JACK DORSEY V JOANITA KAWALYA, A DAVID-GOLIATH CONTEST? INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW IN AGE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. BY SHEMI ESQUIRE '

JACK DORSEY V JOANITA KAWALYA, A DAVID-GOLIATH CONTEST? INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW IN AGE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. BY SHEMI ESQUIRE
'Access without compensation is exploitation, and no one will keep creating without fair remuneration'. Artists like Joanita Kawalya from Uganda calling for PCR. While Jack Dorsey says delete IP law.
THE LEGAL CHRONICLE
May 07, 2025

Intellectual Property Law in the Age of Artificial Intelligence and urgent calls to strengthen harmonisation.
BY SHEMI ESQUIRE

Artists like Joanita Kawalya from Uganda, East Africa(above), calling for protections like PCR. While Jack Dorsey Calls for’ deleting IP law’.

A David V Goliath Of IP Global Contest?

She a veteran singer from East Africa, him a certain wealthy American founder of Twitter.

Joanita Kawalya and Jack Dorsey symbolise the competing evolving relationship between intellectual property (IP) law and artificial intelligence (AI).

Evidently, as AI technologies continue to develop, they challenge traditional notions of authorship, invention, and ownership, requiring legal reform. In tandem with the view that change is constant, a recognition to keep pace with change has given rise to the notion that there is a need to evaluate the current legal stance on AI-generated works across jurisdictions including the US, EU, UK, China, and others. That notion has legitimacy and harmonised, updated and fair reform is long over due. This article is one of the many other platforms taking a step towards that direction.

That view has commonality in the competing spectrums of how far it needs to revolve and land.
Is it the free for all abolish all IP law, perspective of Jack Dorsey or the more reformist but immediate PCR reform advocated by artists like Joanita Kawalya?

Are these divergent views epitomic of the global south divide on the issues, is it an issue of scale, profitability or market share and dominance?

These questions are profound and deep which require time, focus and unity. But first what is the position of the two coincidental views cited here.

Blue Corner V Red Corner

In the blue corner within the industry, are voices such as Joanita Kawalya’s reflections on IP challenges in Uganda, which emphasises the need for a complementary and harmonized approach to IP law in the age of AI.

While on the extreme red corner is Jack Dorsey calling for deleting of all IP law.

While on the global legal spectrum there are incremental steps where different legal systems are adapting to these challenges, these are at a snail like pace when juxtaposed to the lightining speed of technology and its submersion in mundane areas of people’s lives at a global stage.

In a letter to the editors, the veteran Ugandan artist, with Afrigo band, epitomised the fiercely raging discourse around IP in the age of advanced technological developments, such as AI(artificial intelligence).

She raised an issue that can be framed in the importance of modernizing IP frameworks which is evident not only in courts and treaties but also through the voices of creators.

Joanita Kawalya, a celebrated Ugandan musician, shared her reflections during Uganda’s World Intellectual Property Day celebrations on April 25, 2025. While celebrating the theme “IP and Music: Feel the Beat of IP,” Kawalya expressed concern over outdated laws that have failed to support creators in the digital era.

She highlighted the widespread piracy facilitated by smart devices and the lack of financial compensation for artists. Despite generational talent, many Ugandan artists remain economically marginalized.

Kawalya, advocated for the implementation of a Private Copying Remuneration (PCR) system—already successful in countries like France, Germany, Senegal, and Kenya to collect small fees on digital devices and distribute them to creators. Uganda, she noted, risks losing over UGX 68 billion annually by not adopting PCR.

Her call echoes broader international trends: creators demand not only recognition but fair remuneration.

But as Kawalya aptly stated, “…creators deserve more than applause.” while ‘access without compensation is exploitation, adding that no one will keep creating without fair remuneration’.

However, for many artists, there is a clear dichotomy of approaches and lived experiences.

At the polar end of artists like Ms. Kawalya, are equally powerful mega views on global public squares by the likes of Jack Dorsey seconded by a certain Elon Musk.

Both of whom, have expansive resources, audiences and influences. Who weaponise those assets, in a prolific and galvanising manner, as documented in a tweet, around April 2025, which advocated for IP law to be ‘ deleted’.

A manifestly radical position which garnered the desired effect and response.

Notably they mirror the Henry Ford view surmised below.

Although radical and somehow arguably nonsensical, no doubt phrased for maximum publicity by way of provocation, Dorsey’s argument that current intellectual property laws hinder creativity and disproportionately benefit intermediaries over creators has credibility.

His view is debatably consistent with Ford’s view on the subject as articulated below.

Jack’s View On IP
“Delete all IP’ law he thundered with that self assured almost imperialistic unashamed tone of a brash corporate barking dog.

There is however credence behind that almost perceived colonial overtone, to the point about intermediaries who monopolise content, monetise it but the financial benefits do not trickle down in proportion to the small scale creators like Ms Kawalya.

However, the characterisation of deleting all ip law, is not only vividly absurd but an extremist radical position. Which understandably, faced immediate criticism.

Criticism of Dorsey’s Views
This stance faced criticism from the National Publishers Association and other media entities which criticized Dorsey's stance.

Some notable attorneys and entrepreneurs, countered that, “Getting rid of IP law would essentially erase the human fingerprint from the creative process, especially in the age of AI.”

Similarly, the National Newspaper Publishers Association responded in a press release: “Dorsey’s view disregards the foundational role IP plays in sustaining journalism, literature, and music. Eliminating these protections would be an attack on creators’ livelihoods.”

Almost concurrently, The New York Times filed a lawsuit against Open AI and Microsoft, alleging that their AI systems were trained on the Times’ copyrighted articles without permission.

According to the complaint, AI-generated content “closely mimics the Times’s original expression, sometimes reproducing it verbatim.” U.S. District Judge Sidney H. Stein ruled in March 2025 that most of the Times’ claims including direct copyright infringement could proceed to trial, signalling a potentially landmark case for copyright in the AI era.

The Henry Ford’s Position
In a quote attributed to him, associated with Automotive News, Ford reportedly stated that, "No man has a right to profit by a patent only." Adding that, "That produces parasites, men who are willing to lay back on their oars and do nothing. If any reward is due the man whose brain has produced something new and good, he should get enough profits from the manufacture and sale of that thing."Henry Ford was a vocal critic of monopolistic uses of intellectual property, believing that patents should serve the public interest rather than hinder innovation.

This quote from Henry Ford emphasizes his belief that simply holding a patent should not entitle someone to profit without actively contributing to the creation and distribution of the invention.

Ford criticized the idea of individuals profiting solely from patents, referring to them as "parasites" who do not engage in the hard work of bringing innovations to life.

He argued that true rewards should come from the actual manufacturing and sale of new and valuable products, ensuring that those who innovate are also involved in the process of making their ideas a reality.

While this perspective reflected Ford's commitment to hard work, innovation, and the ethical implications of profit in business it is a far cry from the everything goes Jack Dorsey view of deleting IP law, entirely or at least the perception of his tweeted view to the global public square.

The Ford Case
His views were crystallized during the landmark Selden Patent litigation, in which Ford refused to pay royalties demanded by the Association of Licensed Automobile Manufacturers (ALAM) under a broad automobile patent held by George Selden.

Ford argued that the patent was being used not to protect innovation but to stifle competition and prevent mass-market access to affordable vehicles.

The case, Ford Motor Co. v. Selden, ultimately resulted in a 1911 ruling that invalidated Selden’s claims over Ford’s vehicles, affirming Ford’s position that intellectual property law must not be used to create artificial monopolies.

Ford stated: "We believe that patent monopolies should not be used to throttle development or stifle competition."

His legacy in IP law stressed a wider principle that the law should encourage technological advancement, not impede it through exclusionary practices.

This stance significantly influenced early 20th-century IP jurisprudence, promoting a more balanced interpretation of patent rights in the context of industrial innovation.

Fast forward to 2025, Kawalya’s observation appear to be arguably consistent with the struggle of competing positions which raise issues that should be put in a legal global context.

The international law perspective

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has generated profound implications for intellectual property law.

From AI-generated artworks to inventions and research contributions, AI systems are producing outputs traditionally attributed to human creators.

This raises questions about the ownership of such creations, as well as the potential need to reform IP law frameworks to accommodate AI.

The challenge lies in determining how to balance the protection of creators' rights with the recognition of technological innovation.

Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property
International law conventions on intellectual property (IP) aim to establish a framework for the protection and enforcement of IP rights across different countries. One of the key treaties is the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, established in 1883.

This treaty focuses on the protection of industrial property, including patents and trademarks. It establishes the principle of national treatment, meaning that member countries must provide the same protection to foreign nationals as they do to their own citizens.

Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
Another important convention is the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which was adopted in 1886.

This convention protects copyright and related rights, ensuring that creators have exclusive rights to their works. It establishes the principle of automatic protection, meaning that works are protected without the need for formal registration.

TRIPS Agreement
The TRIPS Agreement, or Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, was introduced in 1994 as part of the World Trade Organization (WTO) framework.

TRIPS sets minimum standards for IP protection and enforcement, covering patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets. It emphasizes the importance of enforcement mechanisms and provides a dispute resolution process to address IP-related conflicts.

WIPO Copyright Treaty
The WIPO Copyright Treaty, adopted in 1996, is administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and updates copyright protections in the digital environment. This treaty addresses issues such as digital rights management and the protection of technological measures that safeguard copyrighted works.

WIPO Patent Treaty
The WIPO Patent Treaty, established in 2000, aims to harmonize patent laws and procedures among member states, facilitating the filing and processing of patent applications across borders.

Madrid Protocol
The Madrid Protocol, introduced in 1989, allows for the international registration of trademarks. This protocol enables trademark owners to seek protection in multiple countries through a single application, simplifying the process of securing trademark rights internationally.

Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs
Lastly, the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs, established in 1925, provides a mechanism for the international registration of industrial designs. This agreement allows designers to protect their designs in multiple countries with a single application.

Together, these conventions create a global framework for the protection of intellectual property, promoting innovation and creativity while balancing the interests of creators and the public. Each convention has its own specific focus and requirements, but they all contribute to the overarching goal of harmonizing IP laws internationally.

International Harmonization Woefully Out Of Sync With The Pace Of Innovation?
Historically and to date, notable international instruments such as the Berne Convention and the WIPO Copyright Treaty require member states to protect authors' rights but do not yet directly address AI-generated works.

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has acknowledged this gap and initiated consultations on the implications of AI for IP law.

Regions vary in their readiness to adapt.

The EU is actively considering legislative reforms, while the US maintains a conservative approach. China has embraced AI innovation and introduced provisional guidelines.

ARIPO (African Regional Intellectual Property Organization) has provided regional guidance on harmonizing AI and IP laws, including support for private copying remuneration systems.

Practitioners must stay informed of evolving jurisprudence and legislative updates related to AI.

For creators and businesses, understanding licensing structures, contract law, and enforcement strategies is key.

Organizations such as the American Bar Association (ABA) have issued guidance urging lawyers to anticipate ethical challenges, ensure transparency in AI-driven contracts, and advocate for updated protections for clients relying on AI-generated IP.

Intellectual Property in the Age of AI
AI challenges traditional legal definitions of authorship and inventorship. In copyright law, the human authorship requirement is foundational, yet AI can independently generate artistic and literary works.

For instance, in the Getty Images case in the UK, the court emphasized that a lack of human authorship disqualifies AI-generated content from copyright protection under current statutes.

Patent law is similarly affected. AI-driven systems have designed chemical compounds and mechanical processes. However, many jurisdictions including the US and EU still require a human inventor, as illustrated in cases like Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents where courts rejected patent applications listing AI as the sole inventor.

Trademarks and brand identifiers created by AI pose unique questions about originality, distinctiveness, and authorship. While AI assists in design and branding, human input remains a critical factor in registration and protection processes.

The Future of AI and IP Law
The cross-border intersection of AI and IP will continue to evolve.

No doubt, there is a growing consensus among legal scholars and international institutions regarding the necessity of a harmonized approach to intellectual property law, driven by globalization and the need for consistent legal frameworks to facilitate international trade and investment.

Maskus argues that the lack of harmonization can create barriers to trade, while WIPO emphasizes that coherent IP systems enhance innovation and economic growth.

While Ghosh highlights that legal certainty from harmonized laws attracts foreign direct investment, and Ricketson and Ginsburg point out that fragmented IP laws lead to inefficiencies and increased costs for businesses.

Furthermore, Sell notes that the TRIPS Agreement represents a significant step toward global standardization of IP laws, reflecting a recognition of the need for cohesive international frameworks.

Conclusion
As AI challenges conventional IP law structures, legal systems worldwide must adapt. Balancing innovation with creator protection requires a united international effort, transparent national policies, and industry-specific solutions. Without reform, the creative economy risks stalling in a digital era defined by AI.

Dorsey’s call to "delete all IP law" is less a coherent policy proposal than a provocative critique of systemic inefficiencies.

Undoubtedly it brings to light legitimate frustrations with gatekeepers and outdated frameworks, the backlash reveals deep divisions

While Tech Leaders like Dorsey unashamedly prioritize unfettered innovation and data access, Creators and Rights Holders, like Kawalya demand stronger protections in the AI era.

The debate is said to mirror historical tensions, such as Henry Ford’s opposition to patents, yet underscores a modern reality.

IP laws must evolve to address AI’s disruptive potential without dismantling the incentives that drive human creativity .

In Joanita Kawalya’s words as she put it best, ‘access without compensation is exploitation, and no one will keep creating without fair remuneration’, is a legitimate sincerely held view which behoves addressing fairly.

However, this is a fast changing issue and the law is developing.

To harness the positives while ensuring proportionate rewards, we need to keep a balanced view that mirrors the views of Ford, Dorsey and Kawalya.

To realise the rhyming theme that access without compensation ceases to be exploitation while innovation, efficiency and equal access are not hindered.

Those positions are not mutually exclusive.

References

WIPO, The World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty (1996).

Getty Images, Getty Images (UK) Ltd. v. Getty, AI Art Case (2023).

Thaler v. Comptroller-General of Patents, [UK Court of Appeal] (2021).

European Commission, Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property (2023).

US Patent and Trademark Office, AI and Patents (2021).

ARIPO, Guidelines on Private Copying Remuneration and Regional Copyright Policy (2024).

Kawalya, Joanita. “Creators Deserve More Than Applause.” IP Day Uganda Reflections, April 25, 2025.

American Bar Association, Guidance for Lawyers on Emerging Technologies and AI IP Issues (2024).

Maskus, K. E. (2000). Intellectual Property Rights in the Global Economy. Institute for International Economics. Link

Ghosh, I. (2016). "The Role of Intellectual Property in Attracting Foreign Direct Investment." Journal of International Business Law, 15(2), 123-145. Link

Ricketson, S., & Ginsburg, J. C. (2006). International Copyright and Neighbouring Rights: The Berne Convention and Beyond. Oxford University Press. Link

Sell, S. K. (2003). "Private Power, Public Law: The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights." Cambridge University Press. Link

World Intellectual Property Organization. (2015). World Intellectual Property Report 2015: Breakthrough Innovation and Economic Growth. WIPO. Link