## 3 Methods  
The main method used in this paper is a legal, comparative analysis. Since, as mentioned, very few cases have been examined in court to this point, we will base our analysis more on doctrine than on jurisprudence or on an examination of specific legal provisions. Copyright acts do not deal, to our understanding, concretely with these issues, and most of these acts do not mention the automated production of intellectual works at all. In other words, if new legal problems appear because of the use of new tools and techniques, to this point no legal reform has been practiced to include some new provisions to cover specifically those situations, and so intellectual property principles as we know them are to be applied. Even though some legal reforms have mentioned artificial intelligence beyond the automated analysis of data, which is important, they seem not to cover the automated production of works, or at least they can only be applied to some steps of it. This is the case of the _Directive of the European Union 2019/790, on copyright and related right in the digital single market_, for instance Article 3.2., on text and data mining. As some relevant scholars have underlined, \"the fact that artificial intelligence and robotics are much more than science fiction becomes apparent\" on the working documents of the European Commission, but at the same times it appears that it is considered just \"the next step in the development of a sustainable information society\" [8] (p. 3). Alternatively, automated systems are a concern whenever they are used by platforms like Facebook or Youtube for users' identification and filtering [22] (p. 267), which has a reflection on the literal interpretation of Article 17 of the aforementioned European directive, to oblige Internet services to detect unauthorized (and usually derivative) works uploaded by users without copyright permission.  
We will focus on two main legal categories related to copyright and intellectual property law. First, the question of authorship and, closely related to it, originality as a sine qua non requirement for the law to consider a work copyrightable. Second, the type of work. We have advanced some of them: the individual work, a single piece created usually by a single (human) author. A collaborative work, alternatively, is when two or more authors can create a combined piece. In this case, we can consider many cases in which AIS aids a human journalist to complete his or her work. A derivative work, in which a new one is created based on one or more previously existing works, is an increasingly widespread type of work. The derivative work can be created, in turn, by both humans or machines based on both human or machine-made pre-existing works. Finally, and this is probably the central part of our analysis, the collective work, is composed by many works gathered and structured under the coordination of another (natural or corporate) person. This is the case of newspaper, magazines, broadcasting services and webpages.  
Since automated news are created (or transformed) with the help of both data, structured normally as a database, and software, some other categories of intellectual property rights are to be considered as well: the so-called, at least in some jurisdictions, sui generis rights, normally applicable to databases as a structure, equally created under the requirements and necessities of a corporate entity in order to produce intellectual works, and not necessarily to data themselves; and related, ancillary rights. This whole panorama means a complex superposition of layers of rights, some of which are accumulative and not mutually exclusive, to be considered in the many cases we will examine in the following sections. Even though if very few cases have been decided in court, it is expected that media organizations and practitioners of news reporting--journalists, photographers, infographics designers or even cartoonists, to mention some of them--will be facing some of these scenarios soon.