The CP solves best and link turns the first advantage – it’s a PIC out of the generative AI tools that help journalists

The essential issue is thus originality and how to define it. In the aforementioned European instances, it is needed that the work be "the author's own intellectual invention," meaning that (concurrently with a Civil Law, authors' right legal tradition) the work must in some manner be an oeuvre de l'esprit: it must include a personal touch. Even though artificial intelligence systems are creative, in the sense that they can produce works utilizing data, patterns, and algorithms, it is far more challenging to detect originality in their work. In C-5/08 Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblad Forening, for example, the CJUE reiterated this issue, stating that a work must have certain personal characteristics in order to be protected by copyright law. Such a personality trait may be identified whenever human involvement is a necessary requirement for the production of the work. Always, human involvement is required: According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), there are only two solutions to this problem: denying copyright protection to purely computer-created works or attributing the work to the author of the program. In the case of news, there is a third option: attributing it to the corporate body accountable for the collective labor into which this artificial intelligence systems assisted work is incorporated. In this instance, and as per the Resolution of the 2019 AIPPI World Congress on Copyright in automatically produced works, publishers need a related, adjacent, auxiliary, or sui generis right.

According to our knowledge, this has not yet occurred, but it is not inconceivable that artificial intelligence systems-assisted news, which may use third-party data, could infringe copyright if the source and author of the original work from which the derivative work is derived are not properly cited, and the corporation that publishes it could be sued for infringement. Such a case would assist clarify perspectives, and it was noted, but not elaborated upon, in the Resolution issued by the AIPPI World Congress in September 2019. It is possible, we should add, that in some cases such practices could be considered under the quotation exception — or fair use in the Common Law countries — but it must be examined on a case-by-case basis, with no need to create new exceptions [23] (p. 11), particularly in legal areas such as the European Union, where a closed list of exceptions must be applied. In nations that use fair usage or fair dealing, a case-by-case approach will be required.

Jop Esneijer has examined the question of how the media manages artificial intelligence systems that automatically display certain types of information. "Note that automated scanning of tweets and blogs for relevant content and copy or even publishing them [...] would in principle also require the authorization of the original author, as these are acts of copying or making available to the public, unless they are excepted, for example, if the tweet or blog is in the public domain." [25] (p. 43). (p. 43). This is due to the fact that we are addressing derivative works.

When news pieces are made mostly with the assistance of artificial intelligence systems, the attribution of paternity is portrayed as anonymous or credited to the corporate person. This is consistent, as we have already mentioned, with the old distinction of the Berne Convention on Copyright of 1886–1887, which stated in Article 2 that the consideration of "literary and artistic works" shall not apply to "news of the day or random facts having the character of press information." The Berlin Convention of 1908 established in further detail which newspaper published works were copyrightable, i.e., those that may be copied with attribution of author and origin, and which were not. Unlike previous conventions, which distinguished between literary works and nouvelles du jour, the Berlin Convention afforded protection to all newspaper-published works. This was a significant improvement over the previous conventions, which distinguished between literary works and nouvelles du jour. In reality, the difference was retained in the following conventions: Rome (1928), Brussels (1948), and Paris (1971; revised in 1979), where it is currently codified as Article 2.8. This old distinction may take on a new form in relation to the production of news items produced exclusively or primarily by artificial intelligence systems or produced under the ultimate responsibility of human authors, but the rights on the economic exploitation of all of them must be recognized to the copyright holders of the collective work. Some experts have investigated these examples and determined that it is typical practice for business organizations to sign news articles with the company's name and hardly disclose that they were created with the assistance of artificial intelligence [21]. (p. 13).