There are a number of areas the law team can explore. We start with that of liability. Suppose that as a result of the machine performing the graph, a third party suffers a loss. For personal injury the courts generally look to who owned or operated the machine. Could they have prevented the loss, and was the loss foreseeable? In many cases, these questions are answered through a finding of facts, and in general this make sense because the machines do not think. Or do they?

We start with the premise that the initial graph is owned by the provider, and that the machine, through interaction with its environment, changes the graph to create a derivative. Lets say, for example, that the machine has learned to read. Each time it reads a book, it changes its internal graph of things that it knows. This can include changing the things that it knows how to do. A thousand derivatives later the graph no longer looks like the original. If liability is proportional to the author contribution made to the graph, then who has responsibility for a graph created by potentially hundreds of authors? Who has responsibility for the collective work, at that given moment in time?

The European Union's recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics notes that until such time, if ever, that robots become or are made self-aware, Asimov's Laws must be regarded as being directed at the designers, producers, and operators of robots. The draft goes on to note that "robots' autonomy raises the question of their nature in the light of the existing legal categories - of whether they should be regarded as natural persons."

The issue is the grant of legal rights to non-human things based on some level of intelligence and autonomy. The grant of the same legal rights to non-human things has occurred in other countries. In India, the courts have rules that the Ganges and its main tributary, the Yamuna, be accorded the status of living human entities. In New Zealand. the government similarly declared the Whanganui river a living entity with full legal rights.

Here in the United States, legal rights are granted to humans, corporations, counties, and cities, but not to other things such as animals or robots. Attorney Wise has been advocating non-human rights for Great Apes. His case is currently under appeal in the NY Supreme Court. His view is in line with that of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies which notes that "A number of non-human animals including the great apes, cetacceans, elephants, and parrots, exhibit characteristics and tendencies consistent with that of a person's trait like self awareness, intentionality, creativity, symbolic communication, and many others."

The similarities here relate to rights considered for non-human things. In the EU draft, the thing is a robot, and in the NY Supreme Court case, the thing is a great ape. Though the EU is primarily concerned with liabilities, they do note in their draft that "Criteria for 'intellectual creation' for copyrightable works produced by computers or robots should be drawn up." Thus, the European Union is already contemplating conferring rights to non-humans things. This contrast sharply with the United States wherein the grant of authorship is exclusive to humans. As Attorney Fred Wilf from Wilftek.com pointed out, the monkey selfie case currently under appeal in the Ninth Circuit, might change that.

The case revolves around a monkey who took a wildlife photographer's camera and snapped a bunch of selfies. After reclaiming the camera, and finding the selfies, the photographer posted the pictures on his web site. Shortly thereafter, another site copied the pictures. The photographer claimed copyright, but the courts have thus far disagreed noting that without authorship, there cannot be copyright protection. As the copyright office noted, the photographer, by his own admission, had no part in the taking of the pictures. The copyright office even went so far as to post online that the right of authorship can only be conveyed to humans.

As you can see, there are a number of important issues here to be explored. The Law Team can investigate these, and other issues, and consult with legal professionals. The team may also stage a mock trial and seek to have a retired judge preside.