Issue: № 4, 2025
Doi: https://doi.org/10.37634/efp.2025.4.5
This paper examines the legal aspects of using artificial intelligence (AI) in commercial activities, with a focus on copyright protection, and current judicial practice. The research analyzes the features of the legal status of AI-generated objects and reviews the legislation of Ukraine and other countries in this field. The study pays particular attention to three approaches to determining authorship of works created by artificial intelligence and the application of sui generis rights to non-original objects. The paper highlights that most countries' legislation, including Ukraine's, recognizes only natural persons as authors, excluding AI as a subject of copyright. While objects created with AI as an auxiliary tool may have authorship attributed to the user, objects generated by AI without human participation can be protected under special sui generis rights, which regulate property rights but do not grant moral rights. Through analysis of case law from the United States, Japan, China, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Canada, the paper demonstrates the global trend toward maintaining the requirement of "human authorship" as a key principle in intellectual property legislation. Courts consistently rule that only natural persons can be authors or inventors, and works or inventions created exclusively by artificial intelligence do not qualify for copyright or patent protection. The authors conclude that developing comprehensive legislation in the field of artificial intelligence is crucial for Ukraine to ensure effective protection of individual and legal entities' rights. Particular attention should be paid to issues of copyright protection and regulation of property relations arising from AI-generated content. It is also important to integrate international experience and develop national approaches to regulation, considering national specificities, to create a legal system that harmonizes the balance between technological development, ethical standards, and citizens' rights.
Keywords : artificial intelligence, copyright, intellectual property, sui generis law, non-original objects, ethics of AI use, fair use, court practice, generative artificial intelligence, human authorship
References:
1. Generative artificial intelligence and the intellectual property system. IP Australia. URL: https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/temp/generative-ai-and-the-ip-system.html
2. ChatGPT creates Studio Ghibli-style images. CNN. URL: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/27/style/chatgpt-studio-ghibli-ai-images-intl-hnk/index.html.(in Ukrainian).
3. The Law of Ukraine “On Copyright and Related Rights” No. 2811-IX of 2020: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2811-20#Text (in Ukrainian).
4. Artificial Intelligence and Copyright. Tsarik's Legal Blog. URL: https://www.tsarik.com.ua/blog/shtuchniy-intelekt-ta-avtorske-pravo/ (in Ukrainian).
5. EU Court of Justice on patent law. EUR-Lex. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:62008CJ0005
6. Analysis of images created by AI. National Institute of Intellectual Property of Ukraine. URL: https://nipo.gov.ua/ap-zobrazhennia-shi/ (in Ukrainian).
7. AI in the media: training. National Institute of Intellectual Property of Ukraine. URL: https://nipo.gov.ua/shtuchnyj-intelekt-media-treninh/ (in Ukrainian).
8. Copyright on objects created by AI. Yurydychna Liha. URL: https://jurliga.ligazakon.net/analitycs/225383_avtorsk-prava-na-obkt-stvoreniy-shtuchnim-ntelektom (in Ukrainian).
9. The Supreme Court of the United States. Justia. URL: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/111/53/
10. OpenAI copyright policy. OpenAI. URL: https://openai.com/policies/
11. Copyright and AI: what is important for a lawyer to consider. Yurydychna Liha. URL: https://jurliga.ligazakon.net/news/224256_shtuchniy-ntelekt-ta-avtorske-pravo-shcho-vrakhuvati-yuristu (in Ukrainian).
12. Guidelines for registering copyrights in the United States. Federal Register of the United States. URL: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05321/copyright-registration-guidance-works-containing-material-generated-by-artificial-intelligence
13. U.S. Copyright Office. Annual Report of the Registrar of Copyrights for 1965. URL: https://www.copyright.gov/reports/annual/archive/ar-1965.pdf
14. NYT v. OpenAI: an analysis of the case. Harvard Law Review. URL: https://harvardlawreview.org/blog/2024/04/nyt-v-openai-the-timess-about-face/
15. Review of the Google Books decision after eight years. Authors Alliance. URL: https://www.authorsalliance.org/2023/02/24/fair-use-week-2023-looking-back-at-google-books-eight-years-later/
16. Free use vs. fair use in copyright. Ukrainian Copyright Association. URL: https://www.hsa.org.ua/blog/free-use-vs-fair-use-v-avtorskomu-pravi-v-chomu-pryntsypova-riznytsya (in Ukrainian).
17. Court decisions on copyright and AI. Ukrainian Pravda. URL: https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2021/01/23/7280975/ (in Ukrainian).
18. AI cannot be the author of an artistic work. US case law. URL: https://sud.ua/uk/news/abroad/326117-proizvedenie-iskusstva-sozdannoe-ii-bez-uchastiya-cheloveka-ne-mozhet-byt-zaschischeno-avtorskim-pravom-apellyatsionnyy-sud-ssha (in Ukrainian).
19. AI cannot be an inventor in patent cases. Supreme Court of Japan. URL: https://sud.ua/uk/news/abroad/322473-ii-ne-mozhet-byt-priznan-izobretatelem-v-patentnykh-delakh-verkhovnyy-sud-yaponii (in Ukrainian).
20. Chinese Court Recognizes Copyright to Images Created by AI. Chinese Judicial Practice. URL: https://sud.ua/uk/news/abroad/326021-kitayskiy-sud-postanovil-chto-izobrazheniya-sozdannye-ii-podlezhat-zaschite-avtorskim-pravom (in Ukrainian).
21. AI cannot be an inventor: the decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. UK Case Law. URL: https://sud.ua/uk/news/abroad/288667-verkhovnyy-sud-velikobritanii-zaklyuchil-chto-iskusstvennyy-intellekt-ne-mozhet-byt-izobretatelem-i-imet-patentnye-prava (in Ukrainian).
22. AI and patent protection: analysis. Smart & Biggar. URL: https://www.smartbiggar.ca/insights/publication/ghost-in-the-machine--ai-and-patent-protection (in Ukrainian).
23. Hlotov S. Copyright v. artificial intelligence: machine learning is not a copyright use of a work. Non-governmentalorganization“civil law platform”. 2025. Vol. 4, no. 1. P. 72–89. URL: https://doi.org/10.69724/2786-8834-2025-4-1-72-89 (in Ukrainian).