In the concluding chapter, the intersections of privacy, personality, and intangible property are explored. It is argued that there should be expanded moral and legal protections over personal information and personality traits in the context of emerging AI technologies. Drawing parallels with intellectual property rights, it is argued that individuals should retain control over their personal data and the “look and feel” of their personalities, even after sharing or exposure. Privacy as a control-based right foundational to autonomy and well-being is defended, linking its erosion to aggression, stress, and social harm. Legal frameworks such as privacy torts and rights of publicity are analyzed for their relevance in protecting against AI-driven copying and misrepresentation. Highlighting principles of substantial and confusing similarity from copyright and trademark law, the chapter critiques AI’s potential to undermine individual sovereignty, misappropriate creative effort, and stifle innovation. It concludes that robust protections for privacy and personality are essential for maintaining dignity, integrity, and equitable innovation in the AI age.

The current test for copyright infringement requires a court or jury to assess whether the parties’ works are “substantially similar” from the vantage point of the “ordinary observer.” Embedded within this test are several assumptions about audiences and art that neuroaesthetics—the study of the neural processes underlying aesthetic behavior—calls into question. To illustrate the disconnect between the law’s understanding of aesthetic appreciation and the reality of our reactions to works of art, the chapter explores a recent high-profile copyright matter involving the rock anthem “Stairway to Heaven.” Under current law, no effort is made to select jurors with the same listening or viewing tastes as the target audience for the original work—in this case, fans of classic rock. Nor can expert witnesses aid the jury’s understanding of that target audience. Instead, the assumption seems to be that we all appreciate works in the same indescribable way and one person’s reaction is as good as another. In truth, the basic biology of aesthetic reaction changes markedly depending on familiarity, experience, and even gender, contradicting copyright law’s one size-fits-all-approach.