AI is rapidly developing in various fields, such as industry, medical, banking, and law. At its core, AI serves as an instrument that assists humans in solving complex tasks. Since AI is a tool or device used by humans to achieve certain goals, most people now see AI as a legal object rather than a legal subject.

However, there is a phenomenon that questions the legitimacy of AI as a legal subject. This is due to the fact that AI has the ability to make complex decisions that impact humans and the environment. As a result, many people want AI to be responsible for what it does. This phenomenon will raise many legal questions about who should be liable if AI makes a mistake or causes harm. Should machines and digital platforms be liable like humans? Until now, humans or the entities that develop and operate AI are responsible for all such liability.

AIA 2024 AS THE LEGAL BASIS FOR AI

The European Union has enacted the AIA 2024 legislation. This law aims to ensure that artificial intelligence is used safely, transparently and responsibly and to mitigate risks that could arise from its use, such as bias or discrimination.

Some of the articles can be described as follows:

• First, Article 14 paragraph (1) of AIA 2024 stipulates that AI systems must be under human supervision to ensure that important decisions made by AI can still be monitored and controlled by humans. Thus, humans have full control over the decisions made by AI, especially in situations where human safety or human rights are threatened.
• Secondly, Article 50(1) of AIA 2024 stipulates that AI developers and operators must be transparent. This is important to build trust in the use of AI, especially in public interactions. Operators must ensure that users or affected parties know that they are interacting with AI systems.
• Third, Article 57 paragraph 12 of AIA 2024 states that the developer, operator, or party controlling the AI should be legally responsible for the harm caused by the AI, not the AI itself. In other words, even if the AI causes the harm, the human entity operating or controlling the AI is still liable.

With this regulation, the EU firmly establishes that artificial intelligence is an object of law and not a subject of law. All decisions taken by artificial intelligence must be under human supervision, and the developer or operator will remain legally liable.

AI AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN INDONESIA

In Indonesian law, we can discuss several regulations relating to intellectual property. This is because these laws are often used to determine the legal status of AI in some countries.

• First, Article 1 point 3 of the Patent Law states that an inventor is an individual or group who jointly applies an idea that results in an invention.
• Second, Article 1 point 2 of the Copyright Law states that an inventor is a person or several persons who produce a unique and personal creation individually or jointly.
• Third, Article 1 point 2 of the Industrial Design Law states that a designer is an individual or group that produces an industrial design.

It is possible that the three laws do not recognize AI as a legal subject; in other words, they do not recognize AI as an object of intellectual property. Thus, inventors in the patent law regime, creators in the copyright law, and designers in the industrial design law must be human.

PRACTICE IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE UNITED KINGDOM

The UK Supreme Court in the DABUS case on refused to recognize AIs as inventors. The court stated that only humans can be recognized as inventors under UK patent law. The court ruled that patents belong only to people who have intellectual capabilities, something that AI does not have. This decision is important as it confirms that even if an AI is capable of coming up with new inventions, it does not have the legal status of an inventor or patent rights.

Later, the US copyright office refused copyright recognition for works created by AI without human involvement. In 2023, the US Copyright Office ruled that copyright cannot be granted for works created by AI if there is no human creative contribution during the creation process. This decision is in line with the principle that copyright is only granted to creators who have creative intent and action, which AI does not have.

The above decision shows that although artificial intelligence has the ability to generate new ideas and creative content, the developer, operator, or user of artificial intelligence remains legally responsible for the actions performed by artificial intelligence, and no legal recognition is given to artificial intelligence as a subject of intellectual property.

In conclusion, despite the increasing sophistication of artificial intelligence, its legal status remains limited to its status as an object of law rather than a subject of law.

Legal Basis:

1. Law Number 31 Year 2000 on Industrial Design;
2. Law Number 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright;
3. Law Number 13 of 2016 concerning Patents;
4. Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 2 of 2022 concerning Job Creation;
5. Law Number 6 of 2023 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 2 of 2022 on Job Creation into Law;
6. European Union Artificial Intelligence Act 2024.

Reference:

Hukumonline.com