Solves and internal link turns the first advantage – timeframe and AI journalism tools prove

5. Discussion Since the introduction of the World Wide Web in the mid-1990s, journalism innovation has been a focal focus for businesses and academics. The media sector is suffering a huge crisis, particularly since 2008, in which corporations are attempting to redefine a viable economic model, seeking for the sustainability of an activity formerly supported mostly by advertising. Numerous researchers have emphasized the need of optimizing all economic resources for this business, and automated technologies may be "the key to the survivability of news media in the digital age" [26]. In this perspective, we must frame the debate on the function of intellectual property legislation in the context of automated journalistic outputs. Companies must monetize content, and the development of artificial intelligence systems to aid journalistic work in collecting data, expanding news stories, and spreading them—and even more effectively commercializing them—can aid in this endeavor. As we have shown, artificial intelligence systems need human participation in the majority of situations, and this leaves a personality hint that leads to the conclusion that the output has the uniqueness required for copyright law to be applied. On the contrary, investment should be boosted. The most developed proposal to date, the Resolution of the 2019 AIPPI World Congress on Copyright in artificially generated works, after consulting with numerous national groups from around the world, concludes that the majority of them "consider that the investor (natural or legal person) should be the original owner of the artificially generated works [23]." (p. 16). "New profiles are emerging in news reporting: journalists are adding new skills to their traditional ones, and one of them, in regards to automated news, is to be a designer, programmer, supervisor, or editor of news items created with the aid of software [12] (p. 284); therefore, it is more important than ever to adapt skills and training [27].

The historically evolved legal status of the journalist as an author is now again under jeopardy. An individual approach to intellectual property (ultimately, an authors' rights approach) is increasingly difficult to defend, and the collective, and even derivative works, now play the key role in copyright law. In the most optimistic viewpoints, this is good news for journalists, as artificial intelligence systems-assisted production may free human journalists from heavy tasks and reserve them for a higher level of coverage [21] (p. 5,6) (reports and features, essentially) with a higher added value and, in keeping with the old Berne Convention literal, a more "literary" approach. In any event, there are a variety of methods to alternatively assign authorship or associated rights to an actual person or a corporation, and AIS-assisted news should always be attributed to someone. Maintaining the concept of authorship is crucial in this sense. It is probably more difficult to preserve moral rights when software and a journalist share the burden of producing a news story, and that burden should be balanced in some way. However, we agree with the conclusion of Osha et al, 2019, that economic rights "should not differ between artificially-generated works and regular works" [23]. (p. 10). For the aforementioned reasons, it is quite difficult to attribute moral rights to the inventors and designers of artificial intelligence systems, and it is even more difficult to attribute them to journalists who contribute to the production of artificial intelligence system-aided news in countries such as the United Kingdom. Article 79 of the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act provides that the moral right "does not apply to computer programs [or] computer-generated works" or "in connection to the publishing in a newspaper, magazine, or similar periodical." Even though it may seem to be a very limited regulation, it gives insight into how things may be handled in relation to the subject of this article.

In this regard, it appears that there is broad consensus that, according to the definition of the Resolution of the 2019 AIPPI World Congress on Copyright in artificially generated works, "AI generated works should only be eligible for Copyright protection if human intervention was involved in the creation of the work and if the other conditions for protection are met." Works created by artificial intelligence should not be protected by Copyright without human interaction. The most extreme case is when artificial intelligence systems (AIS) are able to learn independently and create news on their own, in which case the so-called "creative agents" are machines [9], or, to use the title of a symposium held in Alicante (Spain) in 2019 [28], whether it is possible for robots to invent and create. As previously discussed, this is not a common occurrence in the media, and when it does occur, the output is often only news, as stated in the Berne Convention on copyright, not traceable to any author but of economic importance to corporate organizations as a collective work. This seems to be the primary category in the current era, in which the media business, in an effort to battle a structural problem, seeks to protect its interests by enforcing this legal category. The main newspaper business in Europe was able to incorporate a new ancillary, exclusive exploitation right in the 2019 Directive on Copyright of the European Union, known as press publishers' rights. Even if automated news is not referenced in Article 17 of the Directive, this interpretation might someday be used to protect the economic interests of the media without compensating any human author.

The overall tendency should be, in our judgment, to accept that there is some uniqueness anytime some human interaction is necessary at some level of the journalist's routine and some guiding, pattern supplying, instruction, and extensive editing of news items before to publishing are offered. Personal authorship should not be seen as a romantic notion of the exclusive production of a work due to an individual inspiration, but as any intellectual competence necessary to put a work on the market so that it may be correctly and rationally comprehended by humans. Even in ambiguous cases, the corporate entity's responsibility in the production and insertion of such a product into a collective work should be sufficient to secure a neighboring, ancillary right or even a sui generis right generated by the responsibility in providing instructions to structure databases (not such other things are digital media today) and design interfaces to exploit them [23]. (p. 7). There must be a balance between the rights of investors, innovators, and employees, as well as those of the audience and public awareness. In this regard, a modification of the length of rights is required, and substantially shorter rights are anticipated to facilitate the entry of news supported by artificial intelligence systems into the public domain.