advertising agency research papers

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

Advertising →

• 20 Jun 2023
• Cold Call Podcast

Elon Musk’s Twitter Takeover: Lessons in Strategic Change

In late October 2022, Elon Musk officially took Twitter private and became the company’s majority shareholder, finally ending a months-long acquisition saga. He appointed himself CEO and brought in his own team to clean house. Musk needed to take decisive steps to succeed against the major opposition to his leadership from both inside and outside the company. Twitter employees circulated an open letter protesting expected layoffs, advertising agencies advised their clients to pause spending on Twitter, and EU officials considered a broader Twitter ban. What short-term actions should Musk take to stabilize the situation, and how should he approach long-term strategy to turn around Twitter? Harvard Business School assistant professor Andy Wu and co-author Goran Calic, associate professor at McMaster University’s DeGroote School of Business, discuss Twitter as a microcosm for the future of media and information in their case, “Twitter Turnaround and Elon Musk.”

• 06 Jan 2021
• Working Paper Summaries

Aggregate Advertising Expenditure in the US Economy: What's Up? Is It Real?

We analyze total United States advertising spending from 1960 to 2018. In nominal terms, the elasticity of annual advertising outlays with respect to gross domestic product appears to have increased substantially beginning in the late 1990s, roughly coinciding with the dramatic growth of internet-based advertising.

• 15 Sep 2020

Time and the Value of Data

This paper studies the impact of time-dependency and data perishability on a dataset's effectiveness in creating value for a business, and shows the value of data in the search engine and advertisement businesses perishes quickly.

• 19 May 2020
• Research & Ideas

Why Privacy Protection Notices Turn Off Shoppers

It seems counterintuitive, but website privacy protection notices appear to discourage shoppers from buying, according to Leslie John. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 02 Mar 2020
• What Do You Think?

Are Candor, Humility, and Trust Making a Comeback?

SUMMING UP: Have core leadership values been declining in recent years? If so, how do we get them back? James Heskett's readers provide answers. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 06 Aug 2019

Super Bowl Ads Sell Products, but Do They Sell Brands?

Super Bowl advertising is increasingly about using storytelling to sell corporate brands rather than products. Shelle Santana discusses why stories win (or fumble) on game day. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 27 Jul 2019

Does Facebook's Business Model Threaten Our Elections?

America's 2016 presidential election was the target of voter manipulation via social media, particularly on Facebook. George Riedel thinks history is about to repeat itself. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 10 Oct 2018

The Legacy of Boaty McBoatface: Beware of Customers Who Vote

Companies that encourage consumers to vote online should be forewarned—they may expect more than you promise, according to research by Michael Norton, Leslie John, and colleagues. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 27 Sep 2018

Large-Scale Demand Estimation with Search Data

Online retailers face the challenge of leveraging the rich data they collect on their websites to uncover insights about consumer behavior. This study proposes a practical and tractable model of economic behavior that can reveal helpful patterns of cross-product substitution. The model can be used to simulate optimal prices.

• 18 Jun 2018

Warning: Scary Warning Labels Work!

If you want to convince consumers to stay away from unhealthy diet choices, don't be subtle about possible consequences, says Leslie John. These graphically graphic warning labels seem to do the trick. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 18 Sep 2017

'Likes' Lead to Nothing—and Other Hard-Learned Lessons of Social Media Marketing

A decade-and-a-half after the dawn of social media marketing, brands are still learning what works and what doesn't with consumers. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 26 Jul 2017

The Revolution in Advertising: From Don Draper to Big Data

The Mad Men of advertising are being replaced by data scientists and analysts. In this podcast, marketing professor John Deighton and advertising legend Sir Martin Sorrell discuss the positives and negatives of digital marketing. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 13 Mar 2017

Hiding Products From Customers May Ultimately Boost Sales

Is it smart for retailers to display their wares to customers a few at a time or all at once? The answer depends largely on the product category, according to research by Kris Johnson Ferreira and Joel Goh. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 06 Mar 2017

Why Comparing Apples to Apples Online Leads To More Fruitful Sales

The items displayed next to a product in online marketing displays may determine whether customers buy that product, according to a new study by Uma R. Karmarkar. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 13 Feb 2017

Paid Search Ads Pay Off for Lesser-Known Restaurants

Researchers Michael Luca and Weijia Dai wanted to know if paid search ads pay off for small businesses such as restaurants. The answer: Yes, but not for long. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 08 Dec 2016

How Wayfair Built a Furniture Brand from Scratch

What was once a collection of 240 home furnishing sites is now a single, successful brand, Wayfair.com. How that brand developed over time and the challenges and opportunities presented by search engine marketing are discussed by Thales Teixeira. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 04 May 2016

What Does Boaty McBoatface Tell Us About Brand Control on the Internet?

SUMMING UP. Boaty McBoatface may have been shot down as the social-media sourced name of a research vessel, but James Heskett's readers are up to their hip-boots in opinions on the matter. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 02 May 2016

Why People Don’t Vote--and How a Good Ground Game Helps

Recent research by Vincent Pons shows that campaigners knocking on the doors of potential voters not only improves overall turnout but helps individual candidates win more of those votes. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 21 Mar 2016

Can Customer Reviews Be 'Managed?'

Consumers increasingly rely on peer reviews on TripAdvisor and other sites to make purchase decisions, so it makes sense that companies have a stake in wanting to shape those opinions. But can they? Thales Teixeira says a good product trumps all. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 28 Oct 2015

A Dedication to Creation: India's Ad Man Ranjan Kapur

How do you build a brand amid the uncertainties and opportunities of a developing market? Harvard Business School Professor Sunil Gupta shares lessons learned from Ranjan Kapur, an iconic figure in the Indian advertising industry. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

advertising strategy Recently Published Documents

Total documents.

• Latest Documents
• Most Cited Documents
• Contributed Authors
• Related Sources
• Related Keywords

Model komunikasi pemasaran kopi tuku sebagai resilensi covid-19: sebuah analisis isi

Due to recent technological advances, marketing strategies have shifted from conventional to online. Traditional businesses use this digital marketing strategy because it is considered no more effective than other forms of marketing, such as using brochures and catalogs. Kopi Tuku as a business that mushroomed first during the Covid-19 pandemic, used digital marketing strategies to introduce digital products, one of which was social media. This is because social media is a platform that allows people to communicate information in the form of text, photos, videos, and audio with each other and with businesses, or vice versa. This study aims to find out how Kopi Tuku's digital marketing strategy during the Covid-19 pandemic uses content analysis. The method used is Krippendorff's content analysis via Instagram @tokokopituku for the period January 1, 2021 to September 30, 2021. The conclusion of this study is that Kopi Tuku's marketing strategy is more of an advertising strategy that highlights related information about Kopi Tuku.

ADVERTISING STRATEGY ACCORDING TO THE CONCEPT OF THE FCB MODEL IN THE CONDITIONS OF THE VARIOUS GENERATIONS

The aims of the paper are: 1) to verify the validity of the traditional theoretical definition of the Foote, Cone & Belding (FCB) model based on the use of representative products concerning the age (generation) and gender of the selected target group in the conditions of the Czech Republic, and 2) to verify the validity of defined advertising strategies in the traditional theoretical conception of the Foote, Cone & Belding (FCB) model with the current level of acceptance and perception of advertising within the defined selected target group according to age (generation) and gender in the conditions of the Czech Republic. To meet both aims, both secondary and primary marketing research was implemented. The theoretical background of the paper is based on knowledge of marketing communication principles in general with emphasis on advertising theories. The greatest attention is focused on the traditional version of the FCB model which is based on a matrix of consumer thinking–feeling and high–low involvement behaviours and proposes four advertising strategies. Primary research data were obtained using a questionnaire, on the online panel of research agency Ipsos, on 1,100 Czech respondents. The methods used are positional maps for the FCB grid and chi-squared with a suitable post-hoc test. The outputs reveal the differences of the theoretical FCB model in comparison with its practical implementation. It is necessary to adapt (extend) the model according to specific conditions and identification features of different Czech generations and genders, then adjust recommendations for advertising strategies. In Czech conditions, the sextant grind should be used. There is a prevalence of representative product placement in quadrants 1 and 3, i.e., rational appeals even for products where this is not expected. The outcomes can be used for the choice of correct advertising strategy, advertising media, and types.

An analysis of the situation on the hotel market in the conditions of epidemiological restrictions: Evidence from Penza

Subject. This article discusses the issues related to the development of the hotel market in Penza. Objectives. The article aims to determine the level of development of the tourism industry and hotel market of Penza. Methods. For the study, we used the methods of criterion and comparative analyses, and generalization. Results. The article draws attention to a significant decrease in the profitability of the hotel business associated with the epidemiological situation. Conclusions. To develop the hotel market of Penza and the Penza Oblast, it is necessary to elaborate investment programmes aimed at creating a modern tourist infrastructure, marketing strategies for finding the target audience and forming hotel products, as well as an advertising strategy.

Mathematical model of referral marketing strategy

Abstract A marketing strategy is an attempt to campaign for a product so that information about the product becomes viral. Advertising strategy began to be combined by involving customers to campaign for the company’s products. This marketing strategy is known as the referral marketing strategy. Viral information in a community can be analogous to the pandemic condition of a disease. This study aims to examine the relationship between the epidemiological model and the marketing model with a referral strategy. This research is a literature study with the results of a marketing model design with a referral strategy. Based on the research, there are 4 groups in marketing modeling with a referral strategy, namely Unaware, Potential Broadcaster, Broadcaster, and Inert. The epidemiological model that is suitable for this condition is the SEIR model. Adjustments to the SEIR Model need to be made because the dynamics of the Unaware can go directly to the Inert because of the trust factor in marketing information. The simulation results show that the parameters that have an important role in making information viral are the customer network and the incubation time of the information becoming viral.

Advertising strategy and contract coordination for a supply chain system: immediate and delayed effects

PurposeAfter receiving advertising messages, most consumers rarely purchase the advertised products at once, which results in a delay between advertising exposure and its effect. This paper is devoted to exploring the advertising decision and coordination issues for a supply chain system subject to advertising immediate and delayed effects.Design/methodology/approachBy applying the game theory, the differential game models with delay are constructed for the supply chain to examine the equilibrium advertising efforts, brand goodwill and the optimal profits under the different cooperation situations. A class of transfer payment contracts is designed to achieve the best outcome of the supply chain. Illustrative examples are given to demonstrate the effectiveness of addressed results and provide some managerial perspectives.FindingsIt can be found that the complete cooperation situation can stimulate the advertising investment, drive the product demand and improve the economic profit. Also, a class of transfer payment contracts is designed in this paper, such that the supply chain can perfectly realize the profit maximization, and each member can achieve the Pareto improvement.Research limitations/implicationsThis work does not address the random market environment, which can be filled in the future. Furthermore, this paper has been done in a single supply chain structure. It is an interesting future line of research when taking competitive behavior (e.g. competition among manufacturers, retailers or supply chains) into account.Practical implicationsThis study will help managers make advertising strategies, advise an optimal cooperation way and design the coordination contracts to ensure the economic development of the supply chain. These obtained conclusions may provide a valuable decision-support for marketing management.Originality/valueFor a supply chain, the most previous literature about dynamic advertising models focused on a single advertising effect-immediate effect. This work explores advertising strategy with double advertising effects and investigates the coordinating power of new transfer payment contracts.

The use of literary images and motifs in digital-communication advertising strategy.

A study on advertising strategy based on the impact of a business reputation on the market, the use of advertising and social media in today's teenage lifestyle.

Success in an advertisement or social media is very dependent on an attractive visual appearance and what you want to convey. Social media is a means for consumers to share text, image, audio, and video information with each other and with companies, and vice versa. Social media allows marketers to establish a public voice and online presence. They can effectively strengthen other communication activities. Due to their day-to-day immediacy, they can also encourage companies to stay innovative and relevant. This study used the descriptive qualitative method. Data were collected using the method of observation, literature study, and documentation. The analytical method used is Design Review with stages: Descriptive, Formal Analysis, Interpretation, and Evaluation. The results of this study can be used in advertising appropriately by considering the target audience and product characteristics so that it is useful for students and practitioners to increase knowledge about advertising and social media, know the process of reviewing advertisements, and become a reference in designing communicative, aesthetic, and interesting   Keywords: Advertising, Social Media, Social Media Advertising Strategy

A Theoretical Analysis of the Pricing and Advertising Strategies with Lévy-Walking Consumers

The pervasive adoption of mobile devices and proximity technologies enables firms to trace consumers’ trajectories and locations. This connects firms’ marketing and operations strategies more tightly with consumer mobility. In this paper, we propose a novel analytical model to examine the economic effects of consumer mobility on pricing and advertising strategies by incorporating consumers’ Lévy-walking behavior into advertising economics models. We ascertain the convergent effect of consumer mobility, i.e., consumers’ convergence to a firm leads to higher product price and advertising level. Meanwhile, it improves social welfare by increasing firm profit and consumer surplus. More interestingly, we find that consumers’ average movement distance (AMD) has opposing influences in pricing and advertising strategies. Specifically, longer AMD strengthens the convergent effect on advertising strategy but weakens that on pricing strategy. Finally, we also conduct a numerical analysis to uncover the impacts of the presence of proximity technologies on advertising outcomes. The results of this paper provide advisable guidance to firms on how to craft and adjust pricing and advertising strategies in accordance to consumer mobility. Moreover, the results present insights on welfare implications of informative advertising from the perspective of consumer mobility.

We Know What You Want: An Advertising Strategy Recommender System for Online Advertising

Export citation format, share document.

Accelerating Advertising With AI Comes At A Cost

Nikhil Lai , Senior Analyst

AI — a catchword and momentous concept — is all-consuming. It demands nearly as much energy as Argentina uses in a year, is the obsession of practically every marketer I meet, and is invoked breathlessly by those who have the most to gain and lose from it. On Alphabet’s most recent earnings call, for example, Sundar Pichai and Philipp Schindler emphasized the integration of Gemini models into Performance Max to accelerate creativity and the adoption of AI-powered tools such as Smart Bidding and automatically created assets. It’s mathematically obvious to apply AI to advertising — it saves time and, by improving performance, saves money — but its efficiencies can come at the expense of advertisers’ control and transparency.

AI’s Omnipresence Is (Mostly) Warranted

AI benefits the advertising process in various ways:

• Speed. AI dramatically accelerates copywriting, image and video creation, and pattern detection. It minimizes the time required to identify winning variables and helps marketers do more with less. This is critical, since 78% of respondents to Forrester’s Q4 2023 B2C Marketing CMO Pulse Survey said that they “will be expected to do more with a smaller budget in 2024.”
• Insights . AI mitigates the risk of wasted ad spend by predicting which audiences, creatives, and bids are likely to outperform. Furthermore, AI enables advertisers to query their own data to improve budget allocation and audience segmentation decision-making.
• Creativity. AI entertains audiences by breaking the fourth wall between brands and consumers. It facilitates viral campaigns such as Intuit’s and Avocados From Mexico’s , lifting brands’ energy and cultural resonance.

Nevertheless, AI is very risky. When implemented as often as it’s mentioned, AI distorts workflows by forcing creative directors and performance marketers to cede control to semiautonomous, capricious machines. It makes brands susceptible to various threats, including regulatory noncompliance, reputational damage, and lost loyalty due to widespread misinformation, hallucinations, and bad ads .

Advertisers Must Curate AI

AI has conditioned advertising ever since John McCarthy, the computer scientist who helped coin the term “artificial intelligence” in the 1950s, applied linear programming to media mix modeling. Now, AI comes in three flavors — predictive, generative, and prescriptive — each of which applies to various aspects of advertising processes, spanning big ideas to creative’s last mile.

To own AI’s upside, advertisers must make three decisions. Our latest report — GenAI Amplifies Advertising’s Risks And Rewards — explains those decisions and offers advice for turning AI-integrated advertising into a team sport practiced by CMOs, agencies, and technology vendors.

AI Augments And Annihilates Agencies

Pair the GenAI Amplifies Advertising’s Risks And Rewards report with our latest landscape — The Media Management Services Landscape, Q2 2024 — to learn how various agencies enhance their capabilities with AI and reckon with the fact that, by 2030, nearly one-third of agency jobs will be at risk of automation . Agencies with shallow moats will evaporate as brands train language models to do what agencies did, including content generation, bid management, and insights generation. Lasting service providers will harness AI to augment intelligent creativity , supercharge proprietary technology, solve C-suite-level problems such as market share growth, and absorb AI’s risks on brands’ behalf.

As always, feel free to reach out .

• Advertising
• Advertising Agencies
• AI Insights
• B2B Marketing
• B2C Marketing
• Chief Marketing Officer
• Generative AI
• marketing automation
• marketing measurement & optimization
• marketing strategy
• Media Insights
• predictive analytics

Thanks for signing up.

Stay tuned for updates from the Forrester blogs.

Supercharge Your APAC B2B Success — And Save $200

Register by june 28 to save $200 on b2b summit apac in singapore. access growth, revenue, alignment, sales, genai, and product strategies to boost your brand success., b2b marketers expect to do more with more — but it’s not as good as it sounds, the state of generative ai for marketing in asia pacific, get the insights at work newsletter, help us improve.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 11 May 2024

Exploration of the creative processes in animals, robots, and AI: who holds the authorship?

• Cédric Sueur 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Jessica Lombard 4 ,
• Olivier Capra 3 ,
• Benjamin Beltzung 1 &
• Marie Pelé   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2297-5522 3  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  611 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

359 Accesses

5 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Science, technology and society

Picture a simple scenario: a worm, in its modest way, traces a trail of paint as it moves across a sheet of paper. Now shift your imagination to a more complex scene, where a chimpanzee paints on another sheet of paper. A simple question arises: Do you perceive an identical creative process in these two animals? Can both of these animals be designated as authors of their creation? If only one, which one? This paper delves into the complexities of authorship, consciousness, and agency, unpacking the nuanced distinctions between such scenarios and exploring the underlying principles that define creative authorship across different forms of life. It becomes evident that attributing authorship to an animal hinges on its intention to create, an aspect intertwined with its agency and awareness of the creative act. These concepts are far from straightforward, as they traverse the complex landscapes of animal ethics and law. But our exploration does not stop there. Now imagine a robot, endowed with artificial intelligence, producing music. This prompts us to question how we should evaluate and perceive such creations. Is the creative process of a machine fundamentally different from that of an animal or a human? As we venture further into this realm of human-made intelligence, we confront an array of ethical, philosophical, and legal quandaries. This paper provides a platform for a reflective discussion: ethologists, neuroscientists, philosophers, and bioinformaticians converge in a multidisciplinary dialogue. Their insights provide valuable perspectives for establishing a foundation upon which to discuss the intricate concepts of authorship and appropriation concerning artistic works generated by non-human entities.

Similar content being viewed by others

Catalyzing next-generation Artificial Intelligence through NeuroAI

The storytelling arms race: origin of human intelligence and the scientific mind

Making the world observable and accountable: An ethnomethodological inquiry into the distinction between illustration and exhaustion

In titling this article, we utilised the AI capabilities of ChatGPT, drawing upon our summary for guidance. This decision prompts a consideration of whether this AI ought to be acknowledged as one of the authors. Artistic authorship involves the recognition of an entity as the originator of a work that possesses aesthetic, cultural, or intellectual value. This concept is deeply rooted in philosophical debates about expression, identity, and the nature of art itself, while also engaging in legal discussions about copyright and ownership. The issues addressed in this context are poised to spark extensive debate in the future, bridging both artistic and scientific communities. This paper focuses on our research into the artistic output of non-human animals and machines, examining the extent to which their creations–ranging from pictures and paintings to music–are not acknowledged as their own work. Despite the evident capacity of these entities to produce what can be described as art, authorship is often not attributed to them. Instead, their creations are appropriated and monetised by humans, raising significant questions about the recognition of authorship and ownership in the context of non-human and artificial creators. For instance, in 2016, in Indonesia, a wild-crested macaque (later named Naruto) took a selfie with the camera of a professional photographer. This ‘selfie’ went viral worldwide and was quickly seen as a financial opportunity by the camera owner, who claimed the copyright. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) filed a lawsuit and initiated legal proceedings against the camera owner, seeking recognition of the sole monkey as the author of the photograph and demanding that copyright royalties be paid to Naruto if the image were to be used for commercial purposes. However, the legal vacuum surrounding non-human copyright and the fact that Naruto was not recognised as a legal person led the judge to reject PETA’s request (Guadamuz, 2016 ; Rosati, 2017 ).

This paper is the collaborative effort of a diverse team of researchers, including two ethologists, a neuroscientist, a philosopher, and a computer scientist. Our interdisciplinary approach is deliberate, reflecting our belief that the complex questions surrounding non-human authorship and rights in the context of animals, robots, and AI necessitate insights from multiple disciplines. Each author brings a unique perspective to the discussion, from the nuanced behaviours and cognitive abilities of animals to the ethical implications of emerging technologies and the philosophical underpinnings of creativity Footnote 1 and intelligence. Our collective expertise enables a comprehensive exploration of the subject matter, though it also means that our discussion flows through a wide range of arguments and disciplines. Recognising the importance of situatedness and positionality in scholarly work, we aim to locate our argumentation within the intersections of our respective fields, thereby providing a multifaceted view that enriches the debate on non-human entities’ potential for creativity and authorship. By clarifying our backgrounds and the intentional breadth of our perspectives, we hope to make explicit the relevance and intention behind our scholarly argumentation, ensuring our readers understand the foundation upon which our analysis is built.

Introduction

Just as toolmaking, sense of humour, or mathematics have been considered uniquely human activities, art has long been regarded as a distinctly human endeavour. However, without claiming to be Picasso or Mozart, some animals exhibit graphic or musical behaviours that we might classify as artistic (Watanabe, 2012 ). In Oceania, male bowerbirds build intricate structures from branches to attract females and secure opportunities for mating (Diamond, 1986 ). Pebbles, seeds, or leaves, often coloured, are placed by the birds at the entrance of the bower to master its symmetry, aesthetics, and perspective. Birds even adhere to a gradation of these different elements, from larger to smaller or from darker to lighter, to refine their decor. Also, in an effort to court females, male pufferfish sculpt rosettes in the sand with their mouths (Kawase et al., 2013 ). These sandy structures are likened to the lines and geoglyphs of Nazca, located in southern Peru and associated with the pre-Inca Nazca culture (Mujica, 2000 ). Another example of complex graphic compositions in animals that we could appreciate as art is undoubtedly the structure of spider webs (Krink and Vollrath, 1997 ). On the musical side, it would be difficult not to mention the complexity of the songs of the animals around us. In many bird species, males use their most beautiful songs to attract females for reproduction. Others have mastered the art of imitation, such as the lyrebird (Menura sp.) (Dalziell and Magrath, 2012 ). Among primates, the communication of gibbons (Hylobates sp.) is entirely based on their vocalisations which even allow them to recognise each other individually (Terleph et al., 2015 ; Oyakawa et al., 2007 ; Geissmann, 2000 ). The same is true for cetaceans like whales and dolphins (Janik, 2014 ). The creation of these complex graphic or vocal compositions involves both elaborate learning processes and simple rules that enhance the desired effectiveness of the produced structure. Like with computational algorithms, natural selection and sexual selection have shaped the processes behind these animal creations, which sometimes emotionally touch us and move us. The creative aspect of these examples lies in the animals’ ability to produce and modify sounds in ways that serve both functional and expressive purposes. The complexity of the songs, the individual recognition through vocalisation, and their structured, evolving nature, all point to a process that involves learning, innovation, and even cultural transmission among these animals. Such behaviours mirror the human capacity for creating, involving not just the application of simple rules but also the expression of complex emotions, social connections, and cultural identities. This complexity and depth of animal vocalisations underscore their value as creative productions, inviting us to broaden our understanding of creativity beyond human artistic endeavours. Eventually, it is not uncommon for some of these animal productions to become sources of artistic inspiration for humans. The French Olivier Messiaen, for example, was one of the first contemporary music composers to incorporate bird songs into his works. Our focus on music and paintings stems from their prominence in both human and non-human artistic expression, as well as their significant development within machine and AI-generated art. These art forms are not only the most extensively studied in animal behaviour research but also represent the forefront of technological advancements in creative AI applications. By concentrating on music and paintings, we aim to explore the complexities of authorship in areas where the intersection of biological and technological creativity is most evident and advanced. This deliberate choice allows us to delve deeply into the implications of authorship across these two major domains of artistic expression, providing insights that are directly relevant to ongoing discussions in both animal studies and AI research.

The definition of art frequently hinges on the concept of the creator’s intentionality, such as the formation of a goal to be realised (Beardsley, 1970 ; Levinson, 1979 ; Bloom, 1996 ). A simple question then arises: do the above animal creations fall within the realm of art? Do these animal-creators become authors of their creations or even artists? The definition of art is often introduced by the notion of intentionality of its creator, e.g., the conception of a goal to be achieved. We can thus question the levels of intentionality and consciousness of action in these animals. This reflection can also extend to machines and artificial intelligences (AIs Footnote 2 ) (Mikalonytė and Kneer, 2022 ) whose creations, sometimes indistinguishable from human ones, now fetch several hundred thousand euros (Doherty, 2019 ). In 2005, a captive chimpanzee named Barney was observed playing percussion on a plastic barrel (Dufour et al., 2015 ). An in-depth analysis of the recorded sound demonstrated rhythmicity, decontextualisation, and control of the gesture by this chimpanzee (Dufour et al., 2015 ). Prior to Barney, the bonobo Kanzi, trained in sign language, had also been observed playing percussion rhythmically (Kugler and Savage-Rumbaugh, 2002 ). Unfortunately, observations of such behaviours are extremely rare, and data are lacking.

Simultaneously, other primates and great apes draw and paint when given the opportunity (Fig. 1A ; for a review among non-human primates, see Martinet and Pelé, 2021 ). Their creations, often compared to children’s scribbles (Fig. 1B ), are exhibited, sold, or printed on accessories (Applegate and Grupper, 2013 ; Matsuzawa, 2017 ) without questioning their authorship as given to artists (Fig. 1C ). Ownership of a scarf adorned with patterns by the female chimpanzee Ai, or a painting by the male chimpanzee Congo from the 1960s, introduces a dilemma regarding authorship. If a chimpanzee can be acknowledged as the creator of its work, the question extends to why a young child’s scribbles, a worm’s paint trail, or a machine’s programmed drawing (Fig. 1D ) should not receive similar recognition. This prompts a broader enquiry into how creation is defined across early, non-human, or even non-biological contexts. It also brings the concept of intelligence into the discussion, ranging from the cognitive capabilities necessary for the intention behind creation to those required for recognising a creation as such. From this concept of ‘creative’ intelligence, arise other ethical and legal concepts, notably at the origin of the question of legal personality. This paper will address these different notions in order to discuss authorship, considered as the act of characterising a full-fledged author and recognising them as such, and the appropriation of creation, whether it is auditory or graphic, created by an animal or a machine.

This figure presents a diverse array of drawings originating from varied sources: A an adult chimpanzee, illustrating non-human animal creativity that challenges traditional notions of artistic authorship (drawing previously collected by Cédric Sueur in 2019 and extracted from Martinet et al. ( 2023 ) dataset, with the courtesy of Tetsuro Matsuzawa); B a 2-year-old human toddler, representing the nascent stages of human creativity and expression (drawing anonymously and previously collected by Marie Pelé in 2018 and extracted from Martinet et al. ( 2021 ) dataset); C an adult human professional artist (drawing anonymously and previously collected by Cédric Sueur in 2018 and extracted from Martinet et al. ( 2021 ) dataset); and D a visualisation generated by a simple random walk (Sueur, 2011 ) algorithm developed in NetLogo (Tissue and Wilensky, 2004 ), demonstrating how artificial intelligence can create patterns that mimic certain aspects of artistic creativity. Netlogo model available on Netlogo Community platform © Cédric Sueur.

Of the intention to create…

Picture an earthworm traversing a sheet of paper, trailing paint in its wake, contrasted with a chimpanzee applying paint to paper with a brush. This juxtaposition raises the issue of whether the creative processes of these two animals are comparable and if both can be deemed authors of their creations. Furthermore, it questions whether they should be regarded as equals in terms of authorship and what is behind this term. In the context of art and creativity, indexicality refers to the way in which a piece of art can act as a direct indicator or physical trace of its creator’s actions or intentions. This concept is deeply intertwined with intentionality, especially when considering the creative outputs of animals like chimpanzees and the products of artificial intelligence (AI). In animal drawings, for example, the indexicality of a chimpanzee’s artwork can be seen in the brush strokes, patterns, and choices of colour that directly relate to the animal’s physical movements and decision-making processes at the moment of creation (Martinet et al., 2021 , 2023 ). Similarly, in the realm of AI-generated art, indexicality manifests in the output of algorithms designed to create visual or auditory artworks. The ethics of virtue discussed by Aristotle or Kant (Betzler, 2008 ) focuses on the character and motivations of the individual, known as the agent, while consequentialism focuses on the consequences of the actions taken, without regard for the means employed and potential intentionality. Thus, virtue ethics allows us to consider art as the only intentional process, regardless of the final outcome. In contrast, consequentialism views art as a finished product, without considering the process of creation. Therefore, the intentionality of an animal artist or musician emerges as a key point in defining whether they are truly the author of their graphic production or musical composition. For some authors, intentionality even characterises art and the artist (Beardsley, 1970 ; Levinson, 1979 ; Bloom, 1996 ). For others, intentionality is defined by five elements: (i) a desire for a result, (ii) a belief about the action leading to that result, (iii) an intention to carry out the action, (iv) awareness of the accomplishment of the intention while executing the action, and (v) the ability to execute the action (Malle and Knobe, 1997 ).

In cognitive ethology, studies have shown that individuals of animal species such as pigeons, rats, or non-human primates are capable of anticipating their actions (Le Neindre et al., 2018 ). Individuals of most of these species are also aware of their decision-making and the consequences of these decisions. These degrees of action anticipation correspond to elements (i) and (ii) as defined by Malle and Knobe ( 1997 ), while the level of consciousness in these animals relates to elements (iii) and (iv) that define intentionality, again according to Malle and Knobe ( 1997 ). By applying these two capacities (anticipation and consciousness) to behaviours such as drawing, for example, consequentialism would qualify both the ape and the earthworm as authors of their drawings, while virtue ethics would consider the ape as the sole author, conscious of its actions. Consciousness is conceptualised as the awareness of oneself and one’s surroundings, a state that encompasses the ability to experience sensations, thoughts, and emotions. From a neuroscientific perspective, consciousness is associated with specific patterns of brain activity and connectivity that denote an awareness of internal and external states. Ethological studies further validate these concepts by demonstrating instances of self-awareness and environmental responsiveness in non-human animals, indicating levels of consciousness that challenge the boundaries traditionally reserved for humans. Philosophically, this definition is accepted as it resonates with discussions on the nature of mind, self, and agency, bridging empirical observations with theoretical inquiries into the essence of sentient life.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to determine whether these capacities are genuinely underlying animal drawing. Some researchers argue that animal drawings are induced by experimenters who invite them to draw or even encourage them to do so (see Tomasello and Call, 2004 for cognitive tasks in general). For example, in Thailand, Asian elephants ( Elephas maximus ) create shapes that closely resemble self-portraits or bouquets of flowers, but the conditioning and latent mistreatment behind such productions lead researchers to doubt the pachyderm’s understanding of its drawing (OneGreenPlanet, 2020 ). Moreover, in the wild, no spontaneous drawing behaviour has been reported to date in elephants or great apes. However, it is common for captive hominids to manipulate pencils and brushes on sheets of paper or even draw with their fingers on touchscreens (Martinet and Pelé, 2021 ). Thus, some chimpanzees maintain their graphic activity without any food reinforcement, indicating their interest in the action (Boysen et al., 1987 ). Beyond the sensation directly related to locomotor movement, visual feedback would also serve as reinforcement. Indeed, the drawing behaviour on a touchscreen decreases when the chimpanzee’s trace becomes invisible (Tanaka et al., 2003 ). The various studies on chimpanzees, therefore, support the argument that the act of drawing itself has a reinforcing property for these animals. While drawings are not spontaneous in chimpanzees, the simple act of drawing and the properties of the drawing modify the subjects’ future actions. However, if the earthworm leaves no trace behind, this absence of a trace will not impact its movements on the paper, unlike the hominid. Schiller ( 1951 ) went further and presented a young female chimpanzee named Alpha with blank sheets featuring geometric figures. She marked the sheets differently based on the stimuli presented, thus raising the question of intentionality behind these seemingly ‘simplistic’ ‘scribbles’ by animals. However, despite numerous studies on great apes, especially chimpanzees, no representative drawings have ever been observed, and researchers generally compare their productions to those of young human children (Martinet and Pelé, 2021 ). Using fractal mathematical indices to assess the representativeness of a drawing, Martinet et al. ( 2021 ) demonstrated that chimpanzee drawings, while not as proficient as those of children, are not random either. The most common way to determine if a drawing is representative or not is to ask its author about its meaning. The question was posed to another sign-language-proficient female chimpanzee, and her response was ‘bird’ (Gardner and Gardner, 1978 ). However, this response does not prove the presence of intentionality in this individual; it could have been a random response, influenced by experimenters, or the sign may have been misinterpreted. All of these elements suggest that some individuals of certain species, especially great apes, appear to interact with their production (graphic or auditory) in the sense that what is created influences what will be. The concept of agency (McFarland and Hediger, 2009 ; Blattner et al., 2020 ; Sueur et al., 2023 ) can thus be attributed to these animals from a psychological perspective, for example, as actors in the world affecting their environment. It can also be attributed to a philosophical and ethological perspective if we consider great apes as capable of recognising themselves as individuals and having a certain sense of morality if these capacities define the very essence of personhood. Legal personhood refers to the recognition by the legal system of an entity as a subject that can bear rights and duties. Traditionally reserved for human beings, the concept’s boundaries are being tested by advancements in AI and growing awareness of animal cognition and social complexity. This general definition of agency is accepted by biologists, psychologists as researchers in law and philosophers. In contemporary fields of art history, theory, and creative practices, the term ‘agency’ is employed to denote the capacity of individuals or entities to act autonomously and make independent choices within the creative process. Agency emphasises the role of the creator not just as a passive conduit for external influences but as an active participant with the power to shape the creative outcome. This perspective acknowledges the complexity of creative acts, recognising them as the result of deliberate choices, influences, and interactions between the creator’s intentions and the medium’s possibilities. A cross-disciplinary approach to agency enriches our understanding of art and creativity by challenging anthropocentric views and expanding the notion of who or what can be considered a creator. It encourages a re-evaluation of the criteria for authorship and creativity, pushing us to consider the ethical, philosophical, and practical implications of recognising agency in a broader spectrum of creative entities.

… to author recognition

Mylène Ferrand Lointier’s doctoral thesis ( 2022 ) in Arts ‘Le Tournant animal dans l’art contemporain (de 1960 à nos jours), approche écoféministe,’ [The Animal Turn in Contemporary Art (from 1960 to today), an Ecofeminist Approach] delves into the increasingly significant role of the animal question in contemporary discourse, driven by evolving anthro-zoological relationships. Highlighting a shift in the portrayal of animals in art from mere objects or symbols to subjects with intrinsic value, this research examines a diverse international corpus of artworks and artists deeply engaged with animal issues from the 1960s to the present: lEija-Liisa Ahtila, Julie Andreyev, Banksy, Joseph Beuys, Sue Coe, Minerva Cuevas, Terike Haapoja, Jonathan Horowitz, Joan Jonas, Jenny Kendler, EvaMarie Lindahl, Isabella & Tiziana Pers, Araya Rasdjarmrearnsook, Rachel Rosenthal, Saeborg, Lin May Saeed, Sin Kabeza Productions, Bryndís Snæbjörnsdóttir & Mark Wilson, Diana Thater, and Robert Zhao Renhui. Through an ecofeminist lens, incorporating ethics of care and intersectionality, Ferrand explores an ecocritical territory intertwining art, emotion, animal ethics, and posthumanism. This thesis aims to chart a new eco- and zoo-poetic/political path towards an era termed the ‘Ecocene’, advocating for a revaluation of human–animal relations within art as with The Compassion Manifesto: An Ethics for Art + Design and Animals (Andreyev, 2016 ).

There is currently no research on the abilities of great apes to claim ownership of their creations, whether they are graphic or musical. Nevertheless, it becomes evident that consciousness and morality emerge as pivotal concepts in the realm of authorship. Morality is understood as a set of principles or guidelines that govern the behaviour of individuals within a social context, reflecting notions of right and wrong, justice, empathy, and welfare. Ethologically, the roots of moral behaviour are observed in the social interactions of non-human animals (e.g., great apes, elephants or even rats), where acts of altruism, cooperation, and fairness are not uncommon and serve to maintain social cohesion and mutual benefit (De Waal, 2016 ). Such behaviours suggest a biological underpinning for moral conduct, further supported by neuroscience, which identifies neural circuits and processes involved in empathetic responses, decision-making, and the evaluation of fairness and harm. Philosophically, these empirical findings are incorporated into broader discussions about the nature of morality as well as consciousness, their origin, and their applicability across different forms of life. By acknowledging the evidence of moral-like behaviours and consciousness in non-human animals, philosophy expands its enquiry into the moral agency, questioning the exclusivity of moral consideration and rights to humans and opening the door to a more inclusive understanding of moral subjects. These concepts enable individuals to achieve the status of a ‘person’, nothing more and nothing less, and subsequently, to acquire legal rights through their recognised personhood. Historically, this term ‘person’ has been exclusively applied to humans and is defined as ‘an intelligent, thinking being, capable of reason and reflection, who can recognise themselves as the same thinking entity across different times and places’ (Locke and Perry, 1975 ). Self-awareness and moral cognition thus play a significant role in the authorisation and appropriation of creative works, attributes currently ascribed solely to humans, who are deemed to possess ‘a soul and consciousness’ (Schrecker, 1938 ; Engels, 2009 ).

It is indeed in the field of metaphysics that are often grounded the basis for the attribution of rights for living beings, and more precisely in the question of the difference between humans and animals. Pivotal moments in philosophy engage in a significant debate regarding the anthropological question and the specific traits that distinguish humans from animals. A crucial argument for this discussion revolves around whether the differentiation is grounded in ontological terms, suggesting a fundamental disparity in nature or condition between humans and animals, or if it hinges on ontic qualities, indicating inherent, distinct characteristics between the two. Through the lens of an ontological distinction, numerous philosophers have constructed a recognised hierarchy within the spectrum of living beings, often based on universals (such as soul, conscience or reason). As an example, Aristotle considers that the human soul is the only one to demonstrate the dianoetic faculty, which means the ‘power of thinking’ (Aristotle, 1987 , Book II, Chapter I, 412a) or the ability to exercise and apply reason. Descartes, by qualifying human beings as the only ones that possess the cogitatio , discloses a theory where animals are constituted as mere biological machines (Descartes, 1637/ 1937 , p. 164), providing a landing mark for later theories on the mechanism and animal environment (Loeb, 1918 ). Malebranche ( 1997 , book VI, part 2, chapter vii) argues that ‘in animals, there is neither intelligence nor souls as ordinary meant’. And later, Marx ( 2022 /1845, MEGA I, 5, p. 10; CW 5, p. 31) elaborates that ‘men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or anything else you like’.

By those few examples, we highlight that major authors in the philosophical tradition have influenced current interdisciplinary discussions on animal rights, and the ethical and political treatment of non-human entities. Ontological attributes such as consciousness, morality, reason, intelligence and self-recognition have traditionally been used as a way to distinguish human beings from animals. The anthropological distinction between humans and animals ensues the possibility to acknowledge ontic differences and to ground them in a metaphysical perspective, giving them an axiological weight that easily leads to a hierarchy of living beings. Even though we will not tackle this issue in our article, this metaphysical debate is still widely discussed today and of major importance. But one of its many consequences is noteworthy: it impacted our ability to ground animal agency over a robust ontological status, which led to the denial of several categories of rights for animals, including the right to be acknowledged as authors (since, by definition, authorship has been attributed to individuals and people).

Even if ontological hierarchies have often been used as the groundwork on which are based distinct rights for human beings and animals, several contemporary debates explore the possibility that the possession of specific ontic, cognitive, or emotional attributes might entail the entitlement to certain rights, regardless of the inherent nature, status or condition of the subject. In short, the question of animal rights could be distinguished from the ontological question of the essence of animality, and more empirical ethological, bio-semiotical or zoological studies could lead to a better understanding of animal cognition, sociality and behaviour, leading to the establishment of grounded animal rights. From then on, numerous researchers, including Charles Darwin, who ascribed consciousness to individuals within social species, have probed the presence of intellect, self-awareness or autonomy in animals. Donald Griffin ( 2013 ) proposes that it is through the realms of communication, encompassing dialogues and negotiations, that we should investigate intentional behaviours and processes governed by consciousness. Research on great apes capable of using sign language or symbols has shown that they can speak about others and themselves as distinct and autonomous entities. Autobiographical self-awareness (Le Neindre et al., 2018 ) has also been found in many animal species (primates, cetaceans, birds) through the mirror test, demonstrating that subjects can identify and recognise themselves in it (Gallup et al., 2002 ). Likewise, metacognition, the ability by which an individual acquires knowledge of their own mental processes, or their ability to evaluate the state of what they know, has been verified in several animal species through tests assessing certainty or confidence (Le Neindre et al., 2018 ). Additionally, some social animals also display theory of mind, i.e., the capacity to impute a mental self to conspecifics or to understand what they are looking at, what they intend to do, or even to know their beliefs (Tomasello and Call, 1997 ). Finally, observations of chimpanzees and elephants, as well as experiments with rats, have shown that these animals possess a certain degree of empathy and morality (De Waal, 2006 ). From these new findings, the qualification of ‘person’ could be attributed to animals capable of self-recognition and demonstrating morality. By assigning legal personality, they could be granted ownership of their creations and recognised as genuine authors.

Legal personality

Therefore, some rights could be attributed to animals who possess capacities or qualities similar to those of human beings, beyond the ontological question of their essence, nature or condition. As highlighted by the example of marginal cases by Peter Singer and discussed by DeGrazia ( 1990 ), several categories of individuals—such as infants, adults with severe mental disabilities, or those in a coma—do not possess the cognitive, locomotor, or emotional faculties usually attributed to an ideal type of human being. Nevertheless, these individuals do have legal personality. According to Peter Singer, if these individuals have legal personality, it could also be attributed to animals who have equal or sometimes more developed capabilities than these individuals. The young child or disabled adult who scribbles or drums has rights and will be recognised as the author of the drawing or sound they produce, regardless of the levels of intentionality and consciousness they put in their creation (in the process and towards its finality). By considering the complex philosophical question of the nature of the subject as a separate discussion from the legal rules that apply to them, animals could be granted legal personality based on certain faculties they possess, allowing them to hold rights and duties. This question entails difficult debates, and several actions that aim to grant rights to animals have already been initiated by animal protection associations. In particular, in the United States of America, the Non-Human Rights Project led by Steven Wise (Wise, 2010 ) relies on the legal concept of Habeas corpus, which states the fundamental freedom not to be imprisoned without trial, and aims to free several wild animals that are held captive despite possessing enough cognitive abilities to be aware of their deplorable living conditions.

As shown with the macaque Naruto (Guadamuz, 2016 ; Rosati, 2017 ), recognising animals with consciousness as legal persons appears to be a prerequisite for them to be truly and fully recognised as authors of their creations. In 2019, the Toulon Declaration reiterated the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness ( 2012 ), stating that most animals with neurological substrates of consciousness should have legal personality (Regad and Riot, 2019 ). The theory of animal rights is increasingly discussed and formalised, allowing animals, depending on their species, agency, and interactions with humans, to have recognised rights (Donaldson and Kymlicka, 2011 ). The authorisation of animal artistic creations fits seamlessly into this theory.

What about artificial intelligence (AI)?

When highlighting the argument of authorship for non-human beings, an important discussion arises from the question of non-living or non-organic beings, such as machines, robots and AI. The philosophical considerations surrounding the attribution of rights to animals and machines or AI overlap in significant ways. By examining these questions in parallel, we gain insights into the principles that currently guide our interactions with non-human entities, whether biological or artificial. It helps us to reconsider our relationship with non-human entities and to reassess the values and norms that underpin our social and legal systems.

As such, our demonstration will mostly focus on the question regarding AI. Indeed, a proposition would be to consider that there could be a major distinction for authorship between machines themselves because the embodiment of a robot Footnote 3 would have a huge impact on its perceived authorship compared to a non-embodied AI system. As such, a robot would be perceived as more susceptible to have rights than a non-embodied AI. In this case, embodiment itself would have a significant impact on whether or not something possesses rights and whether or not people believe that those rights are acceptable Footnote 4 . However, this thought experiment would be confronted with the fact that, currently, authorship is not attributed depending on their embodiment to living beings such as animals (which are by definition embodied). When determining authorship, embodiment appears to matter less than the legal personality we usually ascribe a being, and their status—be it human, animal, or machine, but also depending on if it is an adult or a child, or the degree of agency we ascribe to the animal in question. Therefore, we chose to mostly focus this line of questioning on IA algorithms that could or could not be embodied.

In 2018, an AI-created painting was auctioned for $432,500, signed with a mathematical formula, developed by the Obvious research collective (Doherty, 2019 ; Vernier et al., 2020a , 2020b ). This event raises the question of whether artificial intelligence could be acknowledged as the creator of its works and entitled to copyright rights. Additionally, platforms like Playform by Artrendex Inc. offer algorithms that replicate the style of renowned painters on any image. This situation poses a dilemma regarding the true authorship of the resulting artwork: Is it the AI (Davies, 2011 ; Abbott, 2016 ; Christie, 2018 ), the developers of the algorithm, or the original artists whose styles were emulated (Bridy, 2012 ; Hristov, 2016 ; McCormack et al., 2019 ), or another entity? The methodologies and debates surrounding animal intelligence and authorship could similarly be extended to the realm of artificial intelligence (Nguyen, 2019 ). In the case of the Obvious creation, the produced algorithm is not intelligent in the sense described above. It should be noted that the model used to create this painting was trained on existing paintings, which can be likened to the learning process present in humans. Capable of producing a specific act, this model is not, however, able to solve any problem, has no intentional acts, and is not self-aware. However, more complex robots capable of recognising themselves in a mirror could well be self-aware (Hart and Scassellati, 2012 ; Schneider et al., 2014 ; Meyer et al., 2020 ). New fields of research are thus created and developed to better understand the behaviour of machines and their emerging capabilities (Rahwan et al., 2019 ; Dorigo et al., 2020 ). Specific tests such as the Turing Test (Copeland, 2000 ) exist to precisely determine the capabilities of machines, especially in relation to artistic creation (Bishop and Boden, 2010 ). However, these tests are often criticised. On the one hand, because many humans do not pass them, and on the other hand, because they are conceptualised by humans with all the anthropomorphic biases that this presupposes (Sueur and Pelé, 2017 ; Sueur et al., 2020 ). However, even if some do not wish to recognise machines as artists, it is important to note the difficulty for a human to distinguish computer-generated creations from human creations (Mikalonytė and Kneer, 2022 ).

Consequently, the question of authorship and AI plays a key role in better understanding the issues of authorship and agency themselves. As regarding animals, this very specific issue depends on many factors such as the nature of the agents involved (weak AI or strong AI Footnote 5 ), the degree of intentionality of the creation (intentional or accidental), and the content or nature of the graphical creation itself (abstract or representational) (Mikalonytė and Kneer, 2022 ). However, as the attribution of agency and personhood are a crucial issue both for AI and animals, the question of authorship for machines often ends with a much clearer conclusion than that of animal authorship. Indeed, as a machine is created by humans, it is usually considered devoid of all rights in favour of its creator or user. For instance, the authorship of an AI-generated artwork is commonly attributed to the human artist behind the machine (when there is no copyrights issues…), whereas it is much more complicated to consider that the human who gave a pencil to an animal is the author of the resulting canvas. Therefore, by considering through an experiment of thought that authorship for a machine or AI is a real issue, and as it may indeed soon become a crucial one, we may better uncover what is usually the basis for authorship in a broader sense.

Photons be free

To tackle this complicated issue, we decided to incorporate and decipher a science fictional case study in our analysis. It serves as a valuable methodological tool allowing us to explore the potential futures shaped by current technological advancements and ethical considerations. Science fiction, often regarded as a form of speculative methodology, enables us to envision the societal, legal, and ethical implications of technology before they fully manifest in reality. This approach is particularly relevant when discussing the rights and authorship of non-human entities, as it provides a narrative framework to examine complex issues that might not yet be fully realised or understood within our current legal and ethical systems. To further ground our use of sci-fi examples, we draw upon the concept of technological imaginaries (Sartori and Bocca, 2023 ; Jasanoff and Kim, 2015 ), which is extensively used to describe modern societies in which technology plays a key role in shaping both our understanding of them and our way to envision their evolution. This critical theoretical framework investigates how collective visions of technological futures influence current technological development and societal norms. Technological imaginaries help us understand how our expectations, fears, and hopes for technology shape the way we interact with and conceptualise emerging technologies. By examining these imaginaries, we aim to unpack the cultural and social underpinnings of our assumptions about non-human authorship and the rights of artificial entities, offering insights that are accessible to readers from a broad range of disciplinary backgrounds. In the scope of this article, engaging with fictional narratives urges us to envision new possibilities and challenge conventional thinking about the role of machines in creative processes and intellectual endeavours, and the evolving concept of authorship in the digital age.

In this context, a specific example issued from science fiction helps us better understand this evolving aspect of our technological imaginaries and the various dimensions of authorisation that can apply to artificial or non-human entities. The episode ‘Author, Author’ ( 2001 , Season 7, Episode 20) of the series Star Trek: Voyager questions the situation of the Doctor, a hologram (with a strong AI 5 ) that has exceeded its initial programming’s limits over the years, and developed behavioural and emotional characteristics usually seen only in living beings. The Doctor is confronted with the controversial question of his own copyright when he writes a holoprogram and sells the rights to a publishing house. The editor published it without his consent while he still had major modifications to make. The stakes that this episode highlights mirror the famous debate about the rights of the android Data in the well-known episode ‘Measure of a Man’ (1989, Season 2, Episode 9) of Star Trek: The Next Generation . In both episodes, the question aims to determine to what extent Data and the Doctor are individuals because a certain number of rights will depend on their identity, status, and the legal personality that will be granted to them. If Data is not a person, then he is the property of Starfleet, much like any toaster or computer. If the Doctor is not a person, then he cannot be considered an artist and has as many rights over his holoprogram as a coffee machine has over the coffee it produces.

For the Doctor, as Data before, this debate unfolds in the legal framework of a trial whose decision will be a legal action: ‘A Federation Arbitrator has been assigned to determine whether the Doctor has the right to control his artistic creation.’ (‘Author, Author’, 00:32:13). The first session aims to outline the scope of the debate and raises the question of the Doctor’s personhood, rather than his rights as an artist. Indeed, Starfleet defines an artist as ‘a person who creates an original artistic work.’ (‘Author, Author’, 00:34:36). While the Doctor has indeed created an original artistic work, he is not considered a full person and, therefore, cannot claim authorship of his work of art.

This episode delves into a crucial aspect of our discussion: the notion that an individual must belong to a specific category to access certain rights, such as those allowing humans exclusively to be recognised as authors or artists. It proposes an alternative perspective where rights could be allocated with respect to the subject’s category, enabling entities–whether human, non-human, animal, or artificial–to be acknowledged as authors or artists. This perspective raises the possibility of recognising an animal or an AI as an artist without necessarily classifying them as persons. However, it also suggests that affirming an entity’s status as an artist might require expanding the definition of personhood. Legal decisions and efforts to establish precedents are currently addressing these considerations, bringing theoretical debates into the realm of practical applications. Last year, the United States Copyright Office (USPTO) reversed its decision to grant copyright protection to a comic book whose images were generated by AI (Ostrow and Dengel, 2022 ). The fundamental element in this latter case is that the USPTO’s revocation is based on the ‘Human Authorship Requirement’, Footnote 6 which means the necessity for the author of a work to be … a human being. Here, we find thirty years later the stake that was raised by Star Trek about the relevance of encompassing authorship in a category: be it a strictly human definition for the USPTO’s Human Authorship Requirement or, more broadly, the status of personhood or individual, in Star Trek series.

By trying to avoid the strict question of copyright and to focus on the legal personality of the Doctor, the episode ‘Author, Author’ explicitly reminds us that the question still exists today for other individuals within the human species. For example, the tendency to invisibilize female authors in artistic fields is still a contemporary issue (Rollet, 2007 ; Nochlin, 1971 / 2021 ), which questions the way we structure our understanding of creation by highlighting mechanisms that delegitimise certain individuals based on their gender or origin. This example illustrates the painstaking evolution of authorisation norms even within the human species. In this regard, the question of the right to be called an ‘author’ still arises from identity premises (the subject’s status—male or female, human or non-human, etc.) rather than from the artistic production itself. If an animal cannot be an artist, it is not because it has not created a work of art, but because it is not considered as an operating subject. And it is not the work of the non-human artificial entity that is judged, but the AI’s status within humanity, as demonstrated by the USPTO, when it first recognised the artistic value of an AI work before retracting its decision.

In the series episode ‘Author, Author’, as it is the question of personhood that is at stake through the issue of authorisation, the trial’s witnesses emphasise the importance of the Doctor’s experiences, by highlighting his ability to evolve beyond his programming, to think for himself, and even, to disobey orders. However, when he returns with his decision, the Arbitrator instructs a judgement similar to the one that granted the android Data free will in ‘Measure of a Man’, but without changing his status. The Arbitrator is not willing to declare the Doctor a ‘person’ per se. However, the legal definition of the term ‘artist’ can and will be expanded to include his creations. Therefore, the Doctor holds the copyright on his artwork and can intervene in the distribution of his holoprogram. This conclusion underlines that the status of an artist is generally deemed more flexible than the definition of personhood; and that expanding the sphere of authorship and its associated rights raises fewer challenges than to extend the concept of personhood. As such, it is easier to imagine that the USPTO could remove the Human Authorship Requirement to include non-human individuals like AI or animals in copyright protection, rather than to extend the human status to animals or AI. In other words, the legal personality is more flexible and plastic than the natural personality, understood as the nature or condition of the subject (human, non-human).

That being said, Star Trek highlights the important point that the definition of what constitutes a person itself has continued to evolve. The episode presents the important issue that conceding certain rights to certain entities (such as copyright and artistic authorship to an AI or an animal) implies, in fact, an evolution of their natural status. Moreover, these legal changes could lead to changes in ethical frameworks. In essence, granting copyright to the Doctor, then other rights to other holograms, and so on, brings closer to a legal decision in which a hologram’s personhood could no longer be questioned. To consider that personhood alone grants access to certain rights may imply that gaining these rights is the first step towards the modification of a non-human entity’s status. Star Trek offers us the following alternative: perhaps the access to certain rights should not depend on the subject’s status. Perhaps human imaginaries must reconcile with emerging realities, driven by the evolution of our technological landscapes, and acknowledge the necessity of granting rights and protections to non-human entities. In fact, it is no coincidence that the Doctor’s holoprogram, duly entitled ‘Photons Be Free’, revolves around the struggle for equality of hologram populations.

What about digital tools in musical creations?

Science fiction is often considered as a literature of ideas that allows for thought experiments in hypothetical or speculative scenarios that may not yet have real-world manifestations, but will or could have important implications for our societies. Consequently, it is now of major importance to apply the questioning that arose from this example to a more grounded debate regarding AI-generated artworks and the use of machines and algorithms in artistic practices.

Nowadays, with technological advancements and the rise of digital equipment, the issue of authorship is increasingly relevant in live performances, particularly in music (see seminal works of Reeves et al., 2005 ; Berthaut, 2015 ; Capra et al., 2020 ). The intense experience of creation ‘in the making’ can be disrupted by the presence of machines if the audience begins to believe that the machines, rather than the artists, are producing the artistic work. Unless the contributions are shared? For the artists themselves, there may be a challenge in distinguishing what is produced by their exclusive actions from what is produced by the accompanying machines (Rimoldi and Manzolli, 2016 ). Here, the question is no longer about determining whether the artist is an author or not, but to what extent, and from which perspective, that of the author or the audience.

In music, the sophistication and apparent autonomy of digital instruments raise questions that are nearly absent in the case of analogue instruments such as the violin or drums. When a machine is capable of playing autonomously—whether in a rudimentary manner, as with an MP3 player, or more adaptively, through generative algorithms and artificial intelligence–the role of the artist-author in music production no longer appears as evident, at least not exclusively. From a cognitive perspective, this dilution of the artist’s contribution due to digital assistance is partly explained by the close connection between movement and perception (Rizzolatti et al., 1996 ; Jeannerod, 2001 ). In traditional music performances where instruments have almost no autonomy, the perception of the link between the musicians’ gestures and the produced sounds is clear (these are referred to as ‘transparent instruments’ Fels et al., 2002 ). The brain’s constant simulation of perceived gestures to predict their consequences is the basis for integrating this link (Zatorre et al., 2007 ; Salimpour et al., 2015 ). From this simulation emerges the sense of understanding what is happening, perceiving what the artist controls, their intention, and virtuosity, all of which are components of authorship.

In electronic music, a single gesture can generate a multitude of different sounds depending on machine settings. AI and digital technology blur the traditional link between a musician’s actions and the resulting sounds, raising questions about authorship. The causal link between gesture and sound can thus disappear, leading to a loss of interest for the audience and doubt regarding the artist’s involvement (Schloss, 2003 ; Stuart, 2003; Huron, 2008 ). Indeed, the audience may struggle to attribute authorship due to the obscured causal relationship between gesture and sound. As AI plays a significant role in generating music, it necessitates re-evaluating how we define and recognise the creative contributions of human artists and the extent to which AI systems can be considered co-creators in the artistic process.

Towards shared authorship: from human–machine interaction to human–animal–machine collaboration?

Recent studies (Capra et al., 2020 ) have shown that the audience’s sense of understanding a digital music interaction leads them to consider the artist as more contributory than the machine in performances with digital instruments or computers. These findings not only emphasise the crucial role of the sense of understanding in the judgement of authorship but also highlight the gradual nature of this judgement. Furthermore, the ‘evidence’ of a machine’s involvement in the artistic process is not always obvious; computers can be hidden backstage, and artists can pretend to play live while everything is pre-recorded. One might have images of musicians with their hands in the air, clapping while the music continues, or, conversely, focused on their instruments without it is possible to see what they are doing or even distinguish which sound they are working on. This perceptual deficiency and its consequences on the audience’s experience have led the Human–Computer Interaction (HCI) community to propose new evaluation criteria for digital devices (Berthaut et al., 2013 ; Berthaut et al., 2015 ; Bin 2018 ; see an extended review in Capra, 2020 ), including the Association (Capra et al., 2020 ), which designates the capacity of a device to expose to the audience the respective contributions of artists and machines in electronic performances. This human–machine collaboration in artistic creation can also occur in other disciplines, such as cinema, again in various and graduated forms. In the film Attack the Sun by Gwendal Sartre and Fabien Zocco ( 2019 ), the dialogues are generated by processing content from social networks and communicated to the actors by an artificial intelligence. The artists remain in control of the overall framework and many production elements, but by letting an AI drive something as structurally significant as the dialogues, are we witnessing a strictly human production or a human–machine collaboration with a shared degree of authorship?

Thus, authorship in digital creation can be refined with more gradual notions of the level of control by the artist and the varying degree of their contribution to artistic production compared to that of machines. Additionally, as we have seen, authorship can be understood here from a dual perspective: that of the artist and their agency, and that attributed to them by the audience, referred to as attributed agency (Berthaut, 2015 ; Capra, 2020 ). This dual consideration highlights technology not only as a medium for creation but also for its mediation to make digital interactions perceptible and to reveal them (Berthaut et al., 2013 ), thus allowing authors to assert their desired level of authorship.

Delving deeper into the realm of human–animal–machine collaboration, we explore an innovative paradigm of authorship that transcends traditional species boundaries. This interdisciplinary nexus is exemplified by initiatives such as the Interspecies Internet (Dolgin, 2019 ; Jones, 2019 ) and the use of environmental sensing technologies (Gabrys and Pritchard, 2018 ), which are pioneering the way for a new form of artistic expression and communication across species and technologies. This blending of human creativity, animal behaviour, and technological intervention serves as a powerful testament to the potential of collective intelligence and creativity (Bonnet et al., 2019 ; Wang et al., 2023 ). It suggests that authorship can extend beyond the confines of human endeavour, encompassing the contributions of non-human participants whose interactions with technology provide a unique perspective to transcend creativity. The exchange of learning and behaviours between humans and animals (Sueur and Huffman, 2024 ), becomes a fundamental element of this co-creative process. This mutual adaptation and shared understanding facilitate a form of artistic creation that is truly collaborative, allowing for the emergence of novel expressions.

The outcomes of such partnerships—be it in the form of music that incorporates animal sounds interpreted through AI algorithms, or visual art that visualises the migratory patterns of birds captured via satellite technology, shapes of ants or termite colonies to co-create sculptures—enrich our artistic vocabulary.

In a mesmerising fusion of human movement and natural spectacle, choreographer Sadeck Berrabah’s Murmuration Footnote 7 stands as a profound example of interspecies inspiration in contemporary art. Drawing from the breathtaking phenomenon of murmuration—where thousands of birds, typically starlings, move in unison through the sky, creating fluid, dynamic shapes–Sadeck Berrabah captures the essence of this natural wonder through human bodies in motion. This performance blurs the lines between human and animal realms, redefining artistic authorship as a shared, interspecies endeavour.

Björk, through her innovative use of technology and nature in music, exemplifies shared authorship by integrating animal sounds and digital manipulation, blurring the lines between human, non-human, and technological creativity. Her project Biophilia Footnote 8 showcases this symbiosis, treating natural sounds not merely as inspirations but as co-creators, challenging traditional notions of creative agency. Björk’s approach, where machines serve as bridges between human creativity and the natural world, contributes to redefining authorship as a collective effort that transcends species boundaries. This perspective enriches discussions on the creative participation of non-human entities, urging a broader recognition of diverse contributions within the creative process.

Chris Jordan, Oliver Beer and Richard Mankin each uniquely engage with the natural world through their art, exploring the interplay between human activity, wildlife, and the environment. Jordan’s digital photography, especially in Midway: Message from the Gyre Footnote 9 , reveals the dire effects of plastic pollution on seabirds, offering a stark visual commentary on environmental degradation. Beer merges art with ecology, using animal sounds in installations to examine space’s acoustic qualities, connecting architectural and natural harmonies. Mankin, blending entomology with artistry, transforms insect acoustics into music, highlighting their ecological significance and challenging our perceptions of natural soundscapes. Together, these artists contribute to a broader dialogue on environmental awareness and interspecies relationships through innovative artistic practices.

In conclusion

We acknowledge the complexity inherent in discussing authorship across a spectrum of entities, ranging from animals to various forms of technology such as machines, robots, computers, and artificial intelligence (AI). We recognise that each of these entities possesses distinct levels of consciousness, intentionality, and embodiment, which significantly impact their perceived and potential authorship. To clarify, our argument is rooted in the notion that authorship should not be considered a binary attribute but rather as existing on a continuum that reflects the degree of consciousness and intentionality of the creator, whether animal or artificial. This approach allows us to critically examine the prevailing norms of personhood and human-centric authorship, while also addressing the significant impact of embodiment on the perception of authorship. Specifically, the physical presence or absence of a robot, as opposed to the disembodied nature of an AI system, influences how authorship is ascribed and perceived. We have to embrace a nuanced understanding of these differences and propose a framework for degrees of authorship, based on the capacities of both biological and technological entities. This stance not only enriches the dialogue around the intersection of ethics, law, and technology but also ensures that our discussion remains relevant and adaptable to the evolving landscape of intelligent and creative beings.

The concepts related to authorship and ownership of creation are those that define a person: a conscious entity with rights. The scientific approach to applying copyright involves various steps to assess the intentionality of an act and its awareness of it. Therefore, machines cannot currently be recognised as authors of their creations. However, if one considers that an artist is less of an author when accompanied by a machine whose contribution to the work is evident, or even superior, this illustrates the gradual nature of authorship. From the artist’s perspective, in a context where they are both the public performer and the programmer of the software used to create, they have a legitimate claim to authorship to a higher degree than if they were using prebuilt algorithms. This is a higher level of authorship than that perceived by a novice audience incapable of distinguishing the artist-computer scientist’s contribution from the presence of machines. It results in a subjective notion, nonetheless linked to objective technical knowledge of the attributed agency. In the context of collaboration between human artists and machines, and from the perspective of spectators, the notion of authorship would not necessarily imply the existence of consciousness.

However, this conclusion appears different regarding conscious animals. In the case of great apes, even though only captive individuals seem to enjoy drawing, this enculturation (Tomasello and Call, 2004 ) should not prevent us from recognising their authorship and ownership of their creations, since a similar learning process is observed in humans. Drawing or playing an instrument is a skill that develops through observation and learning in Homo sapiens , similar to other hominids, including young children who undergo a lengthy process to acquire these abilities. Mozart’s composition of musical works at the age of six illustrates that age or species does not constrain creativity. Some primatologists recognise the primates they study as co-authors in their research, publications, or productions, acknowledging their contributions (Savage-Rumbaugh et al., 2007 ; Applegate and Grupper, 2013 ; Matsuzawa, 2017 ). However, granting authorship to animals raises concerns about potentially undermining their agency (McFarland and Hediger, 2009 ; Blattner et al., 2020 ). Similarly, this article’s title, derived from the AI of ChatGPT, prompts a reflection on its authorship status. These considerations are likely to spark extensive debate within both the artistic and scientific communities in the future.

Furthermore, our exploration into the realms of authorship and creativity among non-human entities prompts a consideration of the concepts of transhumanism and transanimalism, especially in relation to the use of assisted technologies and robotics within contemporary art (Burgat, 2015 ; Delfin, 2019 ; Grundmann, 2007 ; Someşan, 2022 ; Vita‐More, 2013 ). Transhumanist and metahumanist (Sorgner and Deretic, 2015 ) movements that advocate for the evolution of the human condition through advanced technologies, offer compelling lenses through which to view the integration of AI and robotics in artistic creation. These movements question the plasticity of the human condition and envision political and practical possibilities where the boundaries between human and machine, organic and artificial, are increasingly blurred, suggesting a new paradigm of creativity that is collaborative, hybrid, and expansive in its potential. Additionally, the concept of transanimalism (Cayol et al., 2024 )—extending transhumanist ideas to include non-human animals in the technological enhancement narrative—further enriches this discourse. It invites us to reimagine the creative capacities of animals when augmented by technology, thus opening up new avenues for artistic expression that transcend traditional species boundaries. By integrating these considerations into our discussion, we acknowledge the evolving landscape of contemporary art, where assisted technologies not only redefine the parameters of human creativity but also challenge us to envisage a future where diverse forms of intelligence, both human and non-human, contribute to the tapestry of artistic expression in unprecedented ways.

Data availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

From an ethological perspective, creativity may be observed in animal behaviour that solves new problems or adapts in novel ways. In AI research, creativity is often demonstrated through the ability to produce work that is indistinguishable from or surpasses human-created art, challenging our understanding of creativity’s origins and manifestations. Philosophically, creativity involves the exploration of the bounds of imagination and the capacity for conceptual expansion, inviting a re-evaluation of creative agency across different forms of consciousness.

Just as there are multiple forms and instances of intelligence across different animal species, with varied structures and supports for intelligence, the same reasoning can apply to AI. The term ‘artificial intelligences’ acknowledges the diversity and multiplicity of AI systems, frameworks, and applications. Each AI system can be designed with unique capabilities, purposes, and underlying algorithms, thus representing distinct ‘intelligences’ in the artificial realm. This pluralisation can emphasise the variety and specificity of AI entities, recognising their individual characteristics and contributions to the broader landscape of technology and society.

A robot is typically defined as a machine that is capable of carrying out complex actions automatically, especially when programmed to do so by a computer. Not all robots necessarily incorporate AI technologies and some robots may operate based on pre-programmed instructions or simple rule-based systems without the need for sophisticated AI algorithms. But many robots can be considered embodiments of AI because they incorporate AI algorithms to interact with the physical world through sensors and actuators, process sensory information and make decisions about how to act in their environment.

The question regarding agency and IA embodiment itself is an important discussion that is notably addressed by phenomenology and cognitive phenomenology (Buongiorno, 2023 ; Corti, 2022 ; Turner, 2020 ).

Strong AI, also known as Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), refers to a type of artificial intelligence that has the ability to understand, learn, and apply its intelligence to solve any problem, similarly to how a human would. It possesses the capacity for conscious thought, understanding, judgement and self-awareness, allowing it to perform tasks requiring human-like cognitive abilities and to adapt to new situations without human intervention. Strong AI aims to replicate the multifaceted intelligence of human beings but is still a theoretical object that only exists in cultural items such as movies or video games, with famous characters such as Data ( Star Trek: The Next Generation ). Weak AI, also known as Narrow AI, is designed and trained for a specific task as or a simple computer, an articulated robot or a machine. Unlike Strong AI, it operates under a limited pre-defined range or context and does not possess consciousness or self-awareness. Weak AI is focused on executing specific applications such as voice recognition, image analysis, or executing specific functions within a software environment. Examples include virtual assistants, chatbots, and recommendation systems. While it can exhibit some level of learning and adaptation within its narrow domain, it does not have the capability to generalise its intelligence to the broad spectrum of tasks that a human or Strong AI can perform.

The U.S. Copyright Office will register an original work of authorship, provided that the work was created by a human being." (U.S. Copyright, 2021 , Compendium (Third) § 306) This regulation was renewed in March 2023 in the legal text Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence (U.S. Copyright, 2023 , Copyright Registration Guidance).

https://murmuration-lespectacle.com/en/murmuration-the-show/ .

https://www.bjork.fr/-Biophilia-special -.

https://www.aa13.fr/photographie/midway-message-from-the-gyre-chris-jordan-16430 .

Abbott R (2016) I think, therefore I invent: creative computers and the future of patent law. BCL Rev 57:1079. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2727884

Article   Google Scholar  

Andreyev J (2016) The compassion manifesto: an ethics for art+ design and animals. In: Castricano J, Simonsen RR (eds). Critical perspectives on veganism. The Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series, pp. 155–180

Applegate K, Grupper A (2013) The one and only Ivan. Recorded Books, United States of America

Google Scholar  

Aristotle (1987) De Anima (On the Soul), translated by Hugh Lawson-Tancred, Penguin Classics, London

Beardsley MC (1970) The aesthetic point of view. Metaphilosophy 1(1):39–58

Berthaut F, Marshall MT, Subramanian S, Hachet M (2013) Rouages: revealing the mechanisms of digital musical instruments to the audience. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME), May 2013, pp. 164–169

Berthaut F, Coyle D, Moore J, Limerick H (2015) Liveness through the lens of agency and causality. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME), May 2015, pp. 382–386

Betzler M ed (2008) Kant’s ethics of virtue. de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany

Bin SA (2018) The show must go wrong: towards an understanding of audience perception of error in digital musical instrument performance. Dissertation, Queen Mary University of London, England

Boden MA (2010) The Turing test and artistic creativity. Kybernetes 39(3):409–413. https://doi.org/10.1108/03684921011036132

Bonnet F, Mills R, Szopek M et al. (2019) Robots mediating interactions between animals for interspecies collective behaviours. Sci Robot 4(28):eaau7897. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aau7897

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Blattner CE, Donaldson S, Wilcox R (2020) Animal agency in community. Pol Anim 6(1):1–22

Bloom P (1996) Intention, history, and artifact concepts. Cogn 60(1):1–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(95)00699-0

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Boysen ST, Berntson GG, Prentice J (1987) Simian scribbles: a reappraisal of drawing in the chimpanzee ( Pan troglodytes ). J Comp Psychol 101(1):82. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.101.1.82

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bridy A (2012) Coding creativity: copyright and the artificially intelligent author. Stan Tech L Rev 5. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/5ru6m

Buongiorno F (2023) Can algorithms be embodied ? A phenomenological perspective on the relationship between algorithimic thinking and the life-world. Found Sci 28(4):1035–1045. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-022-09855-z

Burgat F (2015) Improving animals, improving humans: transpositions and comparisons. In: Bateman S, Allouche S, Gayon J, Marzano M, Gofette J (eds). Inquiring into animal enhancement: model or countermodel of human enhancement? Palgrave Macmillan, London, United Kingdom, pp. 34–48

The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness (2012) Proceedings of the Francis Crick Memorial Conference, Churchill College, Cambridge University, United-Kingdom

Capra O, Berthaut F, Grisoni L (2020) Have a seat on stage: Restoring trust with spectator experience augmentation techniques. In: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, July 2020, Royal Birmingham Conservatoire, pp. 695–707

Capra O (2020) The experience of spectators of digital interactions: Benefits of visual augmentations and the role of attributed agency in electronic music performances. Dissertation, Lille University, France

Cayol A, Bévière-Boyer B, Gaillard E (2024) Transanimalisme. L’animal augmenté, entre exploitations et protections. Mare&Martin, Paris

Christie’s (2018) Is artificial intelligence set to become art’s next medium. https://www.christies.com/features/A-collaboration-between-two-artists-one-human-one-a-machine-9332-1.aspx

Copeland BJ (2000) The turing test. Mind Mach 10(4):519–539. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011285919106

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Corti L (2022) Robot as embodied agent. A phenomenological critique. In: Software engineering and formal methods, SEFM 2022 Collocated Workshops: AI4EA F-IDE CoSim-CPS CIFMA, September 2022, pp. 302–312

Davies CR (2011) An evolutionary step in intellectual property rights–Artificial intelligence and intellectual property. Comp Law Secur Rev 27(6):601–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2011.09.006

Dalziell AH, Magrath RD (2012) Fooling the experts: accurate vocal mimicry in the song of the superb lyrebird, Menura novaehollandiae . Anim Behav 83(6):1401–1410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.03.009

DeGrazia D (1990) On singer: more argument, less prescriptivism. Behav Brain Sci 13(1):18–18

Descartes R (1937) Discours de la méthode. La Pléiade, Paris

De Waal F (2006) Primates and philosophers: how morality evolved. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Book   Google Scholar  

De Waal F (2016) Are we smart enough to know how smart animals are? WW Norton & Company, New-York

Diamond J (1986) Animal art: variation in bower decorating style among male bowerbirds Amblyornis inornatus . Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 83(9):3042–3046. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.83.9.3042

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Delfin D (2019) An Artist’s creative process: a model for conscious evolution. In: Lee N (ed.). The transhumanism handbook, Springer Verlag, pp. 587–602

Doherty SJ (2019) ART in the age of artificial intelligence. Esse 97:30–41

Dolgin E (2019) Elephants, Dolphins, and Chimps need the Internet, too: a new initiative promotes Internet communication among smart animals. IEEE Spectr 56(09):6–7

Donaldson S, Kymlicka W (2011) Zoopolis: a political theory of animal rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Dorigo M, Théraulaz G, Trianni V (2020) Reflections on the future of swarm robotics. Sci Robot 5(49):eabe4385. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.abe4385

Dufour V, Poulin N, Curé C, Sterck EH (2015) Chimpanzee drumming: a spontaneous performance with characteristics of human musical drumming. Sci Rep 5(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep11320

Engels F (2009) Feuerbach-the roots of the socialist philosophy. Forgotten Books, London

Fels S, Gadd A, Mulder A (2002) Mapping transparency through metaphor: towards more expressive musical instruments. Organ Sound 7(2):109–126. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355771802002042

Ferrand Lointier M (2022) Le tournant animal dans l’art contemporain (de 1960 à nos jours): approche écoféministe. Dissertation, University Bordeaux 3, France

Gabrys J, Pritchard H (2018) Just good enough data and environmental sensing: moving beyond regulatory benchmarks toward citizen action. Int J Spat Data Infr Res 13:4–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716679677

Gallup Jr GG, Anderson JR, Shillito DJ (2002) The mirror test. In: Bekoff M, Allen C, Burghardt G (eds). The cognitive animal: Empirical and theoretical perspectives on animal cognition, Bradford Books, pp. 325–333

Gardner R, Gardner BT (1978) Comparative psychology and language acquisition. In: Sebeok TA, Umiker-Sebeok J (eds). Speaking of apes: a critical anthology of two-way communication with man, Springer US, pp. 287–330

Geissmann T (2000) Gibbon songs and human music from an evolutionary perspective. In: Wallin NL, Merker B, Brown S (eds). The origins of music, The MIT Press, pp. 103–123

Griffin DR (2013) Animal minds: beyond cognition to consciousness. University of Chicago Press

Guadamuz A (2016) The monkey selfie: copyright lessons for originality in photographs and internet jurisdiction. Internet Policy Rev 5:1. https://doi.org/10.14763/2016.1.398

Grundmann M (2007) Transhumanist arts. Aesthetics of the future? Parallels to 19th century Dandyism. In: Heil R, Kaminski A, Stippak M, Unger A, Ziegler M (eds). Tensions and convergences: technological and aesthetic transformations of society, Transcript Verlag, pp. 83–92

Hart J, Scassellati B (2012) Mirror perspective-taking with a humanoid robot. Proc AAAI Conf Artif Intell 26(1):1990–1996. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v26i1.8389

Hristov K (2016) Artificial intelligence and the copyright dilemma. Idea 57:431

Huron D (2008) Sweet anticipation: music and the psychology of expectation. The MIT Press

Janik VM (2014) Cetacean vocal learning and communication. Curr Opin Neurobiol 28:60–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2014.06.010

Jasanoff S, Kim SH (2015) Dreamscapes of modernity. Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power. The University of Chicago Press

Jeannerod M (2001) Neural simulation of action: a unifying mechanism for motor cognition. Neuroimage 14(1):S103–S109. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2001.0832

Jones R (2019) An interspecies internet? Thinking and acting feminist-animal rights discourse online. for(e)dialogue 3(1):1–20

Kawase H, Okata Y, Ito K (2013) Role of huge geometric circular structures in the reproduction of a marine pufferfish. Sci Rep 3(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep02106

Krink T, Vollrath F (1997) Analysing spider web-building behaviour with rule-based simulations and genetic algorithms. J Theor Biol 185(3):321–331. https://doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.1996.0306

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Kugler K, Savage Rumbaugh S (2002) Rhythmic drumming by Kanzi an adult male bonobo ( Pan Paniscus ) at the language research centre. Am J Primatol 57:62

Le Neindre P, Dunier M, Larrère R, Prunet P (2018) La conscience des animaux, Éditions Quae

Levinson J (1979) Defining art historically. Br J Aesthet 19:232–250

Locke J, Perry J (1975) Of identity and diversity. In: Perry J (ed.). Essay concerning human understanding, Berkeley, University of California Press

Loeb J (1918) Forced movements, tropisms, and animal conduct. Philadelphia and London, J. B. Lippincott Company

Malebranche N (1997/1674) The search after truth: with elucidations of the search after truth. The Cambridge University Press

Malle BF, Knobe J (1997) The folk concept of intentionality. J Exp Soc Psychol 33:101–121

Martinet L, Pelé M (2021) Drawing in nonhuman primates: what we know and what remains to be investigated. J Comp Psychol 135(2):176, https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/com0000251

Martinet L, Sueur C, Hirata S, Hosselet J, Matsuzawa T, Pelé M (2021) New indices to characterize drawing behaviour in humans ( Homo sapiens ) and chimpanzees ( Pan troglodytes ). Sci Rep 11(1):3860. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-83043-0

Martinet L, Sueur C, Matsuzawa T, Hirata S, Morimura N, Pelé M (2023) Tool assisted task on touchscreen: a case study on drawing behaviour in chimpanzees ( Pan troglodytes ). Folia Primatol 94(2–3):111–127. https://doi.org/10.1163/14219980-bja10008

Marx K, Engels F (2022) The German ideology. Foreign Languages Press, Paris, /1845

Matsuzawa T (2017) The 40th anniversary of the Ai Project: the commemorative gift is a silk scarf painted by Ai the chimpanzee. Primates 58(2):261–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-017-0604-0

McCormack J, Gifford T, Hutchings P (2019) Autonomy, authenticity, authorship and intention in computer generated art. In: International conference on computational intelligence in music, sound, Art and design. Cham, Springer International Publishing, pp. 35–50

McFarland SE, Hediger R (2009) Animals and agency: an interdisciplinary exploration. Brill, Boston

Meyer HG, Klimeck D, Paskarbeit J, Rückert U, Egelhaaf M, Porrmann M, Schneider A (2020) Resource-efficient bio-inspired visual processing on the hexapod walking robot HECTOR. PLoS ONE 15(4):e0230620. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230620

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Mikalonytė ES, Kneer M (2022) Can artificial intelligence make art ? Folk intuitions as to whether AI-driven robots can be viewed as artists and produce art. ACM Trans Hum-Robot Interact (THRI) 11(4):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3530875

Mujica E (2000) Nazca: lignes et géoglyphes du désert. La Rev du Patrim Mond 15:42–49

Nguyen P (2019) The monkey selfie, artificial intelligence and authorship in copyright: The limits of human rights. Pub Int LJNZ 6:121

Nochlin L (2021/1971) Why have there been no great women artists? Thames&Hudson, London

OneGreenPlanet (2020) Elephant artists? Here’s why making an elephant paint is cruel, not cute. https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/why-making-an-elephant-paint-is-cruel-not-cute/

Ostrow M, Dengel C (2022) United States: art and artificial intelligence collide with copyright law. Romano Law Blog. https://www.romanolaw.com/art-and-artificial-intelligence-collide-with-copyright-law/

Oyakawa C, Koda H, Sugiura H (2007) Acoustic features contributing to the individuality of wild agile gibbon ( Hylobates agilis agilis ) songs. Am J Primatol 69(7):777–790. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20390

Rahwan I, Cebrian M, Obradovich N et al. (2019) Machine behaviour. Nature 568(7753):477–486. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1138-y

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Reeves S, Benford S, O’Malley C, Fraser M (2005) Designing the spectator experience. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, July 2005, Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 741–750

Regad C, Riot C (2019) La Déclaration de Toulon du 29 mars 2019 sur la personnalité juridique de l’animal: pourquoi? quelle potentialité juridique? Démocratie et Justice

Rimoldi G, Manzolli J (2016) Enactive framework for design of digital music interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on New Music Concepts-ICNMC, March 2016, Corpus ID: 207815887

Rizzolatti G, Fadiga L, Gallese V, Fogassi L (1996) Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Cogn Brain Res 3(2):131–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/0926-6410(95)00038-0

Naudier D, Rollet B (2007) Genre et légitimité culturelle: quelle reconnaissance pour les femmes? Genre et Légitimité Culturelle 1:172

Rosati E (2017) The Monkey Selfie case and the concept of authorship: an EU perspective. J Intellect Prop Law Pr 12(12):973–977. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpx199

Salimpoor VN, Zald DH, Zatorre RJ, Dagher A, McIntosh AR (2015) Predictions and the brain: How musical sounds become rewarding. Trends Cogn Sci 19(2):86–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.12.001

Sartori L, Bocca G (2023) Minding the gap (s): public perceptions of AI and socio-technical imaginaries. AI Soc 38(2):443–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01422-1

Sartre G, Zocco F (2019) Attack the Sun [62 min] Nuit Blanche Productions

Savage-Rumbaugh S, Wamba K, Wamba P, Wamba N (2007) Welfare of apes in captive environments: comments on, and by, a specific group of apes. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 10(1):7–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888700701277261

Schiller PH (1951) Figural preferences in the drawings of a chimpanzee. J Comp Phys Psychol 44(2):101–111. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0053604

Schloss WA (2003) Using contemporary technology in live performance: The dilemma of the performer. J New Music Res 32(3):239–242

Schneider A, Paskarbeit J, Schilling M, Schmitz J (2014) HECTOR, a bio-inspired and compliant hexapod robot. In: Biomimetic and Biohybrid Systems: Third International Conference, Living Machines Proceedings 3, Springer International Publishing, pp. 427–429

Schrecker P (1938) Malebranche et le préformisme biologique. Revue Internationale de Philosophie. pp. 77–97

Someşan AI (2022) Transhumanism in performance art. J Intercult Manag Ethics 5(4):51–57. https://doi.org/10.35478/jime.2022.4.06

Star Trek: Voyager (2001) Author, Author, Season 7, episode 20. United States

Sorgner SL, Deretic I (2015) From humanism to meta-, post- and transhumanism? Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften

Sueur C (2011) A non-Lévy random walk in chacma baboons: what does it mean? PLoS ONE 6(1):e16131. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016131

Sueur C, Forin-Wiart MA, Pelé M (2020) Are they really trying to save their buddy? The anthropomorphism of animal epimeletic behaviours. Anim 10(12):2323. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10122323

Sueur C, Pelé M (2017) Editorial: Anthropomorphism, between merits and demerits. Lett du CEERE 107:1

Sueur C, Zanaz S, Pelé M (2023) Incorporating animal agency into research design could improve behavioural and neuroscience research. J Comp Psychol 137(2):129–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000335

Sueur C, Huffman MA. Co-cultures: exploring interspecies culture among humans and other animals. Preprint on https://hal.science/hal-04368545/document

Tanaka M, Tomonaga M, Matsuzawa T (2003) Finger drawing by infant chimpanzees ( Pan troglodytes ). Anim Cogn 6:245–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-003-0198-3

Terleph TA, Malaivijitnond S, Reichard UH (2015) Lar gibbon ( Hylobates lar ) great call reveals individual caller identity. Am J Primatol 77(7):811–821. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22406

Tissue S, Wilensky U (2004) Netlogo: a simple environment for modeling complexity. Int Conf Complex Syst 2:16–21

Tomasello M, Call J (2004) The role of humans in the cognitive development of apes revisited. Anim Cogn 7:213–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-004-0227-x

Tomasello M, Call J (1997) Primate cognition. The Oxford University Press, USA

Turner C (2020) The cognitive phenomenology argument for disembodied AI consciousness. In: Gouveia S (ed.). The age of artificial intelligence: an exploration. Vernon Press. pp. 111–132

U.S. Copyright Office (2021) Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices § 101, 3rd edn. U.S. Copyright Office

U.S. Copyright Office (2023) Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence, Library of Congress. U.S. Copyright Office

Vernier G, Caselles-Dupré H, Fautrel P (2020) Electric dreams of Ukiyo: a series of Japanese artworks created by an artificial intelligence. Patterns 1(2):1–2

Vernier G, Caselles-Dupré H, Fautrel P (2020) Facets of AGI: where science meets spirituality. Patterns 1(8). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2020.100026

Vita‐More N (2013) Aesthetics: bringing the arts & design into the discussion of transhumanism. In: More M, Vita-More N (eds). The transhumanist reader: classical and contemporary essays on the science, technology, and philosophy of the human future, John Wiley and Sons. pp. 18–27

Wang GY, Cheng DD, Xia DY, Jiang HH (2023) Swarm intelligence research: From bio-inspired single-population swarm intelligence to human-machine hybrid swarm intelligence. Mach Intell Res 20(1):121–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11633-022-1367-7

Watanabe S (2012) Animal aesthetics from the perspective of comparative cognition. In: Watanabe S, Kuczaj S (eds). Emotions of animals and humans: comparative perspectives. Springer, Tokyo, Japan. pp. 129–162

Wise SM (2010) Legal personhood and the nonhuman rights project. Anim L 17:1

Zatorre RJ, Chen JL, Penhune VB (2007) When the brain plays music: auditory–motor interactions in music perception and production. Nat Rev Neurosci 8(7):547–558. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2152

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported by the Région Hauts-de-France (Protocole FUPL-HDF). The authors also thank DeepL software and ChatGPT AI for helping with English language corrections.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Université de Strasbourg, IPHC UMR 7178, CNRS, Strasbourg, France

Cédric Sueur & Benjamin Beltzung

Institut Universitaire de France, Paris, France

Cédric Sueur

ANTHROPO-LAB—ETHICS EA 7446, Université Catholique de Lille, 59000, Lille, France

Cédric Sueur, Olivier Capra & Marie Pelé

ETH+—ETHICS EA 7446, Université Catholique de Lille, 59000, Lille, France

Jessica Lombard

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed equally to this work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie Pelé .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with animals or human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Sueur, C., Lombard, J., Capra, O. et al. Exploration of the creative processes in animals, robots, and AI: who holds the authorship?. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 611 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03125-y

Download citation

Received : 22 November 2023

Accepted : 24 April 2024

Published : 11 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03125-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Frontiers in Digital Health
• Health Informatics
• Research Topics

Vector-Borne Diseases - The Digital One Health Approach

Total Downloads

Total Views and Downloads

About this Research Topic

This Research Topic has been organized in collaboration with UCL's dPHE 6th Annual Workshop: Vector-borne diseases Digital One Health approach. Vector-borne diseases such as arboviral diseases (e.g., Zika, chikungunya, and dengue) and malaria are an urgent public health priority. They are typically endemic in the Global South and are known to inflict significant morbidity and mortality in infants and adults (in Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Southeast Asia). Due to global warming, the emergence of these diseases has become ever more apparent in the Global North too, where, for instance, we see vectors adapting to temperate climates in the southern parts of both the United States and Europe, as well as other outermost ‘autonomous’ European regions such as the island of Madeira. To ensure an effective public health response, surveillance of these vectors is critical but this remains a problematic issue. The effort to ‘search’ and ‘destroy’ vector populations and their habitats rely mostly on manual intervention which is informed by data compiled through a paper-based recording approach. The timely recording of such collated data into a digital format or electronic registry is a significant challenge, and more so in low-resource Global South settings. This issue in combination with poorly funded operation by government environmental agencies is a hinderance for developing a satisfactory surveillance system to provide an efficient public health response. Vectors in general, particularly mosquitoes, are highly climate-sensitive and as global warming is contributing to the changing habitats, they are likely to adapt and become endemic in more regions of the Global North in the future. This global issue requires a solution that leverages technology. The digital One Health approach is a concept that focuses on digital solutions that enable the use of early warning models through the adoption of smartphone and Internet-of-Things (IoTs) technologies for a rapid and timely public health response. This Research Topic welcomes submissions of papers focused on digital solutions for vector-borne diseases and surveillance, bringing together clinicians, parasitologists, entomologists, infectious diseases specialists, epidemiologists, climatologists, policy experts, biostatisticians, computer scientists, health economists, and medical anthropologists. By prioritizing this interdisciplinary and collaborative One Health approach, this collection will contribute to the acceleration of the development of climate-resilient, sustainable, and equitable health systems. This collection is open to all article types accepted by the participating journals: - Frontiers in Digital Health - Frontiers in Public Health - Frontiers in Tropical Diseases - Frontiers in Global Women's Health Article processing charges vary by journal and by article type. For queries, please reach out to the editorial office.

Keywords : digital health, one health, vector-borne diseases, global health, arboviruses, arboviral diseases, zika, chikungunya, dengue, vector surveillance, internet of things, IoT, mobile

Important Note : All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.

Topic Editors

Topic coordinators, submission deadlines, participating journals.

Manuscripts can be submitted to this Research Topic via the following journals:

total views

• Demographics

No records found

total views article views downloads topic views

Top countries

Top referring sites, about frontiers research topics.

With their unique mixes of varied contributions from Original Research to Review Articles, Research Topics unify the most influential researchers, the latest key findings and historical advances in a hot research area! Find out more on how to host your own Frontiers Research Topic or contribute to one as an author.

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government, request access.

Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs.

If you are human user receiving this message, we can add your IP address to a set of IPs that can access FederalRegister.gov & eCFR.gov; complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". This process will be necessary for each IP address you wish to access the site from, requests are valid for approximately one quarter (three months) after which the process may need to be repeated.

An official website of the United States government.

If you want to request a wider IP range, first request access for your current IP, and then use the "Site Feedback" button found in the lower left-hand side to make the request.