139 The traditional status of the “human Author” is blurring, sometimes to the point of total dissipation, necessitating a profound rethinking of the rules and presumptions that govern copyright law. Introduction: The Promethean Moment For centuries, the traditional understanding underlying copyright law has been built upon a single, unshakable foundation: the human author. From the Statute of Anne in 1710 to following copyright laws, the legal architecture of copyright law assumed that “authorship” was uniquely human. We viewed the author as an individual, whose unique perspective provided the “creative spark” necessary to transform raw ideas into protected expression. This legal perception of human effort was not merely a technicality; it was a moral and economic pact designed to foster human culture. However, we have reached a Promethean moment. Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI)—embodied by Large Language Models (LLMs) and diffusion models like Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, and GPT-4—has not merely entered the creative arena; it has rewritten the rules of engagement. As legal practitioners, we are no longer looking at tools that help humans create; we are looking at systems that simulate the creative process itself. This shift is not merely incremental; it is ontological. It challenges the very definition of what it means to “create” when the mechanical “how” is divorced from the human “why,” and when the speed of generation allows for the production of millions of “works” in the time it previously took a human to sketch a single outline. The core of the legal debate, as outlined in recent scholarly works, is that GenAI disrupts the traditional “creative chain.” In traditional creation, the chain is linear: Idea -> Intent -> Execution -> Work. With AI, the chain is fractured. When the distance between a human prompt and a finished work collapses into a millisecond of algorithmic processing, where does the “creative spark” reside? This article explores the seismic shifts in copyright law, analyzing whether our current legal frameworks can survive the transition from human-centric to machine-augmented creativity. The integration of AI in various fields—from fine arts and music to coding and literature—is contributing to a new kind of creativity. However, this development challenges the very bedrock of copyright law. The Ghost in the Machine: The Crisis of the “Romantic Author” To understand why AI is so disruptive, we must first examine the historical and ideological foundations of copyright law. At its core, our legal system is built upon the concept of authorship, a term that remains one of the most elusive and debated in the field. Traditional copyright regimes, particularly the Anglo-American tradition, are deeply anthropocentric—they place the human being at the center of the creative universe. For centuries, we have been captivated by the image of the “Romantic Author.” This is the image of the solitary genius, working under a spark of divine or nearmagical inspiration to create something ex nihilo—out of nothing. Legal scholars note that our view of creativity is often a myth; it hides the collective nature of cultural production. Yet, this myth is woven into our laws. Generative AI (GenAI) shatters this paradigm. Unlike “narrow AI,” which specializes in specific tasks like facial recognition or data analysis within fixed rules, GenAI is trained on billions or even trillions of parameters, learning patterns to produce entirely new content. When ISRAEL — ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=