Ownership Of Immersive Consciousness Recordings As Intellectual Artifacts.
1. Overview: Immersive Consciousness Recordings (ICRs)
Immersive consciousness recordings refer to digital captures of human mental states, experiences, or sensory perceptions, often using:
Neural interface devices (EEG, fMRI, or other brain-computer interfaces)
VR/AR environments that render a subject’s cognitive or sensory experience
AI systems that translate raw neural or experiential data into audiovisual or interactive outputs
The legal question arises because these recordings:
Capture human consciousness—raising privacy and consent issues
Are often processed or interpreted by AI algorithms
Produce outputs that may or may not qualify as copyrightable intellectual artifacts
The core legal issues are authorship, originality, and ownership.
2. Copyright Principles Relevant to ICRs
17 U.S.C. § 102(a): Protects original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium. ICRs can be “fixed” digitally, but who counts as the author is ambiguous.
Human authorship requirement: AI-generated or fully automated neural captures may not be copyrightable.
Derivative work rules: If ICRs are based on prior copyrighted material (e.g., music, films, art used in VR experiences), ownership may be limited.
Key considerations:
Human creative input – crucial for claiming copyright.
AI as a tool – permissible if humans direct or curate outputs.
Data ownership – subjects whose consciousness is recorded may retain rights to privacy or control.
3. Illustrative Case Laws
Here are six key cases that inform ownership and copyright for immersive consciousness recordings:
1. Naruto v. Slater, 888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018) – “Monkey Selfie”
Facts: A monkey took selfies using a photographer’s camera.
Ruling: Copyright cannot vest in non-human entities.
Implication: AI or neural devices that autonomously generate immersive outputs cannot hold copyright; human intervention is required for ownership.
2. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)
Facts: Feist compiled telephone directories.
Ruling: Mere mechanical compilation of facts without creative contribution is not copyrightable.
Implication: Raw neural data or consciousness recordings, if merely captured and presented mechanically, may not be eligible for copyright unless human creativity shapes the presentation.
3. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884)
Facts: Photographer Sarony claimed copyright for a staged photo.
Ruling: Human creative input is copyrightable.
Implication: If a neuroscientist, digital artist, or programmer curates, edits, or interprets neural data for immersive experiences, they may claim authorship of the resulting ICRs.
4. Thaler v. Hirshfeld (DABUS AI Case, 2023)
Facts: Stephen Thaler sought copyright for AI-generated works.
Ruling: Works created solely by AI were denied copyright; human authorship is essential.
Implication: Immersive consciousness recordings produced purely by AI analysis of neural data cannot be copyrighted without human creative input.
5. Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp., 672 F.2d 607 (7th Cir. 1982)
Facts: Dispute over audiovisual displays in video games.
Ruling: Audiovisual works can be protected if human creativity contributes.
Implication: Immersive consciousness recordings with curated audiovisual mapping or interactive design may qualify for copyright protection if humans guide the translation of neural signals.
6. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994)
Facts: Apple sued Microsoft over copying graphical interface elements.
Ruling: Copyright protects expression, not functional ideas.
Implication: Mapping neural signals to immersive digital forms may be considered a functional process; protection is strongest when artistic expression is involved rather than mere mapping of data.
7. Naruto & Broader AI Guidance
Reinforces that non-human-generated works alone cannot be copyrighted.
The U.S. Copyright Office and courts emphasize that human authorship and creativity are required for protection of AI-assisted or neural-based creations.
4. Practical Implications for Immersive Consciousness Recordings
From these cases, the following principles emerge:
Human creative involvement is critical
Selection, editing, or aesthetic design of immersive outputs can establish copyright.
AI or devices are tools, not authors
Autonomous AI analysis of consciousness cannot claim copyright alone.
Privacy and consent matter
Subjects whose consciousness is recorded may retain rights to control use, regardless of who owns the copyright.
Derivative works caution
If recordings incorporate pre-existing copyrighted media (e.g., music, images, VR assets), licensing may be necessary.
Documentation is essential
Maintaining records of human contributions strengthens claims of authorship.
5. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Key Principle | Implication for Immersive Consciousness Recordings |
|---|---|---|
| Naruto v. Slater | Non-humans cannot hold copyright | AI or devices cannot own recordings |
| Feist v. Rural | Originality required | Mechanical capture of consciousness may not qualify |
| Burrow-Giles v. Sarony | Human creativity is protected | Human curation or interpretation allows authorship |
| Thaler v. Hirshfeld | AI cannot be sole author | Human involvement is necessary for copyright |
| Atari v. NA Philips | Audiovisual works protectable with human input | Curated immersive experiences may qualify |
| Apple v. Microsoft | Expression vs idea | Mapping neural data is functional; artistic expression strengthens protection |
✅ Conclusion
Ownership of immersive consciousness recordings as intellectual artifacts depends heavily on human creative contribution:
Purely AI or device-generated outputs generally cannot be copyrighted.
Humans who design, curate, edit, or interpret recordings can claim authorship.
Legal protection should also account for privacy rights and informed consent of the consciousness subjects.
Documenting human contributions and creative decision-making is the most reliable path to asserting copyright and ownership.
RELATED Blog
comments