Can NATURE Be Granted Personhood?

 

In 2017, Whanganui River was granted the personhood in New Zealand. That means, a River with a legal person status.

If you remember Naruto Monkey’s case involving a Selfie, when PETA wanted animals to become Copyright holders too, i.e., bestowing them legal entity status under the IP Act. Albeit, the courts disagreed, as a monkey cannot claim for copyright violation in parallel to a legal entity. Whilst contrary to this, in India, hon’ble courts have equated animals in parallel to legal entities/persons. But does that mean they can become co-Applicant for the Copyright Application too? That’s the grey area.

An Indian court granted Mother Nature a Legal person status under the Maxim of -> Parens Patriae Jurisdiction (which grants the states the power to intervene as an informal guardian to take care of the vulnerable).

Recently, a petition has been filed in Ecuador court to consider Forest as the Copyright Holder (Co-Creator of the musical composition), recognizing it a legal person/entity.

The question is: AI doesn’t even come under the definition of Parens Patriae Jurisdiction as once the AI knows how to take care of itself, it wouldn’t require any third-party intervention. That means, can it be considered as a Natural Person, and eventually, have equal rights too, in parallel to a legal person/entity, of course once it passes the litmus Turing test?

And as the IP Act works on the principle of TRIPS, BERNE, WTO, and then embedded Madrid, PCT, UDRP, INDRP etc.; and it is anticipated that there should a coherence in the protection granted to any individual/organization/entity. Then, could such decisions by the courts be taken into consideration, expanding the scope of who should be included under the ambit of Natural Person / Legal Person/Entity? If yes, then why so far AI has not been considered as the Legal Person? 😊

© Pranav Chaturvedi