The first thing that comes to mind when talking about machine learning is the winter of artificial intelligence; an immortal hero battling an omnipotent, omniscient, hypocritical computer following the desolation of organic life, human slavery set in a grotesque apocalyptic scenario. While this is fantastic in proportions (if depressing), it is a growing concern among people of certain social demographics that AI is dangerous and incredibly close to unseating humans on the intelligence totem pole. This couldn't be further from the truth, in reality robot rights are still in a germinal stage and are far from realizing the wealth of potential that could abound. One might assume that, due to this relatively infantile stage of AI, granting copyright to computer authors would not be controversial, but it is precisely for this reason that computer authorship and ownership in the context of copyright author are incredibly implausible and problematic. The most notable reason is that there is as yet no adequate justification for the existence of such rights, and no evidentiary instance has emerged where the UK provision relating to computer-generated works has been shown to be ineffective. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Robot rights would be tedious to justify, and due to the current legal and industry landscape, creating a specific set of rights for computers would be difficult high and inadvisable, as there is a clear distinction between computer originality (creativity) and consciousness. While a computer could theoretically be an author in the sense of Infopaq Originality, no computer can assert its rights through machine learning and has not yet achieved such sophistication (i.e. passed the Turing test, successfully uploaded the mind, or become completely self-sufficient). Programmers themselves argue that although computers can be creative, their autonomy is limited. The potential of works created with artificial intelligence is still largely untapped and, ultimately, computers –– for now ––– are still largely tools, and have yet to cross the threshold into becoming autonomous actors in the arena of copyright. Can the UK regime be considered grossly insufficient when, compared to the US, Australia and continental Europe, it remains the most balanced regime currently in place? The law leaves sufficient scope for a variety of probable and foreseeable cases, without being overly prescriptive or ambiguous. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay This contribution responds to a problem that will undoubtedly land in many innovation-driven forums and can be used as an enlightening body of work that reflects on the past, carefully examines the present, and makes informed sums on the current state of the works generated to the computer and computer authors, and on predictions about the future of computer authorship.