Artificial Intelligence (AI) has emerged as both a marvel and a menace; hailed for its transformative potential and feared for the disruptions it causes across various sectors. Among the most complex domains where AI’s influence is sharply felt is Intellectual Property (IP).

AI has challenged the very definitions and frameworks that underpin these rights. IP is exploring the future of new AI technology, components, and innovative steps, as well as additional creative works, used for commercial benefits. IPR laws are holding opportunities  to lock and unlock the future of AI companies like Gemini, Siri, Apple Intelligence, and DeepSeek by High-Flyer

AI doesn’t just pose a threat; it may already be subtly dismantling IP regimes through sheer scale and subtlety.

One of the most prominent recent flashpoints in the AI vs IP debate centers on Studio Ghibli, the iconic Japanese animation studio, and OpenAI, an Independent Artificial Intelligence Research and deployment company based in the USA, also owning ChatGPT. The integration of a Ghibli–style animation filter in its latest AI image-generation tools has sparked controversy. The controversy has ignited serious legal discussion among scholars, artists, and IP attorneys over the boundaries of copyright and trademark law in the age of generative AI. This has sparked a new debate in the legal world as to the validity of such action by Open AI without considering its consequences on the financial obligations of Studio Ghibli and its  IP licensing  regime.

However, AI blurs these lines. When a machine “learns” from thousands of copyrighted images, songs, or texts, and then generates something “new,” does that output qualify as original? Or is it an unlicensed derivative? This is where the traditional IP framework begins to crack under AI’s weight. Infringement occurs when someone uses protected IP without authorization, through reproduction, distribution, or copying without proper license or assignment.

Modern AI systems, particularly those powered by deep learning, are trained on massive datasets, often scraped from the internet without consent. These datasets typically include copyrighted works, be it music, literature, paintings, or patented designs. This training allows AI to mimic, reproduce, and at times surpass human creativity.

The line between lawful use and infringement in AI-generated content is thin and often blurred.

Ability of AI to generate content with and/or without direct human oversight presents several concerning implications for intellectual property enforcement. One major issue is unintentional infringement, where AI-generated outputs may inadvertently replicate protected elements from the training data, thereby constituting infringement even without deliberate copying or intent. Compounding this problem is the emergence of untraceable piracy; sophisticated AI systems can now duplicate or remix existing works so seamlessly that the original source becomes obscured, making it nearly impossible for rights holders to detect or prove infringement.

AI can remix or generate new compositions that build upon existing cultural assets, potentially enriching the creative landscape. The core dilemma revolves around the tension between protection and progress. IP seeks to safeguard the efforts of human creativity, while AI often relies on these very outputs to generate its own. Thus, AI doesn’t just pose a threat, it may already be subtly dismantling IP regimes through sheer scale and subtlety.

Furthermore, Legal Recourse is the primary venue to be exhausted. The original owner retains the full right to bring legal claims if AI-generated content infringes upon protected work. . This includes the right to attribution and the right to object to unlawful treatments of their work.

However, AI-generated parodies or satirical interpretations of original content can offend the dignity or message of the original creator. Even when legally permissible, AI outputs might violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the moral rights framework. Therefore, protecting moral rights in the age of AI must be part of the larger policy conversation, and the IP rights of the owners should be accepted and recognized by the user.

Whether the infringement is inadvertent or intentional, the fact that the AI output relies on existing IP means the original owner may have grounds to claim ownership.

The line between lawful use and infringement in AI-generated content is thin and often blurred. It can be navigated by clear and comprehensive legal regimes. Until and unless the use of AI in relation to IP is done within a well-defined legal framework, infringement remains a risk. Therefore, AI must be subject to IP and the IP law must therefore mandate clear licensing terms for training datasets, require disclosure of training sources in generative models as well as develop AI-specific copyright and patent categories.

Just as with traditional IP, registration of AI-generated content, can serve as proof of authorship and protect against infringement. Moreover, establishing AI-Specific IP Frameworks including rules for data sourcing, attribution, and liability can help a great deal in protecting IP rights.

The original owner of intellectual property retains rights over AI-generated materials when those materials are derived, directly or substantially from their protected work, permission from the IP holder is the key. This applies especially when an AI system is trained on copyrighted or patented content without permission, leading to outputs that replicate or closely imitate the original creation. In such cases, it would be totally implausible and contrary to common sense to suggest that the legal and moral rights of the originator are not nullified by the involvement of AI.

Whether the infringement is inadvertent or intentional, the fact that the AI output relies on existing IP means the original owner may have grounds to claim ownership, demand compensation or acknowledgment, or seek legal remedies. It’s a matter of fundamental fairness. Both the creators of AI systems and those who use them must bear responsibility for ensuring that the rights of original authors are respected. AI may be a tool, but it cannot be a shield for avoiding accountability.

AI is not above IP, it is subject to it.

Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Rights are not inherently opposed. In fact, they can be mutually reinforcing, if regulated properly. But without legal clarity, ethical oversight, and technological safeguards, AI risks undermining the very creativity and innovation that IP law was designed to protect.

The main theme remains that AI is not above IP, it is subject to it. Where AI encroaches upon the territory of original creators, the law must step in to ensure fair recognition, rights, and rewards. In essence, the challenge of AI and IP is not technological, it is human. It is a challenge of how we choose to define creativity, ownership, and justice in an age where machines are creators too.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.