I. INTRODUCTION
Artificial intelligence introduces innovations across various fields in the modern world, reshaping both the workforce and daily human life. With recent advancements, it is noteworthy that artificial intelligence can now participate in creative processes and produce intellectual works. However, the legal status of these new intellectual products has not yet been addressed under the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works No. 5846 (""LIAW").Considering the rapid pace of technological progress, it is evident that legal regulations regarding artificial intelligence will become inevitable in the near future. The most fundamental issue to be resolved in future regulations will be the legal definition of these intellectual products created by artificial intelligence and the ownership of such products. In this context, it is essential to evaluate the legal dimensions of the intellectual products generated by artificial intelligence.1
1. Legal Status of Intellectual Products Generated by Artificial Intelligence
Artificial intelligence, while operating across a wide range of fields from transportation to healthcare, has now also become the creator of various artistic works such as music, paintings, portraits, poetry, novels, and stories. One notable example is the "Portrait of Edmond de Belamy," produced by a French art collective named Obvious, which made history as the first AI-generated artwork sold at Christie's auction house. The painting caused a sensation in the art world by selling for $432,000, 45 times its expected value.2 Another striking example comes from Ahmed Elgammal and his team at Rutgers University, who developed the "AICAN" algorithm. Trained on Western art from the 15th to 20th centuries, the algorithm produced works showcased in exhibitions such as "A Portrait of a Merchant Without a Face" and "Faceless Portraits Transcending Time," with claims that the AI-generated pieces were entirely distinct from the dataset used for its training. Similarly, in the music industry, an AI-created song, "Heart on My Sleeve," designed by an anonymous artist under the pseudonym Ghostwriter, was released on YouTube and digital music platforms and even became a Grammy contender. However, Universal Music quickly issued takedown notices to digital platforms, resulting in the song's removal.3 These examples illustrate how AI's ability to produce creative and intellectual works has sparked intense debates regarding ownership, the exercise of rights, and the determination of liability.
2. The Qualification of Intellectual Products Created by Artificial Intelligence as Works and the Determination of Ownership
Under current legal frameworks, only "natural persons" are recognized as authors of works, making it uncertain whether this definition applies to works produced by artificial intelligence. In legal doctrine, alternatives such as the creator, user, or owner of the AI, or the ownership of rights over the work, are being debated. A more innovative but controversial suggestion posits that the owner of AI-generated works could be the AI itself.
Whether AI-generated products are recognized as works depends on the legal policies of each country. Many legal systems are not structured to accommodate such recognition. For instance, U.S. case law, including Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Company Inc. (1991) and Naruto v. Slater (2018), has established that only humans can be recognized as authors. Similarly, the U.S. Copyright Office explicitly states that it registers only works created by humans. A similar stance was affirmed in Australia in the case of Acohs Pty Ltd v. Ucorp Pty Ltd.4 Countries like Japan and Germany also require significant amendments to allow AI to qualify as an author under their copyright laws. In Turkey, Article 1/B of the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works (LIAW) defines works as "creations reflecting the personality of the author" and recognizes the author as "the person who creates the work." As AI lacks legal personhood, it cannot be recognized as the owner of a work under Turkish law. Although the LIAW has undergone numerous amendments over its 70-year history, its core principles remain unchanged. Explicit legal provisions would be necessary to classify AI-generated products as works, as current judicial and doctrinal interpretations do not support such recognition.
On the other hand, some jurisdictions adopt a different approach. In countries like the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, India, Ireland, and New Zealand, copyright over AI-generated works is often granted to the creator of the AI. In the United Kingdom, some scholars use the term "works created with/by the aid of AI" to avoid debates about whether AI can own copyright.5 However, on an international level, there are no legal frameworks or practices that recognize AI as the author of works.
3. Proposed Solutions to the Issue of Ownership Rights Over Intellectual Products Created by Artificial Intelligence
The determination of ownership rights over intellectual products created by artificial intelligence is a highly complex issue due to the involvement of multiple stakeholders. In this context, various parties could potentially claim rights over such products, including the developer of the AI software, those who invest in AI technology, and even, under the assumption of full autonomy and legal personhood, the AI itself. This raises the question of whether one stakeholder should be prioritized and recognized as the sole rights holder, or whether multiple stakeholders should be acknowledged as co-owners. Considering these possibilities, it is essential to comprehensively evaluate potential solutions to address this issue.
3.1. Ownership by the Public
Considering AI-generated products as public domain could eliminate ownership disputes. However, this approach may discourage companies from investing in AI technologies. Moreover, as AI products become increasingly commercialized, assigning them to the public domain could disrupt market balance.
3.2. Ownership by the Person Making the Necessary Adjustments for the Creation of the Intellectual Product
In some countries (e.g., the United Kingdom, Ireland, New Zealand), the person who makes the necessary adjustments to create computer-generated intellectual products is considered the owner. While this system provides flexibility for AI-generated products, it is specific to the Anglo-Saxon legal system. In contrast, Turkish law may find it more appropriate to designate a clear rights holder.
3.3. Ownership by the AI Programmer
Recognizing the programmer of the AI as the rights holder depends on whether AI programs are considered works themselves. However, given that AI differs from traditional software by evolving independently and producing unpredictable results, the programmer's claim to ownership may lose validity. Furthermore, if the AI operates merely as a tool, the initiative and input of the person using or operating the AI might carry more weight in determining ownership.
3.4. Ownership by the Investor
Recognizing the investor as the rights holder could be approached by granting them related rights or sui generis (unique) rights. A special protection regime could be developed for AI-generated products, with shorter protection periods compared to human-created works. This approach could also resolve debates about whether AI-generated works qualify as protected intellectual products.
3.5. Sole Ownership by Artificial Intelligence
For AI to be recognized as the sole owner, it must first be granted legal personhood. Proposals suggest granting AI electronic personhood rather than corporate personhood. However, even in this scenario, issues such as AI's accountability and the transfer of rights remain complex and unresolved.6
4. Current Global Developments on the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Intellectual Property Rights
The development of artificial intelligence has sparked significant global discussions in the field of intellectual property rights. Questions such as whether the works created by AI can be subject to copyright and who owns the rights to such works are being examined within the legal systems of many countries, with ongoing efforts to find solutions.7 Below are some notable recent developments regarding the impact of AI on intellectual property rights worldwide.
European Union
While discussions in the European Union regarding artificial intelligence are primarily focused on ethics and data privacy, there have also been notable developments related to copyright. The European Parliament's 2017 report emphasized the need for detailed examination of AI-related topics, such as liability, intellectual property law, and ethics, and proposed the recognition of electronic personhood for AI.8 Similarly, the European Copyright Society discussed whether AI-generated works can be protected under copyright law and who should be considered the rights holder during the 2018 summit titled "Where is EU Copyright Going? The Current EU Copyright Package and Challenges with Artificial Intelligence."9
AIPPI
The International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI), with contributions from 30 countries, including Turkey, proposed that AI-generated works could only be protected by copyright if there is human intervention during the creation process and other conditions are met. This highlights the necessity of adapting the criterion of "reflecting the personality of the author," traditionally requiring human authorship, to technological advancements.10
United States
Tennessee became the first state to enact the "Elvis Law," which prevents the unauthorized use of AI-generated voice recordings. Additionally, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released guidelines stating that AI-assisted inventions can only receive patents if they involve significant human contribution.11
China
In China, a draft law prepared by academics seeks to regulate the principles, protection of rights, and legal responsibilities concerning artificial intelligence. On February 8, 2024, the Guangzhou Internet Court found a GenAI service provider liable for copyright infringement in a case filed by the licensee of the Ultraman series. The court ruled that the AI service produced images identical or similar to Ultraman visuals and penalized the defendant for failing to comply with GenAI Measures, including labeling AI-generated content and adding risk warnings to user agreements. This ruling underscores China's commitment to protecting intellectual property in the AI era.12
Turkey
Although there is no established case law on the intersection of AI and copyright in Turkey, these issues are frequently debated in academic doctrine. Suggestions include granting AI separate legal or electronic personhood, attributing rights and responsibilities stemming from AI-generated works to the owner or programmer, or classifying AI-generated products as public domain.
II. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, as artificial intelligence becomes an increasingly significant player in our lives, the inadequacy of existing legal frameworks and the need for solutions tailored to this new technology stand out as critical issues, especially in the field of intellectual property law. While debates about whether AI-generated products qualify as works, and questions about ownership and responsibility, find broad discussion in legal doctrine, there has yet to be a concrete step taken within the scope of positive law worldwide. Nevertheless, consultations, initiatives, and proposals are being advanced in many countries, including Turkey. Although courts have not yet recognized AI-generated products as works, their statements regarding the necessity of protecting such products suggest that progress in this field will accelerate. In terms of intellectual property law, it is inevitable that AI will introduce innovations that fundamentally alter traditional rules and evaluation criteria.
Footnotes
1 Gözübüyük, B. Issues and Proposed Solutions in the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works No. 5846 Regarding Intellectual Products Created by Artificial Intelligence. April 2021.
3 https://fikrimulkiyet.com/yapay-zeka-ve-telif-uyusmazliklari-2/.
4 "The U.S. Copyright Office will register an original work of authorship, provided that the work was created by a human being." U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. January 2021, pr. 306, https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/docs/compendium.pdf.
6 "Issues and Proposed Solutions in the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works No. 5846 Regarding Intellectual Products Created by Artificial Intelligence." Gözübüyük, Barış. 2021.
7 https://fikrimulkiyet.com/yapay-zeka-gelismeleri-iv/.
8 European Parliament Resolution with Recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics, 2017.
9 International Conference, EU Copyright, Quo Vadis? From the EU Copyright Package to the Challenges of Artificial Intelligence, 2018.
10 https://aippi.org/library/copyright_in_artificially_generated_works/.
12 https://techinsights.linklaters.com/post/102j4cb/china-first-ai-output-copyright-infringement-case
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
