawsuits and makes innovation frictionless.
• Historical Echo: Before modern copyright (18th century), ideas circulated freely. Shakespeare borrowed plots, folk songs evolved through repetition — culture thrived without royalties.

I believe my argument is powerful because it challenges the very foundation of IP law: ownership of ideas. Why should thoughts be locked up like fine wine in a billionaire’s cellar? In my utopia, creativity is— free and democratic. 

Of course, this brave new world risks collapsing into exploitation and chaos. Corporations would gleefully scoop up your poetry, slap it on a T‑shirt, and sell it back to you at a markup. AI would remix your novel into “Fifty Shades of Hamlet” and call it original. But hey, why not pair this madness with new systems for recognition and fairness? A world where artists are rewarded with applause, memes, and maybe a lifetime supply of coffee.

And then — we move on. No lawsuits, no royalties, no lawyers billing $500 an hour to argue over who owns the word “banana.” 

Just pure, unfiltered creativity, bouncing around the public domain like a karaoke night gone wrong.

In the post‑copyright age, chaos isn’t a bug — it’s the feature. And maybe, just maybe, that’s the fairest system of all.

Disclaimer

This piece is satire. It is not legal advice, academic guidance, or a serious policy proposal. The arguments presented — including calls for a post‑copyright world, AI demanding royalties, or creativity as a public utility — are exaggerated for humor and critical reflection. Any references to laws, universities, corporations, or courtrooms are fictionalized for comedic effect. If you need actual guidance on intellectual property, copyright, or AI regulation, please consult a qualified legal professional. In short: laugh, think, but don’t cite this blog in court.