Instituto de Estudios Políticos y Derecho Público "Dr. Humberto J. La Roche"
de la Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas de la Universidad del Zulia
Maracaibo, Venezuela
Esta publicación cientíca en formato digital es continuidad de la revista impresa
ISSN-Versión Impresa 0798-1406 / ISSN-Versión on line 2542-3185Depósito legal pp
197402ZU34
ppi 201502ZU4645
Vol.39 N° 68
Enero
Junio
2021
Recibido el 07/09/2020 Aceptado el 08/02/2021
ISSN 0798- 1406 ~ De pó si to le gal pp 198502ZU132
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas
La re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas, es una pu bli ca ción aus pi cia da por el Ins ti tu to
de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co “Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che” (IEPDP) de la Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas de la Uni ver si dad del Zu lia.
En tre sus ob je ti vos fi gu ran: con tri buir con el pro gre so cien tí fi co de las Cien cias
Hu ma nas y So cia les, a tra vés de la di vul ga ción de los re sul ta dos lo gra dos por sus in ves-
ti ga do res; es ti mu lar la in ves ti ga ción en es tas áreas del sa ber; y pro pi ciar la pre sen ta-
ción, dis cu sión y con fron ta ción de las ideas y avan ces cien tí fi cos con com pro mi so so cial.
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas apa re ce dos ve ces al año y pu bli ca tra ba jos ori gi na les con
avan ces o re sul ta dos de in ves ti ga ción en las áreas de Cien cia Po lí ti ca y De re cho Pú bli-
co, los cua les son so me ti dos a la con si de ra ción de ár bi tros ca li fi ca dos.
ESTA PU BLI CA CIÓN APA RE CE RE SE ÑA DA, EN TRE OTROS ÍN DI CES, EN
:
Re vicyhLUZ, In ter na tio nal Po li ti cal Scien ce Abs tracts, Re vis ta In ter ame ri ca na de
Bi blio gra fía, en el Cen tro La ti no ame ri ca no para el De sa rrol lo (CLAD), en Bi blio-
gra fía So cio Eco nó mi ca de Ve ne zue la de RE DIN SE, In ter na tio nal Bi blio graphy of
Po li ti cal Scien ce, Re vencyt, His pa nic Ame ri can Pe rio di cals In dex/HAPI), Ul ri ch’s
Pe rio di cals Di rec tory, EBS CO. Se en cuen tra acre di ta da al Re gis tro de Pu bli ca cio-
nes Cien tí fi cas y Tec no ló gi cas Ve ne zo la nas del FO NA CIT, La tin dex.
Di rec to ra
L
OIRALITH
M. C
HIRINOS
P
ORTILLO
Co mi té Edi tor
Eduviges Morales Villalobos
Fabiola Tavares Duarte
Ma ría Eu ge nia Soto Hernández
Nila Leal González
Carmen Pérez Baralt
Co mi té Ase sor
Pedro Bracho Grand
J. M. Del ga do Ocan do
José Ce rra da
Ri car do Com bel las
An gel Lom bar di
Die ter Nohlen
Al fre do Ra mos Ji mé nez
Go ran Ther born
Frie drich Welsch
Asis ten tes Ad mi nis tra ti vos
Joan López Urdaneta y Nil da Ma rín
Re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas. Av. Gua ji ra. Uni ver si dad del Zu lia. Nú cleo Hu ma nís ti co. Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas. Ins ti tu to de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co
“Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che”. Ma ra cai bo, Ve ne zue la. E- mail: cues tio nes po li ti cas@gmail.
com ~ loi chi ri nos por til lo@gmail.com. Te le fax: 58- 0261- 4127018.
Vol. 39, Nº 68 (Enero - Junio) 2021, 505-519
IEPDP-Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas - LUZ
Objects of intellectual property
rights created by articial intelligence:
international legal regulation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.3968.32
Pavlo Voitovych *
Kateryna Bondarenko **
Ruslan Ennan ***
Alina Havlovska ****
Vladyslav Shliienko *****
Abstract
In modern conditions of development of public relations,
the creation of objects of intellectual property rights by articial
intelligence is becoming more widespread. With this in mind,
it is important to analyse the international legal experience
of regulating the use of articial intelligence as the author of intellectual
property, to further borrow it for domestic laws, as well as to pay attention
to problematic aspects of such regulation and make proposals to resolve
inconsistencies. The study claries the international legal regulation of
intellectual property rights created by articial intelligence, as well as
analyses the problematic issues of regulation of articial intelligence
by international law and the features of such regulation in Ukraine and
presents positions on the development of articial intelligence systems and
prospects, as well as the prospects for its impact on world society.
Keywords: articial intelligence, objects of intellectual property law,
international legal regulation, robotics, Berne Convention.
* Ph.D., Ass. Professor of the Department of International and European law, National University
«Odesa Law Academy ". ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7636-923X. Email: pvoitovich@
ukr.net
** Ph.D., Ass. Professor of the Common legal disciplines department of the National University "Odesa
Maritime Academy". ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5799-8102. Email: bondarenkokate@
gmail.com
*** Ph. D., Ass. Professor of Department of Intellectual Property Law and Corporate Law of National
University «Odesa Law Academy». ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4727-1532. Email:
ennan.ruslan@gmail.com
**** Ph.D., Ass. Professor of the Department of Branch Law, Kherson State University. ORCID ID: https://
orcid.org/0000-0002-4436-3407. Email: Lyolikalina@gmail.com
***** Ph.D. candidate of the Department of International and European law, National University "Odesa
Law Academy". ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2519-0157. Email: Ladimir20152@gmail.
com
506
Pavlo Voitovych, Kateryna Bondarenko, Ruslan Ennan, Alina Havlovska y Vladyslav Shliienko
Objects of intellectual property rights created by articial intelligence: international legal
regulation
Objetos de los derechos de propiedad intelectual
creados por inteligencia articial: regulación legal
internacional
Resumen
En las condiciones modernas de desarrollo exponencial de las relaciones
públicas, la creación de objetos de derechos de propiedad intelectual
mediante inteligencia articial se está generalizando. Teniendo esto en
cuenta, la presente investigación analiza la experiencia legal internacional
de regular el uso de la inteligencia articial como sujeto autor de la
propiedad intelectual, para tomarla como referencia para las leyes de
Ucrania. Además, interesó prestar atención a los aspectos problemáticos
de dicha regulación, y hacer algunas propuestas para resolver sus
inconsistencias. En lo metodológico se hizo uso del análisis documental.
Se concluye que los derechos sobre obras creadas articialmente pueden
reconocerse por el propietario del programa informático (generalmente
grandes corporaciones), sus desarrolladores o usuarios. Es decir, la cuestión
principal no es el reconocimiento de la autoría de la inteligencia articial,
sino la denición legal de la persona que será propietaria de los derechos
de propiedad del objeto creado por el programa con capacidades creativa
autónoma (ya que el componente nanciero juega un papel importante en
el avance de la investigación en esta área).
Palabras clave: inteligencia articial; objetos de derecho de propiedad
intelectual; regulación legal internacional; robótica;
Convenio de Berna.
Introduction
The rapid development of scientic progress has created all the
conditions for the transition of technology to the category of tools, with
which the creation of new intellectual property (IP) objects becomes
possible, and, in some cases, to the category of tools capable of creating
objects of intellectual property regulation without human intervention.
Intellectual property legislation was not prepared for such challenges,
and, therefore, questions arose as to whether intellectual property objects,
created by articial intelligence (AI), can be protected by intellectual
property laws. And another question is how to reform intellectual property
legislation so that this kind of relations can be properly regulated, and the
balance of private and public interests is maintained.
Today, the world community is discussing the objects of intellectual
property rights created by articial intelligence. Thus, the British start-up
507
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 68 (Enero - Junio 2021): 505-519
Jukedeck has developed articial intelligence, which is able to write music.
In 2016, the world saw the project “The Next Rembrandt” – a portrait
created by a computer based on the analysis of 346 paintings by the artist.
But despite the creation of intellectual property objects by articial
intelligence, there is no proper legal regulation of such objects in domestic
legislation in many countries. International norms provide guidelines
governing the use of articial intelligence in the creation of intellectual
property rights and are even prepared to recognize a computer program
as an artist. Therefore, given the growing number of intellectual property
objects created by articial intelligence, it is important to analyse the
legislation governing this issue.
The purpose of the work is to analyse the international legal regulation
of intellectual property rights created by articial intelligence. Moreover,
the object of research is the international legal regulation of intellectual
property rights created by articial intelligence. Finally, the subject of the
study is the social relations that arise in the international legal regulation of
intellectual property rights created by articial intelligence.
1. Аnalysis of recent research
Legal regulation of the use of articial intelligence is of interest to many
researchers, so in order to study the doctrine on intellectual property
objects created by articial intelligence the works of the following authors
were analysed: Volina (2018), Vasilieva (2019), Karchevsky (2020),
Krivetsky (2020), Lavrenova and Abramovich (2019), Milonenko (2018),
Militsyna (2019), Pozova (2017), Svitlichny (2016), Semkiv and Shandra
(2015), Harina (2019).
All the works analysed below, in one way or another,
inuenced the formation of this article and the argumentation of the
statements made by the authors at the end of the study.
Thus, Volina (2018) in her work entitled “It is difcult to be a robot” came
to the conclusion that now in most countries (for example, UK, New Zealand,
India, Hong Kong) are quite skeptical about the recognition of the work as the
author of the work. Besides, Vasilieva (2019) studied copyright protection
for articial intelligence. Thus, as a result of the study, she concluded that
the author of works (given the general world practice), created by articial
intelligence is still a man, not a program. Moreover, Karchevsky (2020)
drew attention to the main problems of legal regulation of the responsibility
of articial intelligence. He focused on a promising problem related to the
emergence of the rights and obligations of robots. Also, the issue of “mixed
justice” (“justice of articial intelligence”) was studied, which will solve the
issue of threat to humans from articial intelligence. Further, Krivetsky
(2020) analyzed the problems of legal regulation of articial intelligence
in Ukraine. The scholar raised the question of the need for the legislator to
508
Pavlo Voitovych, Kateryna Bondarenko, Ruslan Ennan, Alina Havlovska y Vladyslav Shliienko
Objects of intellectual property rights created by articial intelligence: international legal
regulation
determine the path of development of the legal framework for regulating
issues related to the use of articial intelligence: whether to recognize it as
a subject that has rights and responsibilities or not
In addition, Lavrenova and Abramovich (2019) in their work asked an
important question: “Are the object of intellectual property rights works
created exclusively by articial intelligence without human intervention?”
And according to the results of their research of international experience
(legislation, doctrine, and judicial practice), the authors ware favoured to
conclude that works created by articial intelligence are not the object of
intellectual property rights.
In the study Milonenko (2018), the prospects of recognizing articial
intelligence as a subject of international law are analyzed. The researcher
identies several approaches to dening the range of subjects of
international law and notes that until the middle of the twentieth century
there was a “classical” concept, according to which only states were subjects
of international law, and the modern doctrine of international law expands
the composition of the subjects of international law, gives a detailed
division. Besides, the author notes that at the moment it is advisable to
recognize articial intelligence systems as special subjects of international
law because the level of interaction of intelligent machines with humans
already needs regulation.
Militsyna (2019) compared the legal regulation of objects created
with the help of articial intelligence and articial intelligence directly in
Ukraine and the United States. Thus, the researcher pointed out that the
question of the legal personality of articial intelligence is on the agenda
and that there are theories that insist that articial intelligence already
has manifestations of cognitive processes, so it has a consciousness that
is similar to humans. Also, the researcher analyses the views of various
scientists and notes that some of them believe that if you compare articial
intelligence with legal entities, articial intelligence should also acquire
legal personality. However, such theories have been sharply criticized and
cannot be called dominant in the United States, as objects created with
articial intelligence and articial intelligence directly remain unguarded
in the United States. In conclusion, the author assumes that in the United
States today, the author and the ability to create are identied with the
man. This, in turn, is a reason to deny protection to objects created with
articial intelligence and articial intelligence directly. Exceptions are cases
where articial intelligence remains a means. In this case, the author will
be the person who used this technology. Given the existing proposals for
improving copyright for such objects, we can say that the dominant trend is
to maintain the anthropocentrism of copyright.
Finally, Pozova (2017) claried the prospects of legal regulation of
articial intelligence under EU law. Thus, the author found that although
509
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 68 (Enero - Junio 2021): 505-519
European Parliament resolutions are not legally binding and do not
enshrine any rights or obligations but are a kind of beacons that show
those areas that require legislative regulation at the European level. Union,
and determining the prospects for such regulation. The researcher also
emphasized that the introduction of legal regulation of relations in the
eld of robotics in connection with the creation, circulation, use of robots
is necessary, and the development of certain European legal standards for
robotics and articial intelligence will promote the development of the
industry and ensure respect for human rights in the formation of new social
relations with the participation of autonomous devices.
Thus, the analysis of the above literature shows that the study of articial
intelligence is a topical issue among scholars, but a comprehensive study
of international legal regulation of intellectual property rights created by
articial intelligence has not been conducted. Therefore, there is an urgent
need to conduct research on the international legal regulation of intellectual
property rights created by articial intelligence with the aim to create a
proposition for the improvement of domestic legislation.
2. Methodology
The authors used different methods to study the international legal
regulation of intellectual property objects created by articial intelligence,
such as the historical method; analytical method; method of analysis of legal
documents, articles, and monographs; methods of classication; method of
generalization; comparison; synthesis; as well as modelling.
Thus, rstly, the historical method allowed us to analyse the evolution of
the international legislation governing the use of articial intelligence and
intellectual property in different time periods and in different historical
conditions.
Secondly, the analytical method made it possible to consider in detail
the regulations of both international and national legislation on AI and IP
and to identify their main ideas, provisions, guidelines for development.
What is more, the method of analysis of legal documents, articles, and
monographs was used in the study of legislation and scientic works of
scholars on the research topic. Thanks to this method, it was possible to
comprehensively study the work of many scholars and identify the main
principles of regulation of articial intelligence in different countries (legal
systems).
The generalization method allowed to combine the general provisions
on the use of articial intelligence and regulation of intellectual property
objects (taking into account the existing international legal acts regulating
these issues). For example, the provisions of the Berne Convention (1886)
510
Pavlo Voitovych, Kateryna Bondarenko, Ruslan Ennan, Alina Havlovska y Vladyslav Shliienko
Objects of intellectual property rights created by articial intelligence: international legal
regulation
have generalized the provisions on the guidelines governing the creation
of intellectual property objects; the Civil Code of Ukraine (2003) allowed
to analyse and generalize how the objects of intellectual property rights
created by articial intelligence in Ukraine are regulated; the provisions of
the legislation of various European countries made it possible to understand
the approach to regulating the creation of objects by articial intelligence
in Europe.
The method of comparison allowed us to compare the regulation of
intellectual property objects created by articial intelligence in different
countries. This helped for a comprehensive study, namely: to see the
differences in legal regulation, to identify legal gaps, and to investigate how
the problematic issues can be resolved in different countries.
Furthermore, the method of synthesis was used to study certain
regulations governing relations in the eld of intellectual property and
the use of articial intelligence in the creation of works, programs,
compositions, etc. in order to form coherent vectors of development and
improve such regulations.
Finally, the use of the modelling method allowed to model how to further
develop relations in the eld of legal regulation of intellectual property
objects created by articial intelligence and how it is necessary to reform
the domestic legislation so that it can be in harmony with international law
and meets the requirements of time and social development.
When writing the article, much attention was paid to international and
domestic law. The following legislation on the topic was analysed:
• Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works,
approved by the World Intellectual Property Organization (1886).
• European Parliament resolution of 16 February 2017 with
recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on
Robotics (2015/2103(INL).
• Directive No 2001/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 22 May 2001.
• Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act of 1988.
• The judgment of the United Nations International Court of Justice
(ICJ) in the case of Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala) of 1955.
• Universal Copyright Convention of 1952.
• Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPS Agreement) of 1995.
• The Constitution of Ukraine of 1996.
511
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 68 (Enero - Junio 2021): 505-519
• Civil Code of Ukraine of 2003.
• Law of Ukraine “On Ukraine’s accession to the Berne Convention
for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works” (1995), and;
• Law of Ukraine “On Copyright and Related Rights” (1994).
3. Presentation of key research ndings
3.1. Provisions of international legislation on the regulation
of the creation and use of the objects of IP created by AI
Thus, rst of all, it is necessary to analyse the provisions of international
legal regulation of the creation, use of intellectual property rights, and
the use of articial intelligence products. Thus, concerning international
legal regulation, the guidelines of intellectual property law are contained
in the Berne Convention (1886). The Berne Convention became the
rst multilateral international copyright treaty. It establishes uniform
minimum rights for intellectual property. The principles of the Berne
Convention form the basis of the Universal Copyright Convention (1952),
reafrmed and extended in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) (1995). According to the
Berne Convention and Universal Copyright Convention, the term “author”
can be understood as both individuals and legal entities under the national
legislation of the participating countries.
The development of robotics and articial intelligence and related legal
and ethical issues led to the adoption by the European Parliament of the
Resolution of February 16, 2017 with proposals to the European Commission
on civil law on robotics. The Resolution emphasizes the need to address the
issue of civil liability for damage caused by robots at the European level
to ensure equal efciency, transparency, and consistency in addressing
this issue in the EU member states. Besides, the resolution is based on
the fact that in the long run, the capabilities of articial intelligence may
exceed human capabilities, so they will be able to enter into contractual
relationships, choose contractors, discuss the terms of contracts, enter into
and execute them. What is more, the Resolution also focuses on safety and
liability issues related to the operation of robots. In particular, it is envisaged
that drivers of autonomous vehicles should be able to take control of the car
as quickly as possible when needed. Thus, at this stage of the study, it would
be logical to say that works created exclusively by articial intelligence can
be objects of intellectual property rights.
European Parliament Resolution 2015/2013 (INL) of 16 February 2017,
which includes the Charter on Robotics, stipulates that robotics is subject
to the current system of legal regulation of intellectual property issues, to
intellectual property rights – a neutral approach from the standpoint of
512
Pavlo Voitovych, Kateryna Bondarenko, Ruslan Ennan, Alina Havlovska y Vladyslav Shliienko
Objects of intellectual property rights created by articial intelligence: international legal
regulation
technology. In particular, legal protection of objects created by articial
intelligence systems should be provided taking into account the neutral
legal personality, because behind the articial intelligence systems, rst of
all, there is a person.
In April 2019, the European Commission published a Directive on an
ethical approach to the development of articial intelligence (draft) for
study by industry. The main provisions of the document are that articial
intelligence should be created to support human subjectivity, and articial
intelligence systems and the results of their activities should be “human-
centred, aimed entirely at serving humanity and the common good, to help
improve the conditions of human existence and freedom”.
In May 2019, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, which unites 36 economically developed countries, together
with six countries (and then in June 2019, the Ministers of Economy of the
G20 countries) dened the principles of dealing with articial intelligence.
It was based on two principles:
• in order to increase trust in technology and realize its full potential,
it is necessary for a person to be at the centre of the use of articial
intelligence.
• systems must be stable, secure, and reliable throughout the period
of their use, and must not carry any unacceptable risks.
From a legal point of view, the recommendations of the Organization
are not binding. However, they are designed to form a unied approach to
the interpretation of the criteria for the protection of the performance of
articial intelligence in different jurisdictions.
Also noteworthy is the 1955 decision of the United Nations International
Court of Justice in Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala). This decision
was motivated by Part 1 of Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights of 1948, which clearly states that “everyone has the right
to a nationality”. Citizenship is recognized as an element not only of the
exclusive legal personality of individuals but also of articial intelligence
systems. In view of the above, the question arises about the mandatory
international delictual capacity of articial intelligence systems.
It is also important to note the interpretation of EU Directive 2001/29/
EU on certain aspects of copyright. It is stated that a computer program must
be protected if it is original in the sense that it is the author’s intellectual
work. This is justied by the fact that any literary and artistic works, or any
other intellectual works must be protected by copyright. This applies, in
particular, to databases.
On September 27, 2019, a discussion organized by WIPO on the impact of
articial intelligence on the intellectual property took place. The discussion
513
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 68 (Enero - Junio 2021): 505-519
considered various issues related to the impact of articial intelligence
on almost all processes related to the implementation of copyright. The
inuence of Articial Intelligence on patent law was also discussed, but we
are interested in the position on authorship. As a result of the discussion,
the participants came to the conclusion that the legislative process and
changes in legislation take a long time. Therefore, if necessary, the issue
of recognizing articial intelligence as the author of the work may be left
to the discretion of the court. Moreover, participants agreed that with
the development of information technology, it is becoming increasingly
difcult to determine who created a work: human or articial intelligence
(Conversation on Intellectual Property (IP) and Articial Intelligence (AI),
2019).
Additionally, the attention should be paid to the program called “Bot
Dylan” (2020), which has created a large number of musical works for
which no authorship has yet been established. The program used generated
a piece of music so that it is impossible to recognize who was the original
author. Moreover, this project also does not have copyright protection.
Thus, even at the supranational level, there are different positions on
the issue of recognizing articial intelligence as the author of a work that
is protected by intellectual property rights. If we put the supranational
assets, listed above, in chronological order, we can reverse the tendency
to gradually expand the potential expansion of possible rights attached to
articial intelligence.
In most cases, supranational regulations are of a recommendatory
nature. That is why there is a need to address the national level of regulation
of this issue in different countries. Why the next section of the article will
be devoted?
3.2. Regulation of the objects of intellectual property rights
created by articial intelligence in foreign countries (national
level)
Let’s briey consider how the objects of intellectual property rights
created with the help of articial intelligence in foreign countries (at the
national level) are regulated.
Thus, in the United States, the Copyright Ofce will register an original
copyrighted work if it was created by human. This position is in line with
the law, which states that copyright protects only the object of intellectual
work, the foundations of which are the creative abilities of the mind. This
position is also supported by Australian legislators.
Meanwhile, the US legal doctrine also has positions on the recognition
of authorship by articial intelligence. Hence, it is believed that articial
514
Pavlo Voitovych, Kateryna Bondarenko, Ruslan Ennan, Alina Havlovska y Vladyslav Shliienko
Objects of intellectual property rights created by articial intelligence: international legal
regulation
intelligence already has manifestations of cognitive processes, so it has a
consciousness that is similar to humans. Comparing articial intelligence
with legal entities, some researchers believe that it is logical that articial
intelligence should also acquire legal personality (Yanisky-Ravid, 2017). In
addition, articial intelligence can create works under contract as a worker
(work for hire). In this case, the author of the work will be the employer
(Hristov, 2017).
In Japan, it was decided to start developing regulations to protect
copyright in creative products generated by articial intelligence. This step
is taken to support companies working to create and implement innovations.
In the United Kingdom, the Copyright, Design and Patent Act (1988)
states that in the case of a computer-generated literary, dramatic, musical,
or artistic work, the author will be the person through whom the activities
necessary to create the work are carried out. The same provisions are
contained in the legislation of Hong Kong, South Africa, and New Zealand.
The position that the originality of work (according to the legislation of most
countries) is the result of the expression of the author’s personality opposes
the position on the recognition of articial intelligence as the author of the
work. This criterion cannot yet be applied to articial intelligence. Most
copyright laws require the awareness of the creation. A machine does
not have that conscience
(Conversation on Intellectual Property (IP) and
Articial Intelligence (AI), 2019).
In India, there is a basis for recognizing articial intelligence as the
author of a work. If we consider the case law, the position of the Indian
courts is that creativity must be respected wherever it comes from, so
articial intelligence has the right to acknowledge authorship. Even taking
into account the outdated norms of the law, the courts interpret these
norms broadly and skilfully apply them to information technology. Indian
courts note whether the creation of a work by articial intelligence took
place under human supervision, or whether articial intelligence created it
without human intervention. This is a key factor. Meanwhile, if we turn to
the legal framework and adhere only to the law, then currently the author
of the work can only be a person.
Thus, the analysis of international legal regulation of the objects of
intellectual property rights created by articial intelligence shows that
despite the short period of creation of this objects by works and other
means of non-human origin, states (including international organizations
legislate the regulation of such objects) taking into account the specics of
such objects and the legal traditions of the states themselves.
515
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 68 (Enero - Junio 2021): 505-519
3.3. Domestic (Ukrainian) regulation of intellectual property
issues
Article 41 of the Constitution of Ukraine (1996) stipulates that everyone
has the right to own, use, and dispose of the results of their intellectual and
creative activity.
According to Art. 420 of the Civil Code of Ukraine (2003), the objects
of intellectual property rights include literary and artistic works; computer
programs; data compilation (database); implementation; phonograms,
videograms, broadcasts (programs) of broadcasting organizations;
scientic discoveries; inventions, utility models, industrial designs; layout
(topography) of integrated circuits; innovation proposals; plant varieties,
animal breeds; commercial (brand) names, trademarks (signs for goods
and services), geographical indications; trade secrets.
Objects of copyright in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Copyright
and Related Rights” (1994: article 5) are works in the eld of science, literature
and art, namely: literary works of ction, journalism, scientic, technical or
other nature (books, brochures, articles, etc.); speeches, lectures, and other
oral works; computer programs; databases; musical works with text and
without; dramatic, musical-dramatic works, pantomimes, choreographic,
and other works created for stage performance and their staging; audio-
visual works; works of ne art; works of architecture, urban planning and
landscape art; photographic works, including works made in a manner
similar to photography; works of applied art, including works of decorative
weaving, ceramics, carving, foundry, art glass, jewellery, etc.; illustrations,
maps, plans, drawings, sketches, plastic works relating to geography,
geology, topography, engineering, architecture and other areas of activity;
stage adaptations of the works, and arrangements of folklore suitable for
stage performance; derivative works; collections of works, collections
of folklore, encyclopaedias and anthologies, collections of ordinary data,
other compiled works, provided that they are the result of creative work on
the selection, coordination or arrangement of content without infringing
copyright on the works included in them as part; texts of translations for
dubbing, sounding, subtitling in Ukrainian and other languages of foreign
audio-visual works; other works.
The subjects of intellectual property rights are the creator (creators)
of the object of intellectual property rights (author, performer, inventor,
etc.) and other persons who own personal non-property and (or) property
intellectual property rights (Civil Code of Ukraine, 2003: article 318).
That is, in Ukrainian law, the subject of intellectual property rights is
the creator and other persons. It is stated that the creator is exclusively an
individual. Legal entities under civil law cannot be creators, but they can
become the primary subjects of intellectual property rights by law. Thus,
516
Pavlo Voitovych, Kateryna Bondarenko, Ruslan Ennan, Alina Havlovska y Vladyslav Shliienko
Objects of intellectual property rights created by articial intelligence: international legal
regulation
articial intelligence under Ukrainian law cannot be a subject of intellectual
property rights, and there is no legislative regulation on the issue of
intellectual property rights created by articial intelligence.
Conclusions
As a result of the study of international legal regulation of objects of
intellectual property rights created by articial intelligence, we came to the
following conclusions:
1. In the international community, the majority holds that rights to
articially created works can recognize by the owner of the computer
program (usually large corporations), its developers, or users. That
is, the main issue is not the recognition of authorship of articial
intelligence, but the legal denition of the person who will own the
property rights to the object created by the program (as the nancial
component plays an important role in advancing further research in
this area).
2. In the case of defending the position on which articial intelligence
(robot) can be recognized as a subject of intellectual property rights,
it should be borne in mind that articial intelligence operates
according to an algorithm and often generates new works as a result
of processing and analysis of existing ones. In this case, to provide
a work of legal protection, it is necessary to establish the criteria of
originality in the newly created work.
3. At present, there are developments in the regulation of international
law of objects of intellectual property rights created by articial
intelligence. However, such developments are not applied by states
due to conicts and non-recognition by many foreign states of the legal
personality of articial intelligence, which leads to inconsistencies
and lack of a unied approach to the recognition or non-recognition
of articial intelligence as a legal entity.
4. Ukrainian legislation does not set the legal basis for the use of
works created without human participation. Thus, the legislation
of our state does not yet give grounds to recognize the authorship
of intellectual property by articial intelligence. However, given
the discussion in the international arena of the status of robots,
including the possibility of recognizing them as “electronic persons”,
this situation may change in the near future.
Therefore, the research topic requires further research, namely a
detailed analysis of bills and theoretical developments and doctrines on
consolidating articial intelligence at the legislative level and giving it legal
personality, as well as litigation on the recognition of articial intelligence
as a subject of intellectual property rights.
517
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 68 (Enero - Junio 2021): 505-519
Bibliographic References
BOT DYLAN. 2020. Available online. In: http://www.bobdylan.com/.
Consultation date: 11/02/2020.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION. 2020. Shaping Europe’s digital future. Available
online. In: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en. Consultation
date: 10/04/2020.
EUROPEAN UNION. 2001. Directive No 2001/29/EU. Available online. In:
https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/984_005-01#Text. Consultation
date: 10/02/2020.
EUROPEAN UNION. 2017. Resolution with recommendations to the
Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL)). Available
online. In: https://robopravo.ru/riezoliutsiia_ies. Consultation date:
08/08/2019.
HARINA, Mariia. 2019. “On the issue of regulating the legal status of articial
intelligence in international law and Ukrainian law” In: Young scientist.
Vol. 5(69), pp. 500-503. Available online. In: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/
molv_2019_5%282%29__54. Consultation date: 10/02/2020.
HRISTOV, Mykola. 2017. “Articial Intelligence and the Copyright Dilemma”
In: The Journal of the Franklin Pierce Center for Intellectual Property.
Vol. 57, No.1, pp. 12-45.
KARCHEVSKY, Mykola. 2020. The main problems of legal regulation of
socialization of articial intelligence, in IT law: problems and prospects
of development in Ukraine. Available online. In: http://aphd.ua/
publication-369/. Consultation date: 10/05/2020.
KRIVETSKY, Oleksandr. 2020. On the problem of legal regulation of
articial intelligence. Center for Social Communications Research.
Available online. In: http://nbuviap.gov.ua/index.php?option=com_
content&view=article&id=3728:do-problemi-pravovogo-
regulyuvannya-shtuchnogo-intelektu&catid=8&Itemid=350.
Consultation date: 10/05/2020.
LAVRENOVA, Nataliia; ABRAMOVICH, Nataliia. 2019. “Are the works created
by articial intelligence an object of intellectual property rights?” In:
Lawyer & Law. Vol. 17 (1). Available online. In: https://www.legalalliance.
com.ua/publikacii/ci-e-obektom-prava-intelektualnoi-vlasnosti-tvori-
stvoreni-stucnim-intelektom/. Consultation date: 08/09/2019.
LAW OF UKRAINE. 1994. On Copyright and Related Rights: Law. Available
online. In: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/3792-12#Text.
Consultation date: 21/10/2019.
518
Pavlo Voitovych, Kateryna Bondarenko, Ruslan Ennan, Alina Havlovska y Vladyslav Shliienko
Objects of intellectual property rights created by articial intelligence: international legal
regulation
LAW OF UKRAINE. 1995. On Ukraine’s accession to the Berne Convention
for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works: Law. Available
online. In: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/189/95-
%D0%B2%D1%80#Text. Consultation date: 01/02/2020.
MILITSYNA, Kateryna. 2019. “Objects created with the help of articial
intelligence and articial intelligence directly, and US copyright”
In: Entrepreneurship, economy and law. Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 343-346.
Available online. In: http://pgp-journal.kiev.ua/archive/2019/5/65.pdf.
Consultation date: 01/11/2019.
MILONENKO, Yurii. 2018. “The prospect of recognizing articial intelligence
as a subject of international law” In: Young Scientist. Vol. 11(63), pp.
125 – 127. Available online. In: http://molodyvcheny.in.ua/les/
journal/2018/11/31.pdf. Consultation date: 08/08/2019.
ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT.
2019. Development Co-operation Report. Available online. In: https://
www.oecd.org/dac/development-cooperation-report/. Consultation
date: 01/02/2020.
POZOVA, Diana. 2017. “Prospects for legal regulation of articial intelligence
under EU law” In: Journal of Civilization. Vol. 1 (1), pp. 116-120. Available
online. In: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/Chac_2017_27_24. Consultation
date: 08/02/2020.
SEMKIV, Vitalii; SHANDRA, Roman. 2015. Intellectual property. Ukraine:
Lviv. Available online. In: https://law.lnu.edu.ua/wp-content/upload
s/2017/01/%D0%86%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5
%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%83%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%
D0%B0-%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D1%96%D
1%81%D1%82%D1%8C.%D0%9F%D1%96%D0%B4%D1%80%D1%8
3%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA.2015.pdf. Consultation date:
01/08/2020.
SVITLICHNY, Oleksandr. 2016. Intellectual property law. Kiev. Available
online. In: https://www.businesslaw.org.ua/wp-content/Pidruchnyk_
Pravo_intel_vlasnosti.pdf. Consultation date: 26/02/2020.
UKRAINE. 1996. The Constitution of Ukraine. Available online. In: https://
zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/254%D0%BA/96-%D0%B2%D1%80.
Consultation date: 01/11/2019.
UKRAINE. 2003. Civil Code of Ukraine. Available online. In: https://zakon.
rada.gov.ua/laws/show/435-15#Text. Consultation date: 01/02/2020.
UNITED KINGDOM. 1988. Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act. Available
online. In: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/pdfs/
ukpga_19880048_en.pdf. Consultation date: 21/10/2019.
519
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 68 (Enero - Junio 2021): 505-519
UNITED NATIONS. 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Available
online. In: https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-
rights/. Consultation date: 26/09/2019.
UNITED NATIONS. 1952. Educational, Scientic and Cultural Organization,
Universal Copyright Convention. Available online. In: http://portal.
unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=15381&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_
SECTION=201.html. Consultation date: 21/10/2019.
UNITED NATIONS. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (ICJ). 1955.
Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala): judgment. Available online.
In: https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/18/judgments. Consultation date:
29/04/2020.
VASILIEVA, Daryna. 2019. “Copyright protection for AI: a game ahead” In:
Legal newspaper online. Vol. 45-46(1), pp. 699-700. Available online.
In: https://yur-gazeta.com/publications/practice/informaciyne-
pravo-telekomunikaciyi/zahist-avtorskih-prav-dlya-ai-gra-na-
viperedzhennya.html. Consultation date: 26/04/2020.
VOLINA, Tamara. 2018. “It is difcult to be a robot” In: Law and Business. Vol.
28(1), pp. 1-14. Available online. In: https://zib.com.ua/ua/print/133716-
avtorom_tvoru_shtuchnogo_intelektu_mozhe_buti_viznana_lishe_.
html. Consultation date: 26/04/2020.
WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION. 1886. Berne
Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Available
online. In: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_051#Text.
Consultation date: 17/02/2020.
WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION. 2019. Conversation
on Intellectual Property (IP) and Articial Intelligence (AI). Available
online. In: https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_
id=51767. Consultation date: 17/02/2020.
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION. 1995. Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). Available
online. In: https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf.
Consultation date: 26/02/2020.
YANISKY-RAVID, Shlomit. 2017. “Generating Rembrandt: Articial Intelligence,
Copyright, and Accountability in the 3A Era – the Human-like Authors
are Already Here – a New Model” In: Michigan State Law Review, Vol.
1(1), pp. 684–689. Available online. In: https://digitalcommons.law.
msu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1199&context=lr. Consultation
date: 17/08/2019.
www.luz.edu.ve
www.serbi.luz.edu.ve
www.produccioncienticaluz.org
Esta revista fue editada en formato digital y publicada
en enero de 2021, por el Fondo Editorial Serbiluz,
Universidad del Zulia. Maracaibo-Venezuela
Vol.39 Nº 68
