The rise of AI-generated art and inventions is forcing legal systems worldwide to reconsider ownership rights, with South Africa’s landmark decision to recognise AI as an inventor sparking global debate.
The question is no longer whether artificial intelligence can make things people recognise as creative; it is who, if anyone, owns what the machine produces. That shift is now forcing intellectual property law to confront problems it was not built to handle, according to comments by Prof. Zhivko Draganov of the University of National and World Economy at a seminar marking 20 years of practice by intellectual property lawyer Yordan Politov.
For decades, authorship was treated as a distinctly human domain. AI has begun to erode that assumption by producing science fiction, poetry, visual art and industrial designs that can look indistinguishable from human-made work. According to the article in Capital, examples are already being discussed in Japan and China, where works involving AI have received awards, while platforms such as Midjourney have entered competitions for young talent and stirred arguments over what creativity actually means. In music, too, there are reports of virtual performers in Japan drawing large audiences with songs generated entirely by algorithms.
The sharpest legal test has come through the Artificial Inventor Project, better known as DABUS, in which patent applications were filed naming an AI system itself as the inventor. Patent offices in Europe and the United States rejected the filings on the basis that an inventor must be a natural person, but South Africa took a different path and became the first country to recognise a patent listing AI as the inventor. Reporting on that decision, the World Economic Forum noted that the South African case involved a food-container invention and highlighted the wider debate it triggered over the future of patent law.
That split in international practice suggests the law is moving unevenly, but in a direction that could ultimately force a rethink of core principles. As Capital reported, the issue is already extending beyond patents into industrial design and branding, with tools such as PromeAI, ImagineArt and Looka being used to generate designs and trade mark ideas. For Prof. Draganov, the practical implication is clear: AI is no longer merely a tool in the creative process, but a force challenging the very definition of authorship.
Source Reference Map
Inspired by headline at: [1]
Sources by paragraph:
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
3
Notes:
🕰️ The article discusses the recognition of AI as inventors in patent law, referencing events from 2021, notably South Africa’s granting of a patent to AI system DABUS. ([weforum.org](https://www.weforum.org/stories/2021/08/south-africa-grants-patent-artificial-intelligence/?utm_source=openai)) Given that these events occurred several years ago, the content appears outdated. The earliest known publication date of similar content is July 2021. The article includes updated data but recycles older material, which raises concerns about its freshness.
Quotes check
Score:
2
Notes:
🕰️ The article includes direct quotes from Prof. Zhivko Draganov and references to events from 2021. The earliest known usage of these quotes is from July 2021. The quotes cannot be independently verified, as no online matches are found. This lack of verifiable sources raises concerns about the authenticity and originality of the content.
Source reliability
Score:
4
Notes:
⚠️ The article originates from Capital.bg, a Bulgarian publication. While it is reputable within its niche, it is not a major international news organisation. The article appears to be summarising or rewriting content from other sources, including press releases and articles from other publications. This lack of original reporting and reliance on secondary sources diminishes the overall reliability of the content.
Plausibility check
Score:
5
Notes:
⚠️ The article discusses the recognition of AI as inventors in patent law, referencing events from 2021, notably South Africa’s granting of a patent to AI system DABUS. ([weforum.org](https://www.weforum.org/stories/2021/08/south-africa-grants-patent-artificial-intelligence/?utm_source=openai)) While the claims are plausible, they are not covered elsewhere in recent reputable outlets, and the report lacks specific factual anchors such as names, institutions, and dates. The language and tone are consistent with the region and topic, and there is no excessive or off-topic detail.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): FAIL
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
⚠️ The article is outdated, recycling material from 2021 without providing new insights or updates. The quotes cannot be independently verified, and the content relies heavily on secondary sources, diminishing its reliability. Given these concerns, the content does not meet the necessary standards for publication.
