Neurotecnología e Inteligencia Artificial: Fronteras legales y de gobernanza

130 Neurotecnología e Inteligencia Artificial: Fronteras legales y de gobernanza BCI technology could also blur authorship when multiple individuals’ brain sig- nals contribute to a single output. If, for instance, a future device networks the thou- ghts of an artist and a composer to jointly produce a multimedia experience, the resul- ting work could embody the creative input of several minds and the generative logic of the AI. Determining ownership in such collective, would become more complex. In traditional terms, an author makes a series of creative choices, and at some point fixes the work. That moment can be identified, e.g., saving a document, pain- ting the final stroke. In an AI-augmented thought stream, when is the work created? The continuum from brain impulse to gAI output could be continuous and iterative, making it hard to say when an idea becomes a protectable expression. Pinning down the exact origin of a thought, or who contributed what in a man-machine melding, may be very challenging. Recording the contributions of each individual author via print and video, might be a solution. 4. REDEFININGAUTHORSHIP Current copyright law around the world overwhelmingly maintains that authorship is part of the human domain. The U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) has been unambi- guous that works produced entirely by autonomous AI, such as Stephen Thaler’s “A Recent Entrance to Paradise,” lack the human authorship required for protection. 7 In its updated guidance and a January 2025 report on generative AI, the USCO reiterated that existing law is equipped to handle AI-assisted works and that no chan- ge in the human authorship rule is warranted: if a work’s expressive elements are determined by a machine without creative control by a human, those elements are uncopyrightable, as the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirmed. 8 The normative reasoning of this decision is that human creativity is special and irre- placeable in the eyes of IP law. As one white paper by a multidisciplinary group of scholars observed (Mammen et al., 2024), IP regimes historically aim to promote and reward the fruits of human intellect, the creative spark that allegedly only a thinking mind can generate. From this perspective, allowing gAI works to receive the same le- gal status as human-made works would misalign with the very purpose of copyright, which is to encourage human creative and artistic progress. In the United Kingdon (UK), the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 uni- quely provides that for a “literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work that is compu- 7 Letter from U.S. Copyright Off. Rev. Bd. to Ryan Abbott, Brown, Neri, Smith & Khan, LLP (Feb. 14, 2022), https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/a-recent-entrance-to-paradise.pdf. 8  Thaler v. Perlmutter , No. 1:22-cv-1564 (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2023) and Thaler v. Vidal , 43 F.4th 1207, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2022).