Legal aspects of using the artificial intelligence in commercial activities: ethical side, copyright, judicial practice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it