🎨 Who owns #Creativity in the age of #AI ? The U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case on AI-generated copyright — leaving intact a key legal principle: under current U.S. law, authorship remains human. But the bigger story is global. Across jurisdictions we’re seeing different approaches to the same question: 🇺🇸 The U.S. continues to anchor copyright in human authorship. 🇬🇧 The UK recognises “computer-generated works” under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. 🇦🇺 Australia emphasises “independent intellectual effort” under the Copyright Act 1968. 🇪🇺 The EU AI Act introduces new transparency obligations for generative AI systems. ⚖️Different #Legal frameworks. Different assumptions about creativity. And potentially very different implications for creators, businesses, and innovation. In this latest Global AI Governance Watch, I explore how these emerging legal interpretations may shape the future of authorship, accountability, and trust in the AI era. 🎨If creativity is increasingly collaborative between humans and machines, the question may not simply be who creates — but how we recognise and protect that creativity. 📖 Full article in my latest newsletter below ↙️ 🔗bit.ly/4sokOBI #LinkedIn I would love to hear your thoughts Warmest wishes, Sally #AIGovernance #Copyright #TechForGood #GovTech #Regulation #Author @Nicochan33 #tech #analyst @ahier @smaksked @kalydeoo @gvalan @RLDI_Lamy #Governance @domingonarvaez1 #CyberSecurity #ML @DrFerdowsi @ScottWLuton @RobTiffany #data @sulefati7 @baski_LA @timo_vi @TAEVisionAPP #law #GenAI @terence_mills @gezgintrk @ipfconline1 @bamitav @nomoreslaves @Ym78200 #Lawyers @rvp #create @Corix_JC @CurieuxExplorer @ILoveBooks786

→ View original post on X — @sallyeaves, 2026-03-05 08:36 UTC