Looking for anyone who has a possible solution...

https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=ipilr

Artificial Intelligence Owning Patents: A Worldwide Court Debate

In the international sphere, a showdown is unfolding in the highest courts of many countries, including the United States, Canada, Australia, China, Japan, India, and several European countries.1 The surrounding issue is whether artificial intelligence (AI) can be recognized as the sole inventor of a patent.2

… As the events surrounding The Artificial Inventor Project and its legal adventures unfold around the world, this Comment explores what it means to be an inventor and different countries’ legal reasoning for their decisions to recognize, or not recognize, AI as a patent inventor. Specifically, this Comment will analyze the United States’ Patent Laws to better understand why The Artificial Inventor Project is not recognized in the United States. Following this analysis, the focus will turn to analyzing United Kingdom, Germany, South Africa, and Australia’s legal interpretations of AI as a patent inventor. The final section of this Comment proposes a better approach, based on the analyzed countries’ approaches, for the United States to ta7e regarding recognizing DABUS as a patent inventor.

(Related)

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4666432

Granting Legal Personality To Artificial Intelligences In Brazil’s Legal Context: A Possible Solution To The Copyright Limbo

This article investigates the feasibility and consequences of granting legal personality to Artificial Intelligences (AIs) in the context of Brazilian law, with a special focus on copyright law. It conducts a thorough analysis of how such a grant can enhance legal security and encourage innovation in AI technologies. Through an integrative review of the literature and a comparative analysis of national and international legislation and jurisprudence, the study explores the implications of this legislative innovation. The article highlights the importance of legal clarity for companies and investors in the AI sector, emphasizing that granting legal personality to AIs can simplify the identification of the copyright holder and protect investments. However, the work also recognizes challenges, such as the complexity of assigning authorship and evaluating the originality of works created by AIs. A careful debate is proposed on criteria for determining which AIs should be considered legal persons and how to balance the rights and duties of AIs and their creators. The study suggests adapting the legal structure of the LTDA to incorporate AIs as operational entities, aiming for an effective legal framework for managing risks associated with AI. It concludes that granting legal personality to AIs in Brazil is a promising strategy, requiring careful consideration and forward-looking vision, emphasizing the need for Brazilian law to prepare for the opportunities and challenges of the AI era.

Perhaps AI copyright is not possible… (Makes LLM output sound like politicians.)

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4667410

Asemic Defamation, or, the Death of the AI Speaker

Large Language Model (“LLM”) systems have captured considerable popular, scholarly, and governmental notice. By analyzing vast troves of text, these machine learning systems construct a statistical model of relationships among words, and from that model they are able to generate syntactically sophisticated texts. However, LLMs are prone to “hallucinate,” which is to say that they routinely generate statements that are demonstrably false. Although couched in the language of credible factual statements, such LLM output may entirely diverge from known facts. When they concern particular individuals, such texts may be reputationally damaging if the contrived false statements they contain are derogatory.

Scholars have begun to analyze the prospects and implications of such AI defamation. However, most analyses to date begin from the premise that LLM texts constitute speech that is protected under constitutional guarantees of expressive freedom. This assumption is highly problematic, as LLM texts have no semantic content. LLMs are not designed, have no capability, and do not attempt to fit the truth values of their output to the real world. LLM texts appear to constitute an almost perfect example of what semiotics labels “asemic signification,” that is, symbols that have no meaning except for meaning imputed to them by a reader.

In this paper, I question whether asemic texts are properly the subject of First Amendment coverage. I consider both LLM texts and historical examples to examine the expressive status of asemic texts, recognizing that LLM texts may be the first instance of fully asemic texts. I suggest that attribution of meaning by listeners alone cannot credibly place such works within categories of protected speech. In the case of LLM outputs, there is neither a speaker, nor communication of any message, nor any meaning that is not supplied by the text recipient. I conclude that LLM texts cannot be considered protected speech, which vastly simplifies their status under defamation law.