MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411312096 · doi:10.37634/efp.2025.4.5

Legal aspects of using the artificial intelligence in commercial activities: ethical side, copyright, judicial practice

2025· article· en· W4411312096 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tetiana SPESIVTSEVA, Alina PYVOVAR

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomics Finances Law · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDigital Transformation in Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEngineering ethicsCopyright lawFar side of the MoonPolitical scienceLawIntellectual propertyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.041
Scholarly communication0.0180.011
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconomics Finances LawSame topicDigital Transformation in LawFrench-language works237,207