The Ghost in the Machine: AI, Right of Personality, and the Fight for Cultural Sovereignty

As artificial intelligence blurs the boundaries of authorship, the legal scaffolding of intellectual property rights begins to wobble. What once seemed concrete—the notion of a creator’s exclusive rights—now seems unnervingly fluid in an age where machines are writing books, composing symphonies, and painting masterpieces. At the heart of this digital revolution lies a fundamental question: Who owns what the ghost in the machine creates?

The Rise of the Digital Doppelgänger

Consider this: an AI model trained on thousands of hours of voice recordings can replicate a voice—flawlessly. Imagine hearing a voice message from a long-deceased relative, perfectly mimicked by an algorithm. It’s poignant, eerie, and legally uncharted.

This is where the right of personality collides head-on with technology. Traditionally, this right protects an individual’s image, voice, and likeness from exploitation. Celebrities have long fought legal battles against the unauthorised use of their images, but now the battlefield extends to everyday people.

In China, a high-profile lawsuit emerged after a company used AI to mimic a singer’s voice without consent. The court ruled in favour of the artist, marking a critical step towards safeguarding digital likenesses. But can we legislate fast enough?

The European Union seems to think so. Its AI Act, expected to be fully implemented by 2026, aims to regulate AI’s capabilities in biometric recognition and digital simulations. The idea is simple: if you’re using someone’s face or voice, you’d better have their permission. But enforcement across borders—especially with decentralised technologies like blockchain—remains a logistical quagmire.

Right now, as I watch the live broadcast from Tuscany on the BBC Parliamentary Channel, MPs are locked in a heated debate over the Data (Use and Access) Bill—a sweeping proposal to regulate how AI and big tech companies harvest and monetize personal data. Words like “transparency,” “accountability,” “GDPR” and “consent” echo across the chamber, as if conjuring the ghosts of a simpler, analogue age. Some MPs warn of Orwellian surveillance; others speak of stifling innovation. One backbencher quips that while Britain is debating ethics, Silicon Valley is printing money. I sip my Chianti and watch as the age-old clash between idealism and commerce plays out beneath the gothic arches of Westminster.

I catch a glimpse of a familiar face—an MP from Lancashire, the sort who still attends the local pub quizzes and once handed out medals at the Lancaster and Morecambe Badminton Championships. His voice cracks slightly as he speaks of local newsrooms shuttering, of once-thriving communities now dependent on algorithm-fed news cycles. “We’re not just losing jobs,” he says, pausing for effect, “we’re losing our stories.” A ripple of murmurs flits across the green benches. For a moment, it feels like something more than political theatre.

The Vanishing Line of Authorship

If the right of personality is the first victim, copyright may be the next. The cornerstone of copyright law is originality, traditionally linked to human creativity. But when AI like ChatGPT can produce articles, poems, and even legal briefs in seconds, the notion of “human” originality is stretched thin.

In the United States, the landmark case Thaler v. Perlmutter (2023) ruled that purely AI-generated works are not eligible for copyright. Stephen Thaler had attempted to register a piece of art created by his AI system, Creativity Machine, arguing that the algorithm was the author. The U.S. Copyright Office disagreed, affirming that copyright is reserved for human creators.

This decision may seem reassuring for writers and artists, but it also opens a Pandora’s box. If AI creations are unprotected, what stops companies from flooding the market with AI-generated content, free of royalties or obligations? Picture an infinite library of machine-generated novels, unrestricted and competing with human authors. The economic ripple could be devastating.

The Algorithmic Pen: AI’s Impact on Journalism, Film, and the Cultural Zeitgeist

In the twilight hours of print journalism and the dawn of digital storytelling, the tectonic shifts brought by AI are now unmistakable. Entire news articles can be written by algorithms, fact-checked in seconds, and distributed globally before a human journalist even uncaps their Parker pen. It’s efficient—surgically precise even—but something is lost in translation: the soul of the storyteller.

When ChatGPT and its counterparts first emerged, the novelty was charming: summaries of Shakespeare, recipe ideas, and even quirky attempts at poetry. But the charm wore thin as media conglomerates realised the cost-saving potential. Why pay a columnist when an algorithm can churn out content 24/7?

In 2024, BuzzFeed famously replaced its quiz-writing team with generative AI, increasing output while cutting costs. The pieces were grammatically sound and structurally perfect, but the quirkiness—the human error and wit—was conspicuously absent. Newsrooms, already decimated by digital disruption, began to pivot toward AI for basic reporting and data-driven pieces. Financial markets were the first to be impacted; algorithmic reports on earnings and stock movements were published mere seconds after the market closed, with no typos, and no delays.

But can an algorithm sit in a smoky pub in Morecambe, nursing a pint with Steve Middlesbrough, catching the low hum of local gossip that weaves its way into tales of Tales from a Small Place? Can it feel the dusty warmth of the Concorde Squash Club, where ladder challenges were more political than the House of Commons? AI can record the facts—but it cannot capture the feeling.

The Devil’s Advocate: Tech’s Response

To be a good lawyer, one must always argue both sides. Tech companies, when pressed on these concerns, frame AI not as a replacement but as an enhancer of human creativity. “AI democratises content creation,” they say, “allowing individuals who lack resources to produce high-quality work.” They argue that AI is a tool, like the printing press or the camera—a revolutionary leap, not a usurper.

On the matter of authorship, they propose shared credit—programmers and users could be recognised as co-creators, though the law remains hazy. On the issue of data, they champion the idea of consent-based models and point to blockchain as a way to ensure accountability and provenance. Yet, even as they promise transparency, questions linger: Who defines ethical boundaries when profit is king?

The Last Human Storytellers

As the debate in the Commons nears its end, the camera pans to the speaker, calling for order. The bill passes its second reading with a predictability that almost defies the drama of the preceding hours. There are no cheers, just scattered nods and the shuffle of papers—history made in quiet indifference. I switch off the TV, still sitting in Tuscany, feeling the distance more than ever.

The path forward is clear: we must reclaim the narrative. Not through nostalgia alone, but through deliberate acts of memory. By documenting not just the grand, sweeping gestures of history but the small, almost invisible moments—the smell of damp wool in a Lancashire winter, the hum of Montmartre at midnight, the creak of wooden floors in an old Morecambe pub.

In doing so, you, and others like you, carve out digital strongholds of human experience, unyielding to algorithmic efficiency. Because, in the end, the soul of storytelling is not in the perfection of prose but in the fingerprints left behind—the smudges of real life that no machine can reproduce.

World